PDA

View Full Version : Is Human Miscegenation Unnatural?



Pervitinist
Sunday, November 19th, 2006, 11:34 PM
Is miscegenation amongst human beings or human races (subspecies) unnatural, i. e. does human miscegenation necessarily defy the principles of nature or a mandate of nature?
Let's assume that both phylogeny and ontogeny from simple to more complex levels (upwards evolution) are biological principles of nature.
Let a mandate of nature be defined as something that naturally should occur under all circumstances; e. g. the purpose of a development.
Please elaborate on your opinion.
A biological or philosophical question? Both, but I feel it fits best into the Philosophy forum, since it will have to be established what in our biological world is natural ... and that's a philosophical, meta-biological question. In our minds, nature is only established by our grasp of its concept or notion.


No. I don't think so. First, because according to your definition:

Let a mandate of nature be defined as something that naturally should occur under all circumstances; e. g. the purpose of a development.
there is no such thing as a "mandate of nature". Whatever happens in the world is - in some sense - natural. Miscegenation happens. So it's natural (in the sense of being part of the realm of natural events, not in the sense of being desirable). The purpose of a natural development or process on the other hand is a matter of mere speculation (as long as you're not a neo-Aristotelian ;)).
Second:

Let's assume that both phylogeny and ontogeny from simple to more complex levels (upwards evolution) are biological principles of nature.
I wouldn't say so either. I think sometimes simplicity is the result of an evolutionary process. A large variety of forms is reduced to a few standard variants through a process of natural selection and adaption to an environment. In the end complexity is reduced to reach an ecological equilibrium.
Simple, noncomplex lifeforms have also been much more successful within the evolutionary process as a whole. The procaryotes are still there (and would maybe be laughing about our silly multicellular lifeform problems if they could ;)).
If I were to chose an evolutionary principle that is relevant for the question of miscegenation, it would be the principle of harmony.

a.squiggles
Sunday, November 19th, 2006, 11:54 PM
no...not if "natural" is defined as above...
miscegenation => greater genetic variation => greater complexity => natural

Thorburn
Monday, November 20th, 2006, 12:20 AM
no...not if "natural" is defined as above...
miscegenation => greater genetic variation => greater complexity Thus, human miscegenation is actually positive in your view? Greater genetic variation and greater complexity sound beneficial?


there is no such thing as a "mandate of nature". There might be or not. That's a merely philosophical question. In any case, I threw it in in order to give the opponents of miscegenation another option to vote for miscegenation being unnatural. I desired to have a wide definition of "unnatural."


Whatever happens in the world is - in some sense - natural. Miscegenation happens. So it's natural (in the sense of being part of the realm of natural events, not in the sense of being desirable). Right. But that's not how it is defined. A mandate of nature as I defined it is simply something that should occur. Such a mandate of nature could be your development from a baby to a teenager. It should happen; that's your natural purpose. Your destiny. To develop to an adult. If it doesn't occur because you have a car accident at the age of eight, then that's unfortunate, but it changes nothing about the fact that your development from a baby to a teenager is a mandate of nature; something that should happen (but not necessarily must in reality). Is breeding with one's own race something that should happen in nature? Is there a purpose of nature that creates races and which would demand their preservation? This would be a mandate of nature as defined.


The purpose of a natural development or process on the other hand is a matter of mere speculation (as long as you're not a neo-Aristotelian ;)). Maybe. It can definitely be argued. That's why I imperatively included upwards evolution as an undisputed purpose -- the question should be answered under the assumption that it is a purpose of nature.


I wouldn't say so either. I think sometimes simplicity is the result of an evolutionary process. A large variety of forms is reduced to a few standard variants through a process of natural selection and adaption to an environment. In the end complexity is reduced to reach an ecological equilibrium. Doesn't the diversification of a species into various subspecies increase the complexity? And if we assume that upwards evolution is both the purpose of this diversification and (that's a given) the purpose of nature, would then miscegenation not be unnatural? We could avoid the conclusion by claiming diversification and the formation of races does not serve upwards evolution. Would this be a valid assumption?


Simple, noncomplex lifeforms have also been much more successful within the evolutionary process as a whole. The procaryotes are still there (and would maybe be laughing about our silly multicellular lifeform problems if they could ;)). Yes, they are there, and might fulfill a purpose but without the upwards evolution that lead to human beings and their consciousness, nobody would have realized their existence. Don't you believe the universe realizes itself (through us and everything that exists)?


If I were to chose an evolutionary principle that is relevant for the question of miscegenation, it would be the principle of harmony. Well noted. It counts as well. The question speaks merely about "principles of nature." If harmony is such a principle, then miscegenation violates it, and, consequently, is in your view unnatural after all?


Mixing with the Negroid, Capoid or Australoid race is unnatural, imho. I can't be arsed going into detail.
... while miscegenation with the Mongoloid is natural? You base this evaluation presumably on genetic distance?

a.squiggles
Monday, November 20th, 2006, 12:41 AM
Thus, human miscegenation is actually positive in your view? Greater genetic variation and greater complexity sound beneficial?
although i would say that miscegenation is certainly natural i don't see it as necessarily beneficial. mainly because there are more things to concider than just physiology, but also because i agree with Pervitinist in that intricacy of balance, harmony if you will, is a better indication of evolutionary advancement than mere complexity.

Γνώθι σεαυτόν
Monday, November 20th, 2006, 01:30 AM
Nature as a whole or as a principle divine has no consciousness, thus there's no higher plan, so it's only the question "Does it work or not?" as simple as that may be.

Human miscegenation works, mules "don't work".

If everything natural seems also desirable to mankind is another question though - homosexuality also works... (because of the Kinsey Scale and because HS doesn't seem to disappear, regardless to any education, taken action or eugenics)

There are many examples of natural phenomenons we try to compensate as individuals, as society, and so on and in my opinion it's not wrong per se as nature is only divine because there's no higher principle and we can't transcend it, but it's no sacred rule in the common sense.

But we always have to look upon our deeds, so we never step out of our limits as human beings, otherwise we will perish, but I think fighting human miscegenation (if that's our opinion) won't kill us too soon.


Short: NO, it's not unnatural, BUT that doesn't mean we have to advocate it.

Thorburn
Monday, November 20th, 2006, 01:35 AM
although i would say that miscegenation is certainly natural i don't see it as necessarily beneficial. mainly because there are more things to concider than just physiology, but also because i agree with Pervitinist in that intricacy of balance, harmony if you will, is a better indication of evolutionary advancement than mere complexity. The more harmonious, the more evolutionary advanced you argue? Not sure if I can follow. Eukaryotes seem to be very harmonious and homogeneous, but does this make them an advanced life form? I would tend to disagree.


Short: NO, it's not unnatural, BUT that doesn't mean we have to advocate it.Right. But nothing you say suggests that we should oppose it either?

a.squiggles
Monday, November 20th, 2006, 01:44 AM
The more harmonious, the more evolutionary advanced you argue? Not sure if I can follow. Eukaryotes seem to be very harmonious and homogeneous, but does this make them an advanced life form? I would tend to disagree.

i think that both complexity and harmony are essential. with simpler lifeforms the harmony is there but not complexity, in the case of multiracial individuals greater complexity is bought at the price of introducing a disbalance which makes miscegenation not physiologically beneficial.

Oswiu
Monday, November 20th, 2006, 01:44 AM
I'd say unnatural, as what we're seeing in the west now is not the usual mixing at the edges phenomenon but one of artificial pockets of mescegenation right in the hearts of European countries, supported by unnatural laws and political machinations, and not replicated in the third world where the native populations are largely secure [except in South America perhaps].
It's unnatural in so far as it's a result of such unnatural things as the petrol engine and air travel, and medical science. That leads on to the question of humanity's naturalness, but I'll go for the simple shorthand that if it didn't happen in the early history of our species, then it's unnatural! :)

Γνώθι σεαυτόν
Monday, November 20th, 2006, 01:45 AM
Right. But nothing you say suggests that we should oppose it either?

To me there are no direct reason on the natural level to oppose it.

But there are reasons on the sociological and historical level (mainly) which let me strongly oppose human miscegenation, but that isn't the topic, right ? :)

BTW: "direct", because sociology and history evolve by nature among all humans, thus being indirectly natural factors too


I'd say unnatural, as what we're seeing in the west now is not the usual mixing at the edges phenomenon but one of artificial pockets of mescegenation right in the hearts of European countries, supported by unnatural laws and political machinations, and not replicated in the third world where the native populations are largely secure [except in South America perhaps].

Why isn't it natural that rich Europe attracts foreigners more than states which are just as poor as the own ?


It's unnatural in so far as it's a result of such unnatural things as the petrol engine and air travel, and medical science. That leads on to the question of humanity's naturalness, but I'll go for the simple shorthand that if it didn't happen in the early history of our species, then it's unnatural! :)

But mankind also travelled in earlier times without "unnatural" stuff like planes and also mixed, e.g. the goths, so what's early ?

Well, I guess (no, I already knew :P) the "problem" is the lacking of a universal definition of "human nature"...which is, BTW, also natural as we're living in a relative world ;)

Thorburn
Monday, November 20th, 2006, 02:19 AM
i think that both complexity and harmony are essential. with simpler lifeforms the harmony is there but not complexity, in the case of multiracial individuals greater complexity is bought at the price of introducing a disbalance which makes miscegenation not physiologically beneficial. That's a very bold thesis, Miss. The Alsatian/dachshund puppy might approvingly bark, but on the other hand, most black U.S. athletes in any sports discipline are mulattoes. The average American black has ~30% Caucasian blood; and they don't appear physiologically challenged.


I'd say unnatural, as what we're seeing in the west now is not the usual mixing at the edges phenomenon but one of artificial pockets of mescegenation right in the hearts of European countries, supported by unnatural laws and political machinations, and not replicated in the third world where the native populations are largely secure [except in South America perhaps].
It's unnatural in so far as it's a result of such unnatural things as the petrol engine and air travel, and medical science. That leads on to the question of humanity's naturalness, but I'll go for the simple shorthand that if it didn't happen in the early history of our species, then it's unnatural! :) I fully agree with you, Oswiu, and you made very valid points that should at least be mentioned in a footnote to the topic. However, the question was not about the political phenomenon of today, but about the biological act per se. Is it unnatural? Or is it, as I believe, totally natural that a group of a species gets isolated from the rest of a species; that, over the course of time, a race or subspecies develops; that, as more time passes, speciation occurs, OR if the barriers, that originally had separated the group from the other members of the species, should disappear again before speciation happened, the race returns into the lap of the greater species and its members freely miscegenate with their brothers and sisters until the race is dissolved and its genes become once again a part of the greater family, the species.


To me there are no direct reason on the natural level to oppose it.

But there are reasons on the sociological and historical level (mainly) which let me strongly oppose human miscegenation, but that isn't the topic, right ? :) Right. Just exploring your position. :fwink:

a.squiggles
Monday, November 20th, 2006, 02:41 AM
That's a very bold thesis, Miss. The Alsatian/dachshund puppy might approvingly bark, but on the other hand, most black U.S. athletes in any sports discipline are mulattoes. The average American black has ~30% Caucasian blood; and they don't appear physiologically challenged.
not beneficial =/= harmful

you seem to suggest that it's beneficial, i don't know about that, it very well may be in some cases and for some "proportions".
another angle to consider is had these athletes been purely black they would have been better at their sport of choice, but would not have had the imposed discipline/bringing up/means to allow them to successed as they did...or better yet - how often do they beat "pure bred" opponents?

(i know very little about sports, so cannot adequately answer my own question. any input is welcome)

Γνώθι σεαυτόν
Monday, November 20th, 2006, 02:50 AM
Right. Just exploring your position. :fwink:

As a relativist I'm thinking of the world in infinite numbers of frameworks and infinite possible combinations, every piece is part of different frameworks.
Frameworks are defined by place, time and whatever your mind tells you and are of different significance.

Berlin, 1930 <-> Berlin, 2006
Toronto <-> Okinawa
You <-> Me

...and so on...

Furthermore every human being needs an identity providing security, "social warmth", education, organisation, chances for further self-development, hence every human being needs frameworks on different levels.

Besides the ones every human being seems to chose by nature (the being itself, friends and family) there's also need of other, wider significant frameworks to increase your options and I think nation has proven to be the best (reasons can also be discussed, but not within this topic ;)).

One-World on the other hand wouldn't work as it would destroy diversity and identification, both aspects are very important for gaining identity.
Not to mention all-too-human weaknesses...

So, as race is one aspect of nationality, I oppose human miscegenation.

Pervitinist
Monday, November 20th, 2006, 02:56 AM
There might be or not. That's a merely philosophical question. In any case, I threw it in in order to give the opponents of miscegenation another option to vote for miscegenation being unnatural. I desired to have a wide definition of "unnatural."
[...]
A mandate of nature as I defined it is simply something that should occur. Such a mandate of nature could be your development from a baby to a teenager. It should happen; that's your natural purpose. Your destiny. To develop to an adult. If it doesn't occur because you have a car accident at the age of eight, then that's unfortunate, but it changes nothing about the fact that your development from a baby to a teenager is a mandate of nature; something that should happen (but not necessarily must in reality).

Ah ok, then I got you wrong. But I'm still sceptical about the idea of a teleological/cosmological "should" behind or within the chain of natural events (Is there a cosmic plan that sets the standards in an absolute way? Or is there some element of indeterminateness or relativity of ends?). Anyway, let's accept some basic evolutionary teleology for the sake of argument. Your question was:


Is breeding with one's own race something that should happen in nature? Is there a purpose of nature that creates races and which would demand their preservation? This would be a mandate of nature as defined.

If you put it that way, I think this depends on whether it's actually beneficial for (a) the survival and (b) further evolutionary development (progress) of the species as a whole if its racial varieties are kept pure or not.

I don't see how these two sub-questions can be answered in the absence of empirical data from which the relative rates of survival and evolutionary progress of pure vs mixed populations could be evaluated.

The result will also depend on the exact genetic structure of the populations/races in question insofar as it would probably make a difference whether e.g. Negroids are mixed with Amerindians or Europids with Mongoloids while each possible combination of subraces of these races would again have to be investigated individually.

Besides, it depends on the environmental situation whether non-miscegenation is mandatory or not. One could argue that within the hierarchy of evolutionary ends survival of the species always precedes its further development or progress. So if you imagine an environmental situation (like some drastic change in global climate) where there are two extremely specialized groups that are both ill-adapted to the new situation and wouldn't have a chance to adapt to it separately, miscegenation between the two groups could at the same time be necessary for the survival of their species while lowering the evolutionary level ("progressiveness") of one or both groups. In such a scenario there would not only be no mandate not to miscegenate but a mandate to miscegenate.

Even if this is an extreme example, it shows that the question cannot be resolved in an easy way without taking into account the concrete genetic structure of the populations in question as well as prospective changes in their environment. Radically different environments could also entail different standards for evolutionary progressiveness.


Maybe. It can definitely be argued. That's why I imperatively included upwards evolution as an undisputed purpose -- the question should be answered under the assumption that it is a purpose of nature.

Ok, let's accept this as well for the sake of argument. But who can tell whether a large-scale mixing of certain races or subraces (or specific subraces from separate races) could not even lead to a leap in upward evolution? According to my (limited) knowledge we seem to lack the empirical data that we would need to exclude this possibility in the case of homo sapiens. And how could such data be gathered? Only through large-scale miscegenation, it seems ... :chinrub


Doesn't the diversification of a species into various subspecies increase the complexity?

Yes, but only in the first phase of an adaption of a species to a new environment. When all the ecological niches are filled, complexity will stagnate at some point or even be reduced through the successive extinction of overspecialized varieties. When we look at the biological history of our planet, we can point out several bottlenecks in evolution where complexity in the sense of biodiversity and/or individual complexity of species (which is hard to measure anyway) seems to have been greatly reduced. Perhaps reduction and increase of complexity are somehow two sides of the same coin within an evolutionary process?


And if we assume that upwards evolution is both the purpose of this diversification and (that's a given) the purpose of nature, would then miscegenation not be unnatural? We could avoid the conclusion by claiming diversification and the formation of races does not serve upwards evolution. Would this be a valid assumption?

Probably not if you put it that way, since it would be near impossible to prove that race formation does not serve evolution in any way. But provided that it does, what happens after races have been formed?

The formation of races A, B, C is not necessarily a dead end in the development of the species. Races change within themselves through an ongoing genetic drift and successive adaptions and specialisations becoming A', B', C'. New species can develop out of old ones (like when races D, E develop out of A'). And new races can develop through a mixing of old ones (like a race F could develop out of a mixing of B' and C'). So miscegenation could be a factor within the process of race formation, not its opposite. And it could be beneficial for evolution if e.g. progressive varieties of different races are being mixed to form a new race.


Yes, they are there, and might fulfill a purpose but without the upwards evolution that lead to human beings and their consciousness, nobody would have realized their existence.

Agreed. That's why I added the ";)". Only multicellular eucaryotes can be procaryote supremacists.


Don't you believe the universe realizes itself (through us and everything that exists)?

Ah ... no. Not really, to be honest. I'm not even sure about whether the universe really knows what it's doing.


Well noted. It counts as well. The question speaks merely about "principles of nature." If harmony is such a principle, then miscegenation violates it, and, consequently, is in your view unnatural after all?

(1) Miscegenation doesn't necessarily violate harmony as a natural principle, since certain interracial combinations could turn out to produce a harmonious result (depends again on which combination of races/subracial varieties is concerned).

(2) On second thought, I'm not even sure whether harmony is a natural or rather a cultural principle (but I'd opt for the latter).

Æmeric
Monday, November 20th, 2006, 03:51 AM
My own feeling is miscegenation is unnatural. As a child I was not aware of people marrying persons who were not of their race. Of course American Negroes are mostly mulattoes & many Mexicans are Mestizos but I was not aware of the mixed race origins of those races. My own natural instincts without being instructed as to what they should be was that people married their own kind. Even after being indoctrinated with a pc education & bombarded by multiracial/miscegenationist images for years I am still disturbed by the sight of mixedraced couples & children. I am more offended by White women/non-Europids but even White men/non-Europids couplings have bothered me. I have never understood why any man would want children who are racially different from himself. I have always felt there was something wrong with persons who did not share these same natural instincts that I have.

Prior to WWII most miscegenation was the result of sexual imbalances, such as in the New World with Spanish men & Amerindian women. Most miscegenation since WWII seems to be the result of brainwashing via television & popular culture along with the multicultural education systems in the West.

Bridie
Monday, November 20th, 2006, 05:12 AM
I've only read the first 2 posts in this thread as yet, so please excuse me if I repeat anything already said. I don't have time to go through the whole thread just now. :)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that it doesn't come naturally to humans to mate with those who are very foreign to themselves and their own people. In a natural (tribal) human existance it wouldn't happen, except in perhaps extreme and unusual circumstances (eg, in the instance of exiles).... but we are living in a perverted and unnatural world in modern times, so of course miscegenation does occur now....



Whatever happens in the world is - in some sense - natural. Miscegenation happens. So it's natural (in the sense of being part of the realm of natural events, not in the sense of being desirable).
Bestiality, necrophilia, paedophilia, homosexuality and other very disturbing perversions occur too, yet one could argue that these practices are the result of sick minds and unhealthy people, and are NOT supposed to occur in the natural world. Such states are deviations of nature, ie, so not natural at all.

One could argue that in a more natural state of existance for humans, such perverts as those listed above would have been forcibly exiled from the group, or perhaps executed... either way, it's most likely that in a tribal or clan situation such harmful and disturbing practices would not have been tolerated by tribal leaders.


Think about it this way... we currently live in a world where all cultures/languages are continually melding into other's... where man-made transport is such that distances between populations are easily surmounted and pose no obstacle... where human communities are often divided, diverse, dysfunctional and continually having new people come and go... where human relationships are often superficial as a result.... where great social isolation is commonplace... and mental illness and suicide is rife. This is not a "natural" state of being. In part, it means that people who are from very foreign populations are now being largely influenced by each other, and losing their own uniqueness in the process. Individuals within these popluations are continually questioning their own worth, comparing themselves to foreigners who are not in any way like them (are essentially incomparable)... their self-esteem is suffering... this coupled with socio-political pressures to accept and form amicable, bonding relationships with these same "foreigners" is causing modern day people to consider relationships/sexual activity with people who in nature would be repulsive to them.

I believe that it is natural for humans to feel threatened, frightened and repsulsed by those who are very foreign to themselves.



N.B. By "foreign" I basically mean racially, culturally, linguistically, socially different.


EDIT -

However, the question was not about the political phenomenon of today, but about the biological act per se
I believe that it is relevant to bring up the subject of socio-political influences, since it is largely these forces that are, in modern times, responsible for the "perverted" world we are living in, leading to social/sexual deviations from what should occur in nature (tight-knit human social groups, bonded by familiarities and concepts of kinship and blood), including miscegenation.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Monday, November 20th, 2006, 06:02 AM
The fitness of a hybrid in either parental enviornment is reduced.

Example: a black person coming into northern Europe and breeding with a European and producing a child, a hybird. That hybrid would be less adapted to restricted sunlight, cold and possibly the diet. The hybrid would run a high risk of developing rickets, for example.

But Worse: For the black person to enter Europe, he would have had to cross two geographical barriers, the Sahara and the Mediterranean. A Negro is adapted to neither of these and belongs in neither of these enviornments. Therefore, his migration is unnatural.

So, since miscengenation can only happen between two different races and. therefore, at least one of these races is out of place, AND the resulting hybrid is less fit in either parental enviornment, miscegenation is not natural.

The situation with local races is not the same since a cline is involved. In this setting, neither race is out of place and the resulting offspring are not at a selective disadvantage. Normally, this is called Gene Flow.

OdinThor
Monday, November 20th, 2006, 07:26 AM
It is known that mixed raced people are more ill. The races arent meant to be mixed:

http://anonym.to/?http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/bk/Uus-mixedrace.RTFL_DN3.html

http://majorityrights.com/images/uploads/udry2.gif

For more see here: The health consequences of race mixing (http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_health_consequences_of_race_mixing/)

So, yes miscegenation is unnatural. If anyone isnt convinced then have a look on this website and tell if this is what mother nature would strive to produce:

http://www.mixedfolks.com/community.htm

Pervitinist
Monday, November 20th, 2006, 01:05 PM
I think that it doesn't come naturally to humans to mate with those who are very foreign to themselves and their own people. In a natural (tribal) human existance it wouldn't happen, except in perhaps extreme and unusual circumstances (eg, in the instance of exiles).... but we are living in a perverted and unnatural world in modern times, so of course miscegenation does occur now....

Well, I think we all agree that we don't like miscegenation. Otherwise we wouldn't be writing in a pro-Germanic racial preservation forum.

But as I understood Thorburn, his question was whether there is a naturalistic justification for considering miscegenation as something unlikeable. Here I have my doubts. I think that we should oppose miscegenation even though it's not unnatural (since from something being natural there does not follow that we must accept it, especially when there are good non-naturalistic reasons to oppose it).


Bestiality, necrophilia, paedophilia, homosexuality and other very disturbing perversions occur too, yet one could argue that these practices are the result of sick minds and unhealthy people, and are NOT supposed to occur in the natural world. Such states are deviations of nature, ie, so not natural at all.No, probably not. But miscegenation can (a) hardly be compared to these extreme perversions. And (b) even homosexuality, bestiality etc. might serve an evolutionary purpose and could thus be natural.
As humans, however, we are able to transcend our biological restrictions to a certain degree and deliberately categorize homosexuality as something we don't want to see in our society even though it may be natural serving some unknown evolutionary purpose. That we feel appalled by something doesn't mean that it doesn't serve some (more or less obvious) natural purpose (and there are sufficient non-naturalistic reasons to be against pedophiles, necrophiles etc.).

Diseases like AIDS, cholera, tuberculosis are part of nature, too and probably serve an evolutionary purpose in controlling the size of populations, preventing overpopulation, tightening evolutionary bottlenecks etc. But this doesn't mean that we have to accept them as inevitable. Our cultural abilities (that are part of our 'human nature') enable us to surpass the level of mere evolutionary logics. Same with miscegenation. The affirmation of the value of a certain race may be something Nature 'doesn't want' or 'doesn't favor'. But when we decide that we want it, then we have the technological and cultural ability to control Nature (just like Nature probably wouldn't have produced the Yorkshire Terrier without the help of man).

So basically your reply misses the point. Something's being natural doesn't entail that we must affirm it, and something's being unnatural (on the evolutionary level) doesn't entail that we must abhorr it (as long as you're not sympathizing with Jehova's witnesses or other Fundamentalists who claim that anything unnatural is against the will of 'God').


One could argue that in a more natural state of existance for humans, such perverts as those listed above would have been forcibly exiled from the group, or perhaps executed... either way, it's most likely that in a tribal or clan situation such harmful and disturbing practices would not have been tolerated by tribal leaders.Maybe, but then the question remains whether exiling homosexuals would be a 'natural' thing or rather something cultural. Seeing something as "disturbing" at least doesn't sound very naturalistic. Again, there are good sociological, demographical, political reasons to be against rampant homosexual behavior within a society. We don't have to resort to nature to argue this point.


Think about it this way... we currently live in a world where all cultures/languages are continually melding into other's... where man-made transport is such that distances between populations are easily surmounted and pose no obstacle... where human communities are often divided, diverse, dysfunctional and continually having new people come and go... where human relationships are often superficial as a result.... where great social isolation is commonplace... and mental illness and suicide is rife. This is not a "natural" state of being. In part, it means that people who are from very foreign populations are now being largely influenced by each other, and losing their own uniqueness in the process. Individuals within these popluations are continually questioning their own worth, comparing themselves to foreigners who are not in any way like them (are essentially incomparable)... their self-esteem is suffering... this coupled with socio-political pressures to accept and form amicable, bonding relationships with these same "foreigners" is causing modern day people to consider relationships/sexual activity with people who in nature would be repulsive to them.I agree: this is not a natural state of being. But on the other hand it's not unnatural either. Who knows what Nature's hypothetical purpose in guiding the development of homo sapiens sapiens would be (if there is any such purpose, which I doubt). We don't like the present situation, but we have no reason to consider it unnatural in the sense of not conforming to a natural path of evolution, because we lack the criteria to judge where the natural path of our evolution would lie (which also depends in part on future changes of our environment [ecological catastrophes, changes in climate etc.] that we simply can't forsee).

What we do know, however is what is good or bad for us as a ethno-cultural group (not as part of an abstract species) and what we politically want. It's up to our choice whether we want to continue the project 'the white race' or dump it. Both alternatives are just as natural or unnatural. The problem is that abandoning this project would mean to destroy anything our ancestors have fought for, giving up ourselves, our culture and our racial identity. But none of these are naturalistic issues in the strict sense.


I believe that it is natural for humans to feel threatened, frightened and repsulsed by those who are very foreign to themselves.

N.B. By "foreign" I basically mean racially, culturally, linguistically, socially different.I'd rather say that humans may feel frightened or repulsed by people who don't fit their acquired self-image that is the result of their early upbringing. When a white boy grows up amongst Gorillas he probably won't be afraid of them. But that's again not sufficient to say that Gorillas are to be considered his equals or that he should try to miscegenate with them.


EDIT -

I believe that it is relevant to bring up the subject of socio-political influences, since it is largely these forces that are, in modern times, responsible for the "perverted" world we are living in, leading to social/sexual deviations from what should occur in nature (tight-knit human social groups, bonded by familiarities and concepts of kinship and blood), including miscegenation.Again, two problems: (1) why "shouldn't they" occur in nature? (2) Why should we care whether something should occur in nature when we have the power to control and change nature?

Like Goethe said in his "Prometheus": Let's make humans!

Bridie
Monday, November 20th, 2006, 02:39 PM
No, probably not. But miscegenation can (a) hardly be compared to these extreme perversions. I think it is comparable. As a result of my believing that miscegenation is unnatural (a deviation or a perversion of natural law) I believe that it is as perverted as bestiality etc.



And (b) even homosexuality, bestiality etc. might serve an evolutionary purpose and could thus be natural.
Please tell me you're joking Perv. :-O :|



That we feel appalled by something doesn't mean that it doesn't serve some (more or less obvious) natural purposeRepulsion is a natural instinct that functions to protect us from harm. It leads us to take action to eradicate or avoid whatever it is we find appalling. For example, studies show that people find physical characteristics indicative of disease (such as poor skin condition/rashes, excessive mucous, hair loss etc) instinctively repulsive... and this functions to prevent people from contracting the illness themselves or interbreeding with unfavourable people (to prevent sickly or deformed offspring). So my thinking is that if we naturally feel appalled or repulsed by something it's because it's harmful to us in some very fundamental way... therefore it's natural purpose is to be eradiated and/or avoided. Or said another way; if the perversion served such an important natural puropse, it would not be repulsive to us.


there are sufficient non-naturalistic reasons to be against pedophiles, necrophiles etc.).
There are biological (naturalistic) reasons too... like resultant infertility, psychological trauma and disease.



So basically your reply misses the point. Something's being natural doesn't entail that we must affirm it, and something's being unnatural (on the evolutionary level) doesn't entail that we must abhorr it (as long as you're not sympathizing with Jehova's witnesses or other Fundamentalists who claim that anything unnatural is against the will of 'God').
I'm afraid you've missed my point. ;) I wrote nothing of affirmation or abhorration... I really think that it goes against what humans are biologically "wired for" to desire sexual contact with "foreigners". I believe that humans have been biologically wired for living in small, tightly-knit social groups... that humans are naturally and instinctively territorial, and fearful/distrusting of those who don't belong to their group (or kin). Going against these natural instincts, as we are forced to in modern times, I believe contributes greatly to the ever-escalating problems in 1st world countries of mental illness, physical illness, drug abuse, anti-social behaviour, other forms of social dysfunction, dometic abuse, sexual perversions and suicide.

You said that if something is occuring in our modern societies that it is necessarily natural. I disagree with this. If this "something" occurs in a "natural" human environment (ie, an environment that humans have evolved to thrive in) then it is natural. In our modern times, much that we are forced to live with is very unnatural in the sense that we aren't thriving, or even coping much of the time... and we're not thriving because our bodies weren't designed to cope with the conditions that they currently are being forced to. For example, our bodies weren't designed to digest and process man-made chemical food additives... therefore it is not natural for us to consume them... but we do consume them nevertheless because some small number of fellow humans have deemed it "okay" (!!).... still many additives are now being shown to cause health problems...



Seeing something as "disturbing" at least doesn't sound very naturalistic. Again, there are good sociological, demographical, political reasons to be against rampant homosexual behavior within a society. We don't have to resort to nature to argue this point.
As I explained above, seeing something as disturbing can/is indeed instinctive or biologically determined as a natural protective mechanism.



Again, there are good sociological, demographical, political reasons to be against rampant homosexual behavior within a society. We don't have to resort to nature to argue this point.
All of these factors (sociological, demographical, political) are NOT INDEPENDANT of "nature" or biology.... they are necessarily interdependant.



Who knows what Nature's hypothetical purpose in guiding the development of homo sapiens sapiens would be (if there is any such purpose, which I doubt). We don't like the present situation, but we have no reason to consider it unnatural in the sense of not conforming to a natural path of evolution, because we lack the criteria to judge where the natural path of our evolution would lie (which also depends in part on future changes of our environment [ecological catastrophes, changes in climate etc.] that we simply can't forsee).
It's unnatural as I said before in the sense that our bodies (including our psychological make-up) weren't designed to cope with modern social conditions and physcial pollutants.

To know what's natural and what's not, we only have to examine the human body and mind to determine which conditions are most favourable in maintaining homeostatic balance...

Tropical plants thrive in the tropics, for this is their natural environment... cacti thrive in the desert, for this is their natural environment... Humans are arguably not currently thriving... what are we to conclude from this?? (And I'm not talking about geographical environments in the latter instance. ;) )



I'd rather say that humans may feel frightened or repulsed by people who don't fit their acquired self-image that is the result of their early upbringing. When a white boy grows up amongst Gorillas he probably won't be afraid of them. But that's again not sufficient to say that Gorillas are to be considered his equals or that he should try to miscegenate with them.
But is it natural for humans to grow up amongst those who are not their own kind? (I don't think so.) Is it natural to be reared by foreigners??



Why should we care whether something should occur in nature when we have the power to control and change nature?
We don't have the power to control and change nature in my opinion... that's just an illusion and transitory...



Like Goethe said in his "Prometheus": Let's make humans!We're already made... we don't run the show...

Carl
Monday, November 20th, 2006, 02:49 PM
Is miscegenation amongst human beings or human races (subspecies) unnatural, i. e. does human miscegenation necessarily defy the principles of nature or a mandate of nature?

A biological or philosophical question? Both, but I feel it fits best into the Philosophy forum, since it will have to be established what in our biological world is natural ... and that's a philosophical, meta-biological question. In our minds, nature is only established by our grasp of its concept or notion.

As you say Thorburn, its both biological & philosophical. Biologically , as we know all too well , the races of mankind are clearly inter-fertile. Were we dogs or mice, I am not sure the question would arise. As we would say, they behave quite naturally, doing what nature allows. But man is more complex and has other imperatives beyond what is purely natural. We might say, for example, we don't like people of that (other) race very much and we will stay away from them socially. And given lots of freedom of choice, that might work. But, under pressure, on a desert island for example - it would perhaps more readily beakdown. When it comes to sex, if the 'need' is great and the choice is limited , then a person's own reluctance to be drawn into a particular relationship is more likely to be eroded. But its remains an IF - there is of course , no necessity even there.

When the field is socially wide open, then one is surely reponding to 'oughts' and 'shoulds' that are themselves bio-socially ingrained. Also higher questions of aesthetics and notions of correct or 'proper' social continuity must be deeply at work in the person's choices and actions. So I would contrast the purely biological possibility with the more complex human bio-social (philosophical) imperative. Which is why educational and social values are so important when it comes to "miscegenation".

Siegfried
Monday, November 20th, 2006, 04:38 PM
Don't you believe the universe realizes itself (through us and everything that exists)?

I do, and I also think the races are not at equal levels of development. The mixing of the more advanced races (who represent a higher degree of the universe's self-realization) with more primitive or degenerate strains, does not contribute to this universal self-realization and is therefore in contradiction with the mandate of nature as you defined it, i.e. upwards evolution.

Bridie
Monday, November 20th, 2006, 04:52 PM
I don't think I've explained myself very well, so I'll attempt it again in a more concrete fashion...


if the barriers, that originally had separated the group from the other members of the species, should disappear again before speciation happened, the race returns into the lap of the greater species and its members freely miscegenate with their brothers and sisters until the race is dissolved and its genes become once again a part of the greater family, the species.

I don't think it would be natural for this to occur if the isolated group had changed too much from the original group... ie, had formed it's own distinct race (and incidently, culture, language etc). The isolated group would naturally find it most advantageous to continue along it's unique evolutionary path (especially if plagued by hardship upon separation from the main group - therefore developing superior strength and resilience assuming they don't perish), therefore natural mechanisms will come into play that will prevent the races from wanting to interbreed with foreign races under "natural" cirumstances (ie, "primitive" ways of life - as opposed to our perverted modern societies)... these natural mechanisms will be the human instincts of;

* forming emotional bonds with familiar people - or kin
* territorial/possessive behaviours and drives
* feelings anxiety, fear, threat and distrust of those who are unfamiliar (foreigners)

For me, the fact that these protective mechanisms exist is proof enough that humans aren't supposed to interact in intimate ways with those who are not their kin, or one of "their people". And the fact that humans are not thriving in modern conditions where small, exclusive communities (tribes or clans) no longer exist is further proof (for me). So basically humans are, in a natural state, tribal animals (territorial, possessive, wary/distrustful of foreign tribes, look out for their own people) and are supposed to stick to (and interbreed with) their own kind.... and this can be further extended to apply to races.

Now, if this were all true, what evolutionary reason could there be for this naturally occuring human drive toward the relative social/sexual isolation of groups of people (tribes/communities etc) if not an attempt at gaining specialisation, strength, resilience, efficiency etc for the individual groups?? Miscegenation would mean comprimising all of these qualities that evolution is supposed to bring into fruition. For the stronger, more advanced groups it would mean an evolutionary step backwards.

Siegfried
Monday, November 20th, 2006, 04:59 PM
i agree with Pervitinist in that intricacy of balance, harmony if you will, is a better indication of evolutionary advancement than mere complexity.

I'd say harmony in complexity is the hallmark of evolutionary advancement; the manifoldness of the Self is realized and contradictions resolved in the unity that also characterizes the Self.

Pervitinist
Monday, November 20th, 2006, 05:12 PM
I simply interpreted his question as being one of whether or not it is natural for humans to desire sexual contact with people who are racially different to themselves. I didn't detect any desire on his behalf for judgements to be cast... ie, whether or not miscegenation can be justified as unlikeable or otherwise.

Well, Thorburn's question was:

Is miscegenation amongst human beings or human races (subspecies) unnatural, i. e. does human miscegenation necessarily defy the principles of nature or a mandate of nature?

First of all, as I said, I consider Thorburn's use of the term "mandate of nature" as problematic insofar as it presupposes the notion of a teleology inherent in the evolution of species. It also presupposes a certain conception of nature as being guided by some kind of necessity towards an ultimate goal (or at least in a certain predetermined direction). My conception of nature is simply more nominalistic and sceptical.
Second, by describing natural processes in such normative value-laden terms the question becomes one of justification rather than mere naturalistic description. This is why I understood it as a question about the possibility of a naturalistic justification of being against miscegenation.

And I still think that there are no good strictly naturalistic arguments (i.e. resorting only to what we know about human nature and evolutionary biology) for this. Human miscegenation is neither naturally impossible (otherwise we wouldn't be discussing this question), nor obviously defying the "the principles of nature or a mandate of nature", since one can imagine hypothetical situations where survival of the species could even depend on miscegenation (see my above examples). Even if this is not the case today, its possibility shows that it would be absurd to claim that human miscegenation "necessarily defies" the principles of nature. This is why I answered with a clear "No" to Thorburn's question.

One might add that the term "principle of nature" is not only vague but also philosophically no less problematic than the term "mandate of nature". How are principles of nature established anyway?


I think it is comparable. As a result of my believing that miscegenation is unnatural (a deviation or a perversion of natural law) I believe that it is as perverted as bestiality etc.
[...]
Please tell me you're joking Perv. :-O :| No, not at all. It's a well-established fact that even animals show homosexual behavior. Take the famous gay penguins in Central Park as an example: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL

You somehow seem to confuse being natural with being desirable. It seems obvious that things like bestial brutality, sexual perversion, homosexuality, pedophilia, lust for blood and murder or worse are part of our 'human nature' and may even serve an evolutionary purpose. E.g. a genocide can be beneficial in the evolutionary sense even for the victim group by creating an evolutionary bottleneck and speeding up the process of natural selection. When e.g. people in concentration camps are being selected according to their physical ability, with the weak being exterminated and the strong surviving, the overall fitness of the surviving population will be improved.

Why should we reduce ourselves to the level of being the servants of nature and its "principles" rather than its masters?


Repulsion is a natural instinct that functions to protect us from harm. It leads us to take action to eradicate or avoid whatever it is we find appalling. For example, studies show that people find physical characteristics indicative of disease (such as poor skin condition/rashes, excessive mucous, hair loss etc) instinctively repulsive... and this functions to prevent people from contracting the illness themselves or interbreeding with unfavourable people (to prevent sickly or deformed offspring).
So my thinking is that if we naturally feel appalled or repulsed by something it's because it's harmful to us in some very fundamental way... therefore it's natural purpose is to be eradiated and/or avoided. Or said another way; if the perversion served such an important natural puropse, it would not be repulsive to us. Ok, in the case of instinctive aversion towards ugliness you're probably right. But what about the possibility of selectively combining and interbreeding progressive and mutually attractive variants of different racial groups? I'm far from recommending that this should be done, but I don't see why it should be "unnatural". That white males are so fond of Mongoloid women at least shows the lack of a natural aversion in this case.


There are biological (naturalistic) reasons too... like resultant infertility, psychological trauma and disease.If this is true, there will simply be a tradeoff between evolutionary benefit and the potential harm that is produced by miscegenation. But this again doesn't imply that the whole thing is unnatural. It can still serve an evolutionary purpose in certain situations.


I'm afraid you've missed my point. ;) I wrote nothing of affirmation or abhorration... I really think that it goes against what humans are biologically "wired for" to desire sexual contact with "foreigners". I believe that humans have been biologically wired for living in small, tightly-knit social groups... that humans are naturally and instinctively territorial, and fearful/distrusting of those who don't belong to their group (or kin). Going against these natural instincts, as we are forced to in modern times, I believe contributes greatly to the ever-escalating problems in 1st world countries of mental illness, physical illness, drug abuse, anti-social behaviour, other forms of social dysfunction, dometic abuse, sexual perversions and suicide.How can you be so sure about what we are wired for. But no matter what, I strongly disagree with the idea that what we believe ourselves to be wired for should restrict our reasoning and imagination. If we could actively breed humans and guide their further evolution we can expand their biological potential (and perhaps make such things as perversions, anti-social behavior etc. unnatural by eliminating the genes that are responsible for them).


You said that if something is occuring in our modern societies that it is necessarily natural.I never said that. But the basic meaning of "x is natural" is that it (regularly) occurs within nature. If human societies are in a sense part of nature (through their physical substrates), everything that occurs in them is - among other things - natural. But this has nothing to do with the evaluation of such events in political or cultural terms.


I disagree with this. If this "something" occurs in a "natural" human environment (ie, an environment that humans have evolved to thrive in) then it is natural. In our modern times, much that we are forced to live with is very unnatural in the sense that we aren't thriving, or even coping much of the time... and we're not thriving because our bodies weren't designed to cope with the conditions that they currently are being forced to. For example, our bodies weren't designed to digest and process man-made chemical food additives... therefore it is not natural for us to consume them... but we do consume them nevertheless because some small number of fellow humans have deemed it "okay" (!!).... still many additives are now being shown to cause health problems...So you presuppose a certain natural environment for humans and infer from this what we should accept as policy. However, I don't see why our modern environment should not be considered as adequate for human nature. Humans have never been more successful at increasing their numbers as in modern times. Modern science and technology gave us the decisive advantage in the evolutionary struggle to spread over this whole planet like a disease. No generation has lived healthier than the present one. Infant mortality rates have never been as low and life expectancies never as long. So what could be more natural in the sense of being beneficial for the survival of homo sapiens sapiens as a species than modern society? - But, dear Bridie, nature isn't everything. Modern technology has also given us the opportunity to take our further evolution into our own hands rather than leaving it to mere chance (i.e. nature).


All of these factors (sociological, demographical, political) are NOT INDEPENDANT of "nature" or biology.... they are necessarily interdependant.I agree with that. Our existence is based on biology and we are a kind of animals. But we also have the ability to change our environment and our biological basis in a way that surpasses the restriction of the stone-age environments in which we were probably constituted as a species.

Eugenics (including measures against miscegenation) are in my view a means to extend our control over our bodily (natural) substrate. Such a way of 'manipulating' our nature (in a positive sense) may be non-'natural', but that doesn't make it a bad thing. Again: Why should our decisions be restricted by our beliefs about some pre-fixed nature we ascribe to ourselves?


It's unnatural as I said before in the sense that our bodies (including our psychological make-up) weren't designed to cope with modern social conditions and physcial pollutants.I'm not so sure about that either. As I mentioned, there are more humans around today than ever before and they seem at least sufficiently healthy to even further increase their numbers. What more do you want as far as naturalness is concerned?
Everything that goes beyond this is no longer a question of human nature but of the improvement of human civilization (possibly including genetical engineering of our natural constitution).
Modern civilization is clearly natural enough. The question is: is it also civilized enough? A truly civilized society would have to lose its naturalistic inhibitions and taboos as well as its religious ones. Only then can we consciously and freely decide what kind of racial/genetic composition and structure our societies should have in order to function in a rational way.


To know what's natural and what's not, we only have to examine the human body and mind to determine which conditions are most favourable in maintaining homeostatic balance...

Tropical plants thrive in the tropics, for this is their natural environment... cacti thrive in the desert, for this is their natural environment... Humans are arguably not currently thriving... what are we to conclude from this?? (And I'm not talking about geographical environments in the latter instance. ;) )Again: Why do you think that humans are not thriving? Demographics point to the opposite. And what else should be a criterion of the naturalness of our society as far as the survival of our species is concerned?

Perhaps we can look at it the other way round. Human society seems to have evolved to a point where it is now almost perfectly fulfilling the basic needs of human nature. Perhaps now the time has come to use our cultural capabilities to change our nature (including measures to abolish our natural tendency to miscegenate).
We must fight against our natural composition to improve ourselves, culturally as well as genetically.


But is it natural for humans to grow up amongst those who are not their own kind? (I don't think so.) Is it natural to be reared by foreigners??It's normal, yes. And it's desirable for the cohesion of a society. But is it also natural? I don't think so.


We're already made.Not as long as our evolution continues. We're still in the making.

Æmeric
Monday, November 20th, 2006, 08:47 PM
I have some questions for those who do not believe miscegenation is unnatural. If it is not unnatural then doesn't that means it is natural? Instead of resisting miscegenation shouldn't we embrace it? Do those of us who are repulsed by it have some sort of mental disorder? If miscegenation is natural then doesn't that mean multiracialism is the natural course of human evolution? Is racial preservation an archaic & obsolete ideal? If miscegenation is natural then that must mean that the current races evolve through unnatural segregation of the races. In that case isn't largescale thirdworld immigration the solution to correcting an unnatural situation where Whites previously had no choice but to procreate with others of their own race?

http://dialoginternational.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/nazipainting.jpg

The above image is considered racist by many people. Why? At first glance it seems to show a happy, healthy family. But this is a White family. Not just White but Nordish White. They are unnatural. They are freaks. That is why so many people are offended by this image. Perhaps those who are offended are aware of something that I am incapable of understanding that miscegenation is the natural order & families like the one above & my own are destined to go the way of the Neanderthals.

SuuT
Monday, November 20th, 2006, 08:59 PM
...

I think that it doesn't come naturally to humans to mate with those who are very foreign to themselves and their own people. In a natural (tribal) human existance it wouldn't happen, except in perhaps extreme and unusual circumstances (eg, in the instance of exiles).... but we are living in a perverted and unnatural world in modern times, so of course miscegenation does occur now....
...

"Very" being the key qualifier.

Otherwise (remember, SuuT loves you), this assertion is historically, anthropologically, genetically, and etiologically incorrect.

"Miscegenation" has actaully been (one of) the catalyst(s) for the sub-races that exist within Europa, today.

Moreover, wherever there was trade and trade routes; or wars and conquered peoples; or nomadic Tribes; or ideologies that refused to recognise/trumped the principia of Race (a fundamentally modern phenomenon) "miscegenation" has taken place - and, as Science bares out today via mtDNA/Y-chrom/Halotyping et Al., we are all - to some extent - the result of "miscegenation".

I think that you are right, however, about modernity and its wholesale refusal to even think of Race (for those who are so bright as to even acknowledge its existence) as a crucial aspect in matters of coupling.

People, in general - and this baffles me - will acknowledge that a champion horse, for example, can be bred from a line of champion horses. Ask them about the breeding of themselves or their children, and you're insane...

(p.s. Many thanks to Oswiu for continuously, and tirelessly (sp?), mopping-up my awful spelling ;)).

Jäger
Monday, November 20th, 2006, 09:37 PM
Hmm, oops, I think I voted wrong, I wanted to say it is natural.

An asteroid targeting earth is natural too, still it would be natural and reasonable to take measures against it. :)

SuuT
Monday, November 20th, 2006, 09:56 PM
The health consequences of race mixing (http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_health_consequences_of_race_mixing/)

"Paper-based questionnaires were completed by 83,135 adolescents; a random sub-sample of these individuals plus some individuals in the school roster that had not completed the paper-based questionnaire, totaling 18,924 adolescents, were interviewed at home. The data are reported for the home-interviewed sample.

Racial classifications are based on self-report; the participants were allowed to pick multiple racial categories to describe themselves. Table 1 shows participant characteristics. The participants were asked if they were Hispanic/Latino, but this was not considered to be a racial category. 86% of those who only chose “other” race also described themselves as Hispanic, and 46% of those who described themselves as Hispanic only chose “other” race. 72% of those identifying as American Indian also picked another racial category, usually white."



Abfall. Willkürlicher Abfall mit nur dem Aussehen der wissenschaftlichen Struktur.

We can do much better than this, I should think.:(

Theudiskaz
Monday, November 20th, 2006, 10:21 PM
I can only agree with you, Suut. Miscegenation has been happening for a long time. This does not mean I condone it. In fact I strongly, wholeheartedly oppose it. How could I approve of it, given my worldview?

People must divorce their emotions from the issue in order to evaluate it rationally. There are so many things which have a precedent both in the animal world and in human history which have occurred with such frequency that they are essentially natural. This does not mean they are morally correct, pleasant, or even healthy. Incest, murder, polygamy, theft, rape, cannabalism, pedophilia etc. are all rampant in the animal kingdom and occur often enough among human beings to this day to be termed 'natural' even for homo sapiens. All of this behavior serves to enhance an animals likelihood of creating offspring. Therefore these traits still exist because of natural selection. They are still disgusting, unpleasant, and immoral behavior for civilized people. Anyway I conclude that natural does not equal moral, nice etc. Two different things.

I think it's safe to say that the more hominized breeds of mankind, i.e. Europids, seem to have evolved to develop a now natural, i.e. biologically based, neurochemical reaction (nausea) toward behavior which is not conducive to the complex society created by the population. I don't pretend to understand how exactly this arose. This is where things get largely theoretical. I honestly know next to nothing about any existing eplanations for such a phenomenon. Could this be considered a "group evolutionary strategy"?

So, after thinking "out loud" here:D , my conclusions are:
a.)In order to determine whether something is natural or not, we must not let our emotions interfere.
b.) natural=

something that has historical precedent (has occured and does occur often),
and has been naturally selected as a positive trait.c.)that which is disgusting is not necessarily unnatural.
d.) miscegenation does have an historical precedent. But is it a positive trait? Does it increase the likelihood of passing on ones genetic material, of creating viable offspring, fit for its environment? As Doctor Solar Wolff has demonstrated, the answer is that Miscegenation can put the offspring at a disadvantage in its environment. But is the willingness to miscegenate governed by one or multiple genes? We don't know this. Therefore we can't call it a "trait", much less a positive one, with any certainty.

So is miscegenation unnatural?...Hell, I don't know!:shrug

Who cares anyway. If we care about preserving our race, it shouldn't matter either way. (So I guess we come full circle, eh? It all boils down to emotion, sentiment in the end;)...But wait...is this...unnatural???:( ;))

SuuT
Monday, November 20th, 2006, 10:48 PM
I can only agree with you, Suut. Miscegenation has been happening for a long time. This does not mean I condone it. In fact I strongly, wholeheartedly oppose it. How could I approve of it, given my worldview?

People must divorce their emotions from the issue in order to evaluate it rationally. There are so many things which have a precedent both in the animal world and in human history which have occurred with such frequency that they are essentially natural. This does not mean they are morally correct, pleasant, or even healthy. Incest, murder, polgamy, theft, rape, cannabalism, pedophilia etc. are all rampant in the animal kingdom and occur often enough among human beings to this day to be termed 'natural' even for homo sapiens. All of this behavior serves to enhance an animals likelihood of creating offspring. Therefore these traits still exist because of natural selection. They are still disgusting, unpleasant, and immoral behavior for civilized people. Anyway I conclude that natural does not equal moral, nice etc. Two different things.

I think it's safe to say that the more hominized breeds of mankind, i.e. Europids, seem to have evolved to develop a now natural, i.e. biologicaly based, neurochemical reaction (nausea) toward behavior which is not conducive to the complex society created by the population. I don't pretend to understand how exactly this arose. This is where things get largely theoretical. I honestly know next to nothing about any existing eplan ations for such a phenomenon. Could this be considered a "group evolutionary strategy"?

So, after thinking "out loud" here:D , my conclusions are:
a.)In order to determine whether something is natural or not, we must not let our emotions interfere.
b.) natural=

something that has historical precedent (has occured and does occur often),
and has been naturally selected as a positive trait.c.)that which is disgusting is not necessarily unnatural.
d.) miscegenation does have an historical precedent. But is it a positive trait? Does it increase the likelihood of passing on ones genetic material, of creating viable offspring, fit for its environment? As Doctor Solar Wolff has demonstrated, the answer is that Miscegenation can put the offspring at a disadvantage in its environment. But is the willingness to miscegenate governed by one or multiple genes? We don't know this. Therefore we can't call it a "trait", much less a positive one, with any certainty.

So is miscegenation unnatural...Hell, I don't know!:shrug

Who cares anyway. If we care about preserving our race, it shouldn't matter either way.

It is quite possible (probable) that some - if not all - of these wretched things are, somewhat counter-intuitively, exactly the outcome of breeding a higher type, or in the preservation of a superior type that wishes further ascendancy; and presses its right to that end in all aspects of the biological world: the stratification of peoples into castes, for example, and the conglomeration of dersirable traits in the effort to breed an idealised form of humanity (modernity has lost touch with even the instinct to do this as a result of the herd comming to the fore) does not dispense with the traits, which you have adeptly recognised as natural, that are deemed undesirable by the higher organism: they do, and will, and must, go somewhere; they end up in concentration in the lessor organism (the lessor human, in the example here).

To quote a very Aryan understanding of this matter, we can look to the Law of Manu, which, quite purposefully, contolled the composition of its social structure; and, with equal purpose, bred a specific type to be the harbinger and repository for all base things: The Chandala; or, "mish-mash man":

"The chandalas are the fruit of adultery, incest, and crime (these, the necessary consequenses of the concept of breeding.) For clothing, they shall have only rags from the dead; for dishes, broken pots; for adorment, old iron; for divine services, only evil spirits. They shall wander without rest from here to there. They are prohibited from writing left to right. and from the use of the right hand while writing: the use of the right hand and from-left-to-right is reserved for the virtuous, for the people of race."

The is much that is progressive in the Archaic.

To progress, we must regress...

Oswiu
Monday, November 20th, 2006, 11:00 PM
b.) natural=

something that has historical precedent (has occured and does occur often),
and has been naturally selected as a positive trait.I'm no fan of epistemiological discussions. So when I say what I think's natural or not, I'm probably talking about a completely different thing to what you are here!
Our tendency as Europeans for objectivity has been our downfall on the racial front, so I don't see much point in arguing about what 'nature' is in this context.
Anyway, I think Bridie said it best -
That which is natural for an organism, or species, or ethnic/racial group [the scale which we should be looking at] is the set of circumstances in which it can thrive best.
I suppose you'd measure that by suicide rate, breeding, crime, and scales of general psychological health and [dis]satisfaction. Is an improvement seen in such things in a mescegenating society? :|

Thorburn
Monday, November 20th, 2006, 11:21 PM
I have some questions for those who do not believe miscegenation is unnatural. If it is not unnatural then doesn't that means it is natural? Yes.


Instead of resisting miscegenation shouldn't we embrace it? No. Just because something is natural, this doesn't mean it automatically should be accepted or promoted in a human society. It is also natural that members of a subspecies interbreed. In fact, this is what happens ordinarily, what happens normally. Miscegenation is abnormal (in a statistical sense), but this does neither mean that it is unnatural, nor that it is desirable or undesirable.

Promiscuity is also something that is quite natural; so is theft; but as with miscegenation this doesn't automatically mean we need to accept them or that the behavior is desirable. We might decide it is undesireable. We might implement measures to reduce promiscuity or theft or miscegenation, because we are convinced they do more harm than good. This is a conscious choice. Unlike animals, we are not the victims of our instincts, but can guide and control them. We can consciously alter our behavior.


Do those of us who are repulsed by it have some sort of mental disorder? No.


If miscegenation is natural then doesn't that mean multiracialism is the natural course of human evolution? In fact, it is. It is exactly what will happen if the barriers that previously had separated the human races fall away. These were natural barriers (the oceans, the mountains, the distance, and so forth), whose efficiency is greatly reduced due to technological developments (airplanes and so forth), as well as social barriers (culture, language, tradition, customs, values, law, &c.), whose efficiency is greatly reduced because we want it that way. Needless to say, we could, if we chose to, re-erect efficient social barriers by education, implementing different values and passing suitable legislation. We could also build physical barriers (border fences, a Great Chinese wall, &c.) But with no natural, physical and social barriers in place that separate the races, miscegenation is the logical consequence.


Is racial preservation an archaic & obsolete ideal? No, it's a matter of choice.


If miscegenation is natural then that must mean that the current races evolve through unnatural segregation of the races. Segregation and isolation of population groups and races are also quite natural.

Waarnemer
Tuesday, November 21st, 2006, 12:31 AM
Is human miscegenation unnatural?

of course not, in the light of it, for those who voted yes, what have we become? christians crusading against homosexuality? if not liking would equal unnatural the world would be a more simplistic place, but on the contrary

Chlodovech
Tuesday, November 21st, 2006, 01:38 AM
To me, it's a question about the origins of man, thus more philosophical - and perhaps it's my own theistic bias (amongst other bias), however, I don't believe any race of living things is meant to be experimented with by scientists - not even dogs.

If you subscribe to the theory of evolution, then maybe it's more easy to say that it is not the creator's will to prevent miscegenation, but our own wish to do so (but not necessarily, I guess).

But if you ask me, racialists got a mandate from God. :P

PS: Don't pitty me, I'm a racial fundamentalist. :D

HowlingOskorei
Tuesday, November 21st, 2006, 02:03 AM
I think it depends on the situation.

If a population gets too isolated and the gene pool gets to shallow, one might have the instinct to mix with someone of a different race to ensure genetic diversity. I was talking about this with a black co-worker the other day.

I'm currently working on Prince Edward Island, a small island, very white and homogeneous. This black co-worker says he has girls all over him, and he believes it's because these girls are instinctually seeking out different traits. He's from a small island in the Caribbean, and he says that a white man would have girls all over him down there, for the same reason... it's a small island and the gene pool is restricted. Going for someone of a different race decreases the chance of inbreeding and carrying on recessive traits unique to said island.

Colourblindness is common on many South Pacific islands because of the isolation of the population and the subsequent lack of genetic diversity.

So, in cases of extreme isolation I believe it can become instinct, hence natural... but in normal cases, like populations living on a continent, people tend to seach for mates who have similar genetic traits to their parents (men go for women who have traits similar to their mother, and women go for men who have traits similar to their father) to preserve the integrity of their genetic lines.

Sigurd
Tuesday, November 21st, 2006, 02:16 AM
The question whether something is natural or not is strictly philosophical.

Strictly seen, if anything that occurs in nature is natural, so is everything mankind has ever done or created. So if miscegenation is natural under this, then so are nuclear bombs, etc.

If however, only things are natural that are considered to be the most favorable way for the tribe/folk/race, then it is not. Thus, in most cases, miscegenation would become unnatural: It hinders evolution, as differences established over 100,000s of years are negated; it hinders the continued existeds of one's own kind; it disestablishes genetic integrity. So it would be natural for one to multiply with one's own kind to create a naturally most favorable situation.

The answer is probably somewhere in between; and to me makes no difference, as regardless of whether it is natural or not, I would not consider it; so I don't really care whether it is natural or unnatural per se. It's morally wrong, and that's enough for me to make it wrong altogether.

Agrippa
Tuesday, November 21st, 2006, 02:24 AM
Is it natural? For sure it is!

Pervitinist and others said a lot of things I can agree with - of course some details I might see in a different away, but overall he's just right.

To use some examples: Miscegenation is "more natural" than driving a car, drinking Cola, watching TV or getting a blood transfusion. Actually its "more natural" than sitting here in front of a Computer and discussing about the future of mankind and miscegenation I'd say, simply because humans did it in thousands and thousands of years before something like our nations, even populations existed. Its as natural as to kill enemies and foreign, dangerous people which threat the own bloodline and group, this happened too throughout history of mankind like so many other things as well.

First of all one has to define whats supposed to be natural for humans which is a cultural and now self-domesticated species with so many cultural deviations from what would be biologically useful and logical - THIS, which is biologically for the survival of given bloodlines, a population and species, is for me the "most natural" thing of all, because finally its all about survival and adaptation to natural conditions. But there is nothing which makes something "natural" more valuable than something "unnatural" per se. Actually, if I have to choose between dying an awful death "naturally" and surviving and becoming healthy, getting children and living a happy life, dying a "nice death" in an "unnatural way", I will be glad to chose the latter no matter what (!).

On instinctive insecurity and cultural deviations I wrote in other threads:
"Human instinctive insecurity":
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=44382

Great thread on cultural degenerations in primitive societies:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=46038

Ethnocultural diversity and its negative outcomes:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=79394

We as humans, a cultural species, should have a more rational and long term oriented approach if securing our survival on a high level, if possible with the highest potential for further development and adaptations, simply because it improves our personal existence and it could be necessary for the future. Just because a society of degenerated idiots could survive now, doesnt mean they will survive in 10.000 years and there are just variants which chances are much higher to survive, especially on a high level with a great potential for further development, than for others. From this perspective, we can look at many questions of importance for the biological aspects of our existence.

Lets look at miscegenation. Where does it begin? I will try to argue with some principles and examples by using this good post from Solar:


The fitness of a hybrid in either parental enviornment is reduced.

Well, there is no rule for that. It can be the case, but it must not be.


Example: a black person coming into northern Europe and breeding with a European and producing a child, a hybird. That hybrid would be less adapted to restricted sunlight, cold and possibly the diet. The hybrid would run a high risk of developing rickets, for example.

Good example for why certain gene flows are indeed negative from an objective point of view: They just introduce genes and people which dont fit into the local population and culture, add nothing of real value to that people but rather reduce its potential to survive on a high level in this environment and reduce the numbers of "pure genetic lines, bloodlines" of this population. So doing harm, taking away members and numbers, adding nothing of real value = negative for the European population which has a large influx of Negroid genes which replace Europid ones f.e.


But Worse: For the black person to enter Europe, he would have had to cross two geographical barriers, the Sahara and the Mediterranean. A Negro is adapted to neither of these and belongs in neither of these enviornments. Therefore, his migration is unnatural.

His migration isnt, but that modern techniques being used to transport him through various "lines of defence" (North Africa worked for a long time that way for Europids/Caucasoids, both because of the people living there and the natural borders) and that he lives and survives in Europe mainly because of people being foreign to his population and having no win from his presence is biologically irrational behaviour, which is in my opinion the much better definition of why one should oppose miscegenation - not because its "unnatural", but its "biologically irrational in certain given situations for the own bloodline, population, race and species".


So, since miscengenation can only happen between two different races and. therefore, at least one of these races is out of place, AND the resulting hybrid is less fit in either parental enviornment, miscegenation is not natural.

It is natural, it can be advantageous for one or even both sides - it depends on the situation, there is no general rule for it. F.e.: You have a population living in Central Africa ("Y") having a very low intelligence and cultural niveau, their racial adaptation is very one sided in general, but their physiology has one great advantage, because they being well adapted for the climate and plagues which exist there.
Now you introduce a group of people, lets call it group X, which is racially and culturally more advanced, but lacking the adaptation to the given environment - these people being pushed into this Central African territory, they have no choice actually because of a natural catastrophy or human competitive pressure.

Now what happens if we assume "a win-win situation"? The more progressive group meets the indigenous, one way or another they begin to mix, by mixing the Central Africans ("Y") can gain more progressive traits which increase their general potential drastically, much faster than it could have ever happened otherwise, actually it would have never happened in that environment probably, and the "colonists of the group X" get the traits they need for longer term survival without too much problems in this tropical environment.

Finally add a "harmonising selection" which eliminates all traits which will be no longer useful for this "new race", like all traits of "group X" being not adapted to the climate and plagues, all traits of the Y's which are not necessary for that basic adaptation and just limit the general potential of the new race, lets call it "Z".

Bloodlines of both group X and Y will survive in Z, in fact the chances of longer term survival increased, so its, even though the more progressive group X infiltrated and changed the more primitive group Y, on the very long run a "win-win situation" both for the two unities of mankind as well as the species as a whole, because a "better representative for the tropics" was the result.


The situation with local races is not the same since a cline is involved. In this setting, neither race is out of place and the resulting offspring are not at a selective disadvantage. Normally, this is called Gene Flow.

This is a stable situation in which you assume there is no chance in which one group is superior if its about the general adaptiveness even though not being "primarily made" for a given environment, which is not the case. Because if a group of humans or animals too for that matter, developes generally advantageous characteristics, lets say in a hot desert or cold mountains, they can come out of the desert or from the mountains and expand into territories for which they were, originally, not selected. While they do so, they will mix with other members of the species if they are living there with a high probability, and in an optimal case, selection will eliminate all variants which:
A) Being not as generally adaptive as the expanding group
or
B) Less adapted to the local environment than the original group

Since humans use cultural techniques since earlist times, you can easily imagine that B) can be on the long run better outbalanced than A) the more advanced a culture is. F.e. the Negritids were very well adapted to their habitats on the South East Asian islands, did it help? No. Others (Mongolids in particular) "jumped" over various geographic and climatic barriers and expanded in their territories if they had interest in it, at best some mixed variants of them survived and gave the newcomers partly some traits for the local adaptation or took away something of the progressive character if there was a lack of general and group selection.

Miscegenation is mainly positive for an expanding group which secures its own relatively pure "heartlands" or social core from a genetic perspective. That way, by sending one wave after another, of whole families or males primarily of course, since females are just a loss of pure lines if "being given away", "a coloniser" can replace a competitor and overtake its environment (Example: The Sinoid expansions in SEA).

The other way around, the only reason for a population to accept foreign influences is from a biologically rational perspective that this foreign lines introduce something, add something of great value to the indigenous people.

Either case the mixture is mainly then advantageous, if looking at the big picture and at the value for the species, if selection is involved.

Just looking at our Central African example: Just imagine X and Y mixing, but the result being not a harmonious new racial type which has the advantages of both for the environment, but the disadvantages of either of them! Might sound absurd at the first look, but thats exactly whats happening in Europe and the USA at the moment, as well as in many regions of the world because we have a combination of:
Negative selection inside of populations and
Influx of foreign lower level elements in already (racially, socio-economically and culturally) higher evolved groups

The nightmare would look like that: Lowest social level white getting a lot of children with (for Negroids) medium level Negrid, the offspring will be not selected in a positive way neither by society nor nature - even on the contrary, if the offspring would be more progressive, attractive, intelligent, etc., the chances for this result having children again will be lower, if the mulatto will be less progressive, attractive, intelligent etc., chances for this individual having more offspring will be higher (negative selection inside of the population).

So there is not just downbreeding inside of the Euro-population, but also mixture with lower elements and the results of this twofold negative processes will be again selected for the lowest possible level on average. Just imagine the long term results of such processes in the future. Thats again not "unnatural" actually, its just "biologically irrational" because (just to mention some important aspects):

Europeans allow Subsaharan Africans
-to expand into their territory even though they dont have anything of real value to contribute to the well being and survival of Europid lines
-to introduce negative traits which are disadvantageous for Europe's climate, the context of European populations and societies into the genpool.
-to take away males and especially females (which are always the limiting factor for a group's "pure" offspring) which are the base of pure bloodlines of Europeans, this reduces the potential "pure" offspring of Europeans in particular and the number of "pure" European bloodlines with nothing of value in exchange for them while Negroids can keep their "core" (situation of actual colonisation from a biological perspective)
-to take away natural and socio-economic etc. ressources from European people, giving it to Negroids for nothing of real (socio-cultural and biological) value in exchange, which reduces the well being and potential for further development of the European people
-to reduce from the species' perspective the number of progressive lines and traits in the human species while increasing rather undesirable traits in populations which reached through past selective processes a higher level of development already with nothing of real value for the species in exchange.

Etc., etc.

This posting might not be perfect, I'm open to debate various points of it, correct parts of it too, but I hope I contributed some new and repeated some already known aspects of importance. Might add more another time...

From what I said certain things should be clear:
Miscegenation as such is natural, but there are natural factors which work against it too (territorial behaviour, defence of the own group's territory, customs, females, children, ressources to secure the own bloodlines survival etc.).
It can be useful in some cases (mainly for the group which expands a) or takes over traits which are advantageous for itself b), but neither is the case for European territories (mainly temperate climate, Europids being well adapted, progressive peak of today's mankind, own genetic lines survival and people's well being would be best secured by actually opposing mass immigration and miscegenation (single cases dont matter actually). To advocate mass immigration and mass miscegenation is biologically irrational and also against the social, cultural and economic longer term interests of the European people, thats why we should oppose it, whether it can be considered "natural or unnatural" in general or "advantageous or disadvantageous in given cases" doesnt matter, its in general harmful for our European individuals, kin, populations, nations, societies, social, economic, cultural, racial etc. standards and longer term development as well as for the standards and development of the whole species - if happening in European primary habitats in larger scale at least, and thats enough, more than enough for being against it, together with a variety of other reasons.

Some threads in which I wrote on the issue too:
From the Thread: "Coffee-coloured race to take over planet (Times of India) (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=658423)"
http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=658423&postcount=26

For the idea of positive results of mixture if both groups "are progressive":
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=80362

and especially this post & thread from "Progressiveness or racial preservation (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=663424)":
http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=663424&postcount=8

On "Interracial relationships":
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=56932

and

"Is intermixture inevitable":
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=53792

My basic principles:
http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=73299&postcount=27

HowlingOskorei
Tuesday, November 21st, 2006, 02:38 AM
One problem is, is that society is pushing unnatural miscegenation these days. Miscegenation that is not needed or warrented.

Most people live in areas with diverse enough gene pools that naturally, without outside influences, they would stick to their own race.

Now, with the case of Pacific Islanders who emigrate to Continental North America, most of them actually end up dating/marrying people of other races. One example, The Rock, his mother is Samoan, his father, I think, is black. I think this is instinctual for them because they were isolated from different genes for thousands of years.

Bridie
Tuesday, November 21st, 2006, 03:30 AM
Well, Thorburn's question was:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorburn
Is miscegenation amongst human beings or human races (subspecies) unnatural, i. e. does human miscegenation necessarily defy the principles of nature or a mandate of nature?

Sure, and my answer was that it's a deviation from the laws of human nature for people to form intimate relationships/sexual attachments with those who are "foreign" to them... this includes "racially foreign". Therefore I think that people in a more natural human environment aren't attracted to those of a differing race.

Maybe I only speak of women though (??)... maybe it's natural for men to want to bonk any and every woman they see - no matter how repulsive or threatening they find them even sometimes???

This could very well be a difference between men and women, considering the natural, immediate reaction for men (in general) to fear or threat (in this case, of a foreigner group) is to attack or confront... whereas for women the reaction is more often than not, retreat. So if this is the case, men may be less likely to shy away from a more active offensive on their enemies (the foreign group which they perceive as a threat) and even either forcibly or non-forcibly engage in sexual activity with the enemy's women as a method of disempowering them... making them less threatening. This has been a common occurance throughout history when two populations meet and compete for land, resources etc. And I would say that this is the way that miscegenation mostly occured in the past. But you see, it has nothing to do with "attraction", it has to do with the struggle for power.

So you say that because modern men are often sexually attracted to racially different women and can physically breed with them that miscegenation is "natural"... but I say that despite men being able to feel sexually turned on by women of varying races (not emotionally, mentally and spiritually attracted to), it is unnatural for men to form intimate bonds with them and to breed with them under normal conditions... this will only really occur in instances of desperation and power struggles (war, invasion)... in which case it has little or nothing to do with the women bringing about sexual arousal in the men, and everything to do with the men seeking to dominate and attack. So men being sexually attracted to differing races is really quite irrelevant.




How are principles of nature established anyway?
It doesn't matter "how" they are established... the fact is that they can be observed, so they exist. There is a natural order, and observance of it is imperitive to maintaining homeostatic balance in an organism, family and community group.



It's a well-established fact that even animals show homosexual behavior. That's right, even animals can get ill. Doesn't make it "natural" in my book. ;)



You somehow seem to confuse being natural with being desirable. Not at all. Arguably natural laws and systems have evolved to allow lifeforms to thrive under "natural" conditions (and these will necessarily be ancient conditions, since evolution is a long and slow process - therefore it could not have possibly caught up with modern standards/environments of living just yet). Certain safe-guards or protective mechanisms have evolved to provide optimum chances of these natural systems to function as they were designed to. This can be observed on a cellular level right through to a global level.

When these protective mechanisms fail, we see a deviation of nature... a bit like we have "physiology" and "pathophysiology" - we have "natural" and "unnatural".



Why should we reduce ourselves to the level of being the servants of nature and its "principles" rather than its masters?
^ This is the arrogance of man speaking.... we are a part of nature whether we like it or not, and in that way are at it's mercy.... we can never be it's master. To think that we can, would deluding yourself.



But what about the possibility of selectively combining and interbreeding progressive and mutually attractive variants of different racial groups? I'm far from recommending that this should be done, but I don't see why it should be "unnatural". That white males are so fond of Mongoloid women at least shows the lack of a natural aversion in this case.
The fact that some males are attracted to racially foreign women is as I've already suggested a perversion resulting from our sick modern societies. It would be "unnatural" to purposefully, selectively interbreed people from varying racial groups... unnatural in the sense that it would be a perversion of natural human behaviour.



How can you be so sure about what we are wired for.It can observed. For example, we know that humans who are totally isolated from human contact for long periods suffer mental illness ---> so humans are "wired for" social interaction---> therefore, it is "natural" for humans to socially interact.



But no matter what, I strongly disagree with the idea that what we believe ourselves to be wired for should restrict our reasoning and imagination. It shouldn't "restrict our reasoning and imagination", no... but we would be wise to observe and respect natural laws, allowing them to guide us. Humans are feeble and inadequate compared to the forces that have formed the universe as we know it.... and we are ignorant of the universe's secrets... reasons for existance etc....



Humans have never been more successful at increasing their numbers as in modern times.Not so successful at the moment. ;) "Success" in this area came with the industrial revolution. However, whether it was actually "success" as in "desirable" at this time or not is debatable... one could just as easily perceive it as negative, rampant, out-of-control population growth because natural safety nets (such as the death of sickly or abnormal infants) were taken away... a situation that led to neglect and exploitation of "excess" and unwanted children.



No generation has lived healthier than the present one. Infant mortality rates have never been as low and life expectancies never as long. So what could be more natural in the sense of being beneficial for the survival of homo sapiens sapiens as a species than modern society? I disagree. Stats concerning IMR's and life expectancies are deceiving... long and plentiful lives don't necessarily mean healthy lives. I think as a whole we in the 1st world are mentally and physically weaker and less resilient than at any other time in human history.



What more do you want as far as naturalness is concerned?
Happier, more content people. I want child abuse to become a thing of the past (rather than being on the rise as it is in modern times), I want suicide rates of youth to be considerably lower, I want depression rates to be vastly lower, I want mental illness to become a rarity (as it should be).... I want people who are thriving, not just surviving.



Again: Why do you think that humans are not thriving? Demographics point to the opposite. And what else should be a criterion of the naturalness of our society as far as the survival of our species is concerned?
I answered that above. :)



We must fight against our natural composition to improve ourselves, culturally as well as genetically.
Fight against it? I would rather fight with it. ;) Everything we need to thrive and improve ourselves is already within us... we just have to sort out the rubbish from the gold.




Quote:
But is it natural for humans to grow up amongst those who are not their own kind? (I don't think so.) Is it natural to be reared by foreigners??
It's normal, yes. And it's desirable for the cohesion of a society. But is it also natural? I don't think so.
You think it's normal and desirable for social cohesion for a negro child to be raised by and surrounded by say, a European family/community?? :-O If that were the case, then white parents would naturally bear negro kids on occasion. But they don't.



Not as long as our evolution continues. We're still in the making.What I meant was that we can't change human nature... we can't change who we are, we can only make the best of it. It would be wise to work with nature and not against it. Ultimately, we are not, and should not be, in control. Natural laws should be observed and respected. As you already said, we humans are a part of nature, so to respect nature is to respect ourselves.


Otherwise (remember, SuuT loves you),:wsg



this assertion is historically, anthropologically, genetically, and etiologically incorrect.Okay, now people are so socially fragmented and isolated that it is common for people to partner with those who are "foreign" (racially, culturally etc) to themselves. As I said in my previous post, historically miscegenation was mostly born of conflict, war and invasion. It's not a natural instinct to partner with those who are foreign to us.

Agrippa
Tuesday, November 21st, 2006, 04:18 AM
Sure, and my answer was that it's a deviation from the laws of human nature for people to form intimate relationships/sexual attachments with those who are "foreign" to them... this includes "racially foreign". Therefore I think that people in a more natural human environment aren't attracted to those of a differing race.

I think you made a valid point, but you should have said "significantly less attracted" rather than "not attracted". There are barriers which prevent most humans under more natural living conditions (which suit our, or at least the genetically and culturally determined behaviour of the majority better, because civilisation is a rather newer phenomenon) from having sexual relationships that easily - that even more true for women, since as we discussed once:
-Women have to bear the child, men can just go away in theory
-Women are the base of the group, the limiting factor, one can easily replace one male for the reproduction of the group - at least if it wasnt one of the most valuable ones with great traits others haven't, but every lost women is a lost chance for more offspring for sure.


Maybe I only speak of women though (??)... maybe it's natural for men to want to bonk any and every woman they see - no matter how repulsive or threatening they find them even sometimes???

No, barriers working for them too, but others and "more natural ones" it seems, whereas for women it seems to be more about "cultural ones" I'd say. Male look for certain specific cues usually which are very physical, females can look more on the socio-cultural side too. A male will rarely be attracted to a "poor immigrant woman who is lonely" or "great multicultural female artist" if they are not physically attractive, lack the crucial traits, females however are another matter. They might refuse to have sex with a culturally stigmatised group of people (f.e. "Skins and Nazis"), heterosexual males on the other hand will have sex with women more often as long as they show certain traits (waist:hip ratio, skin, facial proportions etc., etc.), because they dont have as much to lose socio-culturally in "a more natural environment" and look for "fertile carriers of their genes", women have to consider long term investment, social responses and security. So if a male represents for a given female "insecurity", "his rating" might drastically decrease even if he has certain physical traits. In a group oriented and male dominated society, like they existed most of the time in more progressive and successful groups, the males will compete for the women, and to have sexual relationships with an unwanted foreign male could be very dangerous, even life threatening for a women. She had to fear both the foreign male and his relatives as well as their own ones in a worst case scenarios. For the male the sexual contact as such wasnt, he had just to consider the male competitors of the other group - as long as he was dominant, he could have "free access" without too much losses to more women too usually.

If in a given environment the social status and "security level" of Negrids being lifted for certain categories of European females, they will have less of a problem with having sex and even children with them, and thats what I can observe every day. They sometimes seem to really go for the Negrid male to prove how "well adapted" (tolerant, open minded, multicultural, caring etc.) to current moral and social standards they are and to get a black male which is in their perception everything they want to be themselves + less boring, more dominant and masculine than the "whities" etc.

So males "did it more often" but it did usually less harm if the group's core (females) were protected. Once a socially subdominant group opens the door to foreign males, its being colonised both by race and culture, with the bastards usually identifying more with the foreign part of their background. Females just feel such a change of attitudes and adapt themselves to it quite often if the conditions seem to prefer it.

Just take an ugly bum, washing him and making a star and millionar out of him, you can be sure there will be much more women going after him than males after a woman in the same situation. Men usually "buy hard facts for reproduction", women rather "futures" and "general status and security" if acting more instinctive. Some women might like the idea of a male "just looking after them" very much too, like if "they own the black man", whereas they dont trust the European which is not as charmant in a simple way nowadays, they usually wake up later in life, but then its too late and too often they have a "small present from Africa" then already...

Bridie
Tuesday, November 21st, 2006, 04:59 AM
-Women have to bear the child, men can just go away in theory
Men can go away "in theory" more easily than women for sure, (although women "can" just leave their offspring too you know... and it does happen) but is it natural for them to do so?? That's the question. I don't think it is. I think it's natural for men to form emotional attachments with their offspring and unnatural for them to just disregard them with such ease as you've suggested. Have you ever seen the face of a father holding his newborn baby?? Men form unbreakable bonds with their children too that bound them to caring for them for life.




Women are the base of the group, the limiting factor, one can easily replace one male for the reproduction of the group - at least if it wasnt one of the most valuable ones with great traits others haven't, but every lost women is a lost chance for more offspring for sure.
One can't easily replace a "high level" male so easily. I could argue that it is really only the high level females AND MALES that form the base of the group, in which case neither are expendable.



A male will rarely be attracted to a "poor immigrant woman who is lonely" or "great multicultural female artist" if they are not physically attractive, lack the crucial traits, females however are another matter. :-O Did you use that "poor lonely immigrant" example to rib me about my Singaporean ex-boyfriend! :D :P Only joking!! ;)

Seriously, I know what you mean about physical traits being more important to men, but I think you underestimate women's discriminatory powers when it comes to mate selection... just wealth, status and prestige aren't enough unless the woman is nothing but an unscrupulous gold-digger. Even then... it takes more than just money and power to love someone and want to form a lasting relationship with them. Just like for males it takes more than just a good looking woman for him to want to commit to her and have her bear his children.



They might refuse to have sex with a culturally stigmatised group of people (f.e. "Skins and Nazis"), heterosexual males on the other hand will have sex with women more often as long as they show certain traits (waist:hip ratio, skin, facial proportions etc., etc.), because they dont have as much to lose socio-culturally in "a more natural environment" and look for "fertile carriers of their genes", women have to consider long term investment, social responses and security. I disagree there. It can't be the natural way of things for men to just feel the urge to impregnate as many women as possible without being able to provide and care for their offspring. You miss the point that men are naturally the providers and protectors.... it is in the best interests of the group's survival for men to "stick around" and care for the children. Children would have a much smaller chance of survival with only a mother to care for them. So for men, reproduction is a long-term investment also.



Females just feel such a change of attitudes and adapt themselves to it quite often if the conditions seem to prefer it.
Are you suggesting that women are less likely to feel distraught, or at least concerned, at the thought of her people being invaded??? You are wrong there I think. If anything, women have more to lose and so are more passionate about the protection of the group.

Todesritter
Tuesday, November 21st, 2006, 05:08 AM
The occasional cross-breeding of genetically distant yet still compatible specimens, who were fit enough to make such a geographically long distance journey, was and is natural, and according to some ways of thinking probably beneficial to the recipient population which receives an infusion of the gene sequence of an individual capable of such a feat of survival, while the abnormally and overtly foreign traits would be washed away in the course of subsequent generations of descendants.



However, a system in which those humans who can make a claim to be victims (thus less fit) and thus have the host population subsidize modern transportation of a multitude of said foreign individuals from their native environment to the population locale of the host people (whose birth-rate is socially encouraged to be unnaturally low), threatening the host population, who have a better ordered society yet reduced fertility with genetic inundation by those who are there for the very reason of being poorer/less fit/victims in their own lands would seem to be the very epitome of "unnatural selection"; entirely flipping on its head the classic model of gradual improvement of distinct populations according to specific adaptation and evolution appropriate for their environment.



So, as with many things, it depends on how one chooses to define the terms, what answer would be the most appropriate....

Siegfried
Tuesday, November 21st, 2006, 11:56 AM
An asteroid targeting earth is natural too


Incest, murder, [...] theft, rape, cannabalism, pedophilia etc. are all rampant in the animal kingdom and occur often enough among human beings to this day to be termed 'natural' even for homo sapiens.

All unnatural.


There are so many things which have a precedent both in the animal world and in human history which have occurred with such frequency that they are essentially natural.

Historical precedent is not relevant here, in my humble opinion, given the wide definition of unnatural presented in the first post.

Bridie
Tuesday, November 21st, 2006, 12:51 PM
^ I agree totally with you Siegfried. I think many people here are confusing *the possibility of something occurring, historical precedence for something occurring, and the frequency of something occurring* for "natural".

As I basically stated before; natural is to unnatural, what physiology is to pathophysiology. One is the state of homeostatic balance as intended by design, the other a perverted state caused by the failure of inherent balancing mechanisms, usually after being exposed to external or environmental stressors....

What is the nature of a wheel? Is it to turn? "Of course", one would say! Yet in line with the arguments that some are presenting in this thread in favour of viewing miscegenation as natural, one could also argue that "some wheels are mishapen and damaged and therefore don't turn... there have been many wheels in history that weren't able to turn... some wheels don't want to turn... so it can't be the nature of a wheel to turn..."

I say, it is the nature of the wheel to turn... and if it doesn't then there is something that is perverting this natural function/purpose (and this "something" is what needs to be addressed).

If we go along saying that it's natural to miscegenate, yet we can control this by... what? Forcing people to only partner with their own kind?... we would be "barking up the wrong tree" in my opinion. It's unnatural to miscegenate and we must fully explore the forces that are causing this deviation from human nature... then no enforcement of responsible mating practices would be needed...

Jäger
Tuesday, November 21st, 2006, 01:45 PM
All unnatural.
So an steroid speeding through space is not part of nature? Or do I have simply another concept of the word natural?

Do we have to split nature and appoint natures to everything we can think of?
Like Bridie with a nature of the wheel or the nature of a stone, the nature of mankind, etc.

At least in German, I would translate that into "purpose" or "habit" based on observation.

Is miscegenation a habit of mankind? Yes. Has it a purpose? I don't know. Is that the quesition? Could the question be framed as, does miscegenation have a purpose?

Carl
Tuesday, November 21st, 2006, 01:49 PM
Is it natural? For sure it is!


I will stand by what I said in entry #24 ( at least for the moment) . If we were dogs, it would be no problem; they are not known to worry overmuch about "sub-species" (-if that's really is the correct term here!)

When it comes to human beings, then higher factors are involved. These may be psycho-social or philosophical - but they are still part of nature , our nature. And they count alongside what is biologically possible. To nicely brought up people , it just doesn't feel right. ;)

Bridie
Tuesday, November 21st, 2006, 02:27 PM
Do we have to split nature and appoint natures to everything we can think of?
Like Bridie with a nature of the wheel or the nature of a stone, the nature of mankind, etc.
Don't be confused with my example of "the wheel" :) ... wheels don't have natures as such... I was merely using an analogy to illustrate my point. :)

I could've substituted the word "wheel" for "humans"....

"What is the nature of humans? Is it to form sexual relationships with people of their own kind? Of course it is.." so on and so forth...

Pervitinist
Tuesday, November 21st, 2006, 03:49 PM
Well Bridie, now I see that our disagreement reaches right down to the philosophical fundamentals, since we seem to have completely different epistemologies, cosmologies and concepts of nature. Perhaps this would afford another thread, but it'd probably be off-topic to discuss it here in detail (or wouldn't it, depends on how philosophical Tryggvi wanted this thread to become ;)).


Sure, and my answer was that it's a deviation from the laws of human nature for people to form intimate relationships/sexual attachments with those who are "foreign" to them... this includes "racially foreign". Therefore I think that people in a more natural human environment aren't attracted to those of a differing race.

As I said, I don't see how our modern environment is unnatural for us. It's unusual compared to environments humans had lived in before, but I think it makes definite sense to call human, like Agrippa did, a "cultural and self-domesticated species". The latter is especially important, since it contains the notion that the question of our genetic development has always been a cultural matter and not merely biological/"natural". So the "laws" of human nature, if you like to use this term, are in part written by ourselves and have always been, since humans have always lived in more or less complex cultures/civilizations that also contained rules for appropriate or inappropriate ("natural"/"unnatural") forms of mating.


Maybe I only speak of women though (??)... maybe it's natural for men to want to bonk any and every woman they see - no matter how repulsive or threatening they find them even sometimes???

This could very well be a difference between men and women, considering the natural, immediate reaction for men (in general) to fear or threat (in this case, of a foreigner group) is to attack or confront... whereas for women the reaction is more often than not, retreat. So if this is the case, men may be less likely to shy away from a more active offensive on their enemies (the foreign group which they perceive as a threat) and even either forcibly or non-forcibly engage in sexual activity with the enemy's women as a method of disempowering them... making them less threatening. This has been a common occurance throughout history when two populations meet and compete for land, resources etc. And I would say that this is the way that miscegenation mostly occured in the past. But you see, it has nothing to do with "attraction", it has to do with the struggle for power.That's an interesting point, and I agree that there seem to be significant differences in male/female miscegenating behaviour. But I'd consider none of them less natural than the other. When you say that "it's natural for men to want to bonk any and every woman they see" in a polemical fashion you still seem to use "natural" synonymously to "normal" or "acceptable" which I think is not what "natural" means. But as I noted we seem to disagree about the very concept of nature. I'd separate "natural" from (culturally) "normal" and keep descriptions of nature free of normative statements. Normativity only comes with the establishment of cultural/social rules (inside a Sprachspiel so to speak).


So you say that because modern men are often sexually attracted to racially different women and can physically breed with them that miscegenation is "natural"... but I say that despite men being able to feel sexually turned on by women of varying races (not emotionally, mentally and spiritually attracted to), it is unnatural for men to form intimate bonds with them and to breed with them under normal conditions... this will only really occur in instances of desperation and power struggles (war, invasion)... in which case it has little or nothing to do with the women bringing about sexual arousal in the men, and everything to do with the men seeking to dominate and attack. So men being sexually attracted to differing races is really quite irrelevant.Not so sure, depends on how you define "normal conditions" in the case of mankind. On the one hand I fail to imagine a normal condition of man in the sense of "natural" that would not be in accord even with our modern (admittingly decadent) society. On the other hand it's not even clear that your statement would be true of more "primitive" (less complex) societies. I'm not an expert on this but I'd suppose that anthropological data would rather show that miscegenation among human(o)id populations of the past was quite common (i.e. in your sense [?] natural). There is even an ongoing discussion about whether there are some Neanderthal genes present in some of us (which would be a case of prehistoric inter-species miscegenation).


It doesn't matter "how" they are established... the fact is that they can be observed, so they exist. There is a natural order, and observance of it is imperitive to maintaining homeostatic balance in an organism, family and community group.Petitio principii. :) This is a complicated epistemological question of course. But it seems clear that some kind of induction from empirical data is involved in postulating "principles of nature". So their "existence" is derivative from a certain interpretation of evidence.


That's right, even animals can get ill. Doesn't make it "natural" in my book. ;) Illness not natural? :-O What else? Is it induced by demons? You're not a secret adherent of the Aborigine "dream time" religion are you? ;)


Not at all. Arguably natural laws and systems have evolved to allow lifeforms to thrive under "natural" conditions (and these will necessarily be ancient conditions, since evolution is a long and slow process - therefore it could not have possibly caught up with modern standards/environments of living just yet). Certain safe-guards or protective mechanisms have evolved to provide optimum chances of these natural systems to function as they were designed to. This can be observed on a cellular level right through to a global level.I think this view of natural conditions and adaptedness is too static. If you see evolution as an ongoing process of successive adaptions, it's hardly plausible to postulate 'eternally' stable ideal (another non-synonym of "natural) conditions for a given (sub-)species.


When these protective mechanisms fail, we see a deviation of nature... a bit like we have "physiology" and "pathophysiology" - we have "natural" and "unnatural".But 'patho-physiology' is part of medicine, not biology. Medicine is a normative science (or rather art) in that it judges biological phenomena according to the value-terms "healthy" and "sick" and under the premiss of preserving or reestablishing health.


^ This is the arrogance of man speaking.... we are a part of nature whether we like it or not, and in that way are at it's mercy.... we can never be it's master. To think that we can, would deluding yourself.This claim of "arrogance" is in itself arrogant, since it presupposes a knowledge about nature as a whole as well as our nature we don't really have.

From a sceptical point of view we must suspend our judgement about any suche "divine" or "necessary" restrictions of ourselves. We can only judge our potential by actively exploring its possibilities (theoretically, not by practising miscegenation).


The fact that some males are attracted to racially foreign women is as I've already suggested a perversion resulting from our sick modern societies. It would be "unnatural" to purposefully, selectively interbreed people from varying racial groups... unnatural in the sense that it would be a perversion of natural human behaviour.Again, petitio principii. It's a unnatural because it's a perversion and it's a perversion because it's unnatural ... Inconclusive.


It can observed. For example, we know that humans who are totally isolated from human contact for long periods suffer mental illness ---> so humans are "wired for" social interaction---> therefore, it is "natural" for humans to socially interact.Blaming it on nature or on the way we are "wired" (are we?) is not an observation but a (possible) explanation. But (1) there are counterexamples to this, e.g. hermites living in seclusion without getting (overly) crazy. (2) Even if we consider social isolation as unnatural for humans, is it valid to put it on one level with miscegenation?

Btw why are you putting natural into " "-marks sometimes? Seems that you're not convinced that your use of the term "natural" is more than metaphorical.


It shouldn't "restrict our reasoning and imagination", no... but we would be wise to observe and respect natural laws, allowing them to guide us. Humans are feeble and inadequate compared to the forces that have formed the universe as we know it.... and we are ignorant of the universe's secrets... reasons for existance etc....Jesus, now it's getting really problematic. I think we shouldn't miscegenate, however not because of following some mysterious "natural law", but by following our own reason. I think we can learn more about this topic from cultural than from natural history. Of course, a naturalistic concept (the concept of race) is at the core of the issue, but in the case of miscegenation it's not to be used in a naturalstic but in a cultural context.


Not so successful at the moment. ;) "Success" in this area came with the industrial revolution. However, whether it was actually "success" as in "desirable" at this time or not is debatable... one could just as easily perceive it as negative, rampant, out-of-control population growth because natural safety nets (such as the death of sickly or abnormal infants) were taken away... a situation that led to neglect and exploitation of "excess" and unwanted children.It's natural enough to not contradict the prospect of survival of the species. Again: Is there more to the notion of something being natural in the evolutionary sense?


I disagree. Stats concerning IMR's and life expectancies are deceiving... long and plentiful lives don't necessarily mean healthy lives. I think as a whole we in the 1st world are mentally and physically weaker and less resilient than at any other time in human history.Agreed, but this is, again, a cultural, not a biological/naturalistic question. To put it bluntly: Nature doesn't care whether the lives of individual members of a species are "healthy" as long as the species as a whole survives and evolves in accordance with a changing environment and in co-evolution with other species.


Happier, more content people. I want child abuse to become a thing of the past (rather than being on the rise as it is in modern times), I want suicide rates of youth to be considerably lower, I want depression rates to be vastly lower, I want mental illness to become a rarity (as it should be).... I want people who are thriving, not just surviving.Me, too - absolutely! But not for naturalistic reasons. :)


Fight against it? I would rather fight with it. ;) Everything we need to thrive and improve ourselves is already within us... we just have to sort out the rubbish from the gold. Ok, the metaphor of a "fight" against our (presumably deficient) nature was a bit too strong perhaps, but I think we should really work towards improving it rather than being nostalgic about some imagined bio-mythological past. You can only want to go "back to nature" as long as you're civilized. The romantic affirmation of naturalness is in itself a cultural phenomenon, and any "status naturalis" is an abstraction that can never transcend the conceptual bounds of our present state of civilization. So even when we imagine ourselves as going back to nature, we're still unable to leave our civilization. So the logical thing to do would be to use the tools given to us by our civilization to improve this civilization along with our 'nature', the latter by guiding our evolution as a species (or subspecies) into a direction that is favorable for the health, intellectual and physical potential of future generations and for the social cohesion of the political structures they will live in. The alternative would be a pointless anthropological romanticism.


You think it's normal and desirable for social cohesion for a negro child to be raised by and surrounded by say, a European family/community?? :-O If that were the case, then white parents would naturally bear negro kids on occasion. But they don't.I said the exact opposite (and clearly enough, I think). But that it's "unnormal" in the sense of being undesirable still doesn't mean that it's unnatural (cf. Agrippa's posting).


What I meant was that we can't change human nature... we can't change who we are, we can only make the best of it. It would be wise to work with nature and not against it. Ultimately, we are not, and should not be, in control. Natural laws should be observed and respected. As you already said, we humans are a part of nature, so to respect nature is to respect ourselves.i strongly disagree. Humans have virtually bred themselves since the beginning of their existence as a species. Today's human races and subraces are - just as much as the species as a whole - the result of some substantial change going on in human nature. Our nature/biological structure is basically not static but dynamic and involved in an ongoing evolutionary process.
Based on this assumption my thesis would be that if we don't take this evolution into our own hands once again, like ancient cultures e.g. did instinctively or by following a certain tradition (Suut mentioned the Law of Manu which is an excellent example), we'd leave our biological future to mere chance and probably miss the chance of giving future generations a better, more harmonious life as further evolved human beings (not as fantastic 'superhumans' but simply as healthier, more complete, more coherent individuals living in functioning, complex societies).

Moody
Tuesday, November 21st, 2006, 04:39 PM
I say that miscege-nation is un-natural based on my understanding of what natural means; i.e., 'natruel', as referring to the world of nature as opposed to the world of mankind [leading to the contrast between 'nature' and 'nurture'].

Therefore I say that human miscegenation is unnatural in a state of nature, it being the result of human culture and civilisation which latter are unnatural.

Once placed in the unnatural realm of civilisation, man began to practice unnatural things, such as race-mixing et al.,

Therefore, various taboos against miscegenation had to be brought-in to prevent man from becoming completely unnatural and perverse.

Rules against race-mixing are natural because they seek to turn man back to his natural state - his state of nature as a Blond Beast.

Agrippa
Tuesday, November 21st, 2006, 09:41 PM
women "can" just leave their offspring too you know... and it does happen

Infanticids were used for birth control and Eugenic measures in many cultures, probably in most of the more distant past, because especially hunter and gatherers as well as herders had, if not having the chance to really expand into wealthy areas or taking other groups ressources away, not too much options for having too much children without losing living standard and survival rates. So they could, even had to select from the beginning, from birth - whereas farmers more often used every child they could get for working on the fields which produced food and ressources on its own.

Women and clans used infanticid and abandonment, this is proven. However, even if a women abandoned her newborn or tried to abort the pregnancy, they still had a high investment and risk!


I think it's natural for men to form emotional attachments with their offspring and unnatural for them to just disregard them with such ease as you've suggested. Have you ever seen the face of a father holding his newborn baby?? Men form unbreakable bonds with their children too that bound them to caring for them for life.

Thats true if they like the woman and the child, if they dont like the woman or disregarded her and/or the child doesnt look like they wanted, they were more likely to abandon it. That was selection in fact and is one reason why Eurasians being higher evolved. Women which acted too risky and sexually promiscuitive, which lacked traits men sought for, had a great problem with getting a male helping her and the potential offspring through the winter in particular. In the tropics a "single mother" could simply search for food, gather something probably, so a male could have more women for which he hadnt care as much. In Eurasia a woman was accepted and supported by the group and male - fully - or not, if not chances for successful reproduction were much lower than in other regions.


One can't easily replace a "high level" male so easily. I could argue that it is really only the high level females AND MALES that form the base of the group, in which case neither are expendable.

Thats true, but one high level male can "take over free females" so that there is no loss of numbers nor general quality, just of (higher level) variation which is not good neither, but not as bad, especially if the dead male had relatives too.


Did you use that "poor lonely immigrant" example to rib me about my Singaporean ex-boyfriend!

I thought about it afterwards honestly, but in fact, thats a major factor for more sensitive-schizothymic females caring for immigrants, getting in contact with them first and finally forming sexual relationships quite often (!). "Helping nurse" syndrome one might call it. Together with the socio-cultural tendencies in our societies it explains a lot, especially if speaking about Negroids being on a low level FOR THEIR RACIAL STANDARD EVEN which gained access to medium to high level Europid women, WHICH HAS TO be explained actually.

Because if speaking about "an ebonic god" one could argue in one way, but if looking at the average Negroids in my city and the females they have, they are clearly not better IN ANY WAY than the Europid males those girls could have access too. So they have the choice and still take lower level Negroids for very specific reasons...


Seriously, I know what you mean about physical traits being more important to men, but I think you underestimate women's discriminatory powers when it comes to mate selection... just wealth, status and prestige aren't enough unless the woman is nothing but an unscrupulous gold-digger. Even then... it takes more than just money and power to love someone and want to form a lasting relationship with them. Just like for males it takes more than just a good looking woman for him to want to commit to her and have her bear his children.

Actually women go more for status and personality than wealth me thinks, at least the majority and if its about long term relationships, compare:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2006/11/being-rich-and-attractive-lowers-mens.html
Being rich can be a minus even in certain settings at least!


I disagree there. It can't be the natural way of things for men to just feel the urge to impregnate as many women as possible without being able to provide and care for their offspring. You miss the point that men are naturally the providers and protectors.... it is in the best interests of the group's survival for men to "stick around" and care for the children. Children would have a much smaller chance of survival with only a mother to care for them. So for men, reproduction is a long-term investment also.

Yes, thats true for their alpha and beta women, but not for "the rest" they dont care as much. The rest is just "gambling", which explains lose relationships of males. If the woman gets pregnant, a woman with which they had no close relationship with, she can get a child from him and not from another (foreign) male (competition), and if she gets the child through, he won, if not, he didnt lost neither.
For the female if acting normal the opposite is true, she must oppose too lose relationships, especially if being materially not that well off, and try to bond the male to her. For the male thats only interesting once he began to invest, because then its about securing that his woman dont cheats him and his children survive, so that his investment will not be lost. Thats why a lot of women feel comfortable if a man shows "the readiness to invest" even if its just "a bad show" and all people around her tell her that, and feel uncomfortable if being not sure about this "readiness to bond and provide", f.e. if the man is too dry and not that sociable, emotional towards her etc., even if the environment might tell her he is a rational man who will care for her...its the facade she looks at and from which she tries to gets cues from.

I think sociobiological perspectives explain a lot of human stupidities.


Are you suggesting that women are less likely to feel distraught, or at least concerned, at the thought of her people being invaded??? You are wrong there I think. If anything, women have more to lose and so are more passionate about the protection of the group.

Its a fight of harmony vs. defence, both leading to a more passive and tolerant stance on that. Females can survive an invasion much more easily than males too. There were cases of conquerors killing all males from the baby to the old, but letting all young and fertile women survive. Males defend the group primarily, thats for sure.

Again I might repeat something very simple: There are natural, biological and physical rules, but there is no clear distinction between natural and unnatural in general and in humans even less so. We should primarily focus on whats biologically rational and useful for the majority of individuals, the various collective levels (group) and finally species.

"Natural" is easy to define for a species which was being formed for a specific habitat and being totally controlled by its instincts and drives, but even then mutations and evolutionary change can occur, can change whats "normal in a natural way" for a species. One could take such a lower developed animal out of its context and it will still act more or less the same.
For mammals, even more so primates, especially chimpanzees to give an example, things are more complicated with individuals having a specific ontogenesis, phases of social learning and imitation, cultural practises etc. So the "natural aspects" being always connected with cultural strategies to deal with the natural challenges - the value of a behaviour, be it genetically or environmentally determined, can be evaluated by judging whether it helps a bloodline and population and finally species to survive and develop on or not.


I say that miscege-nation is un-natural based on my understanding of what natural means; i.e., 'natruel', as referring to the world of nature as opposed to the world of mankind [leading to the contrast between 'nature' and 'nurture'].

If there is a predisposition for a given behaviour, like language, but if the input, the stimulus doesnt come in a certain age, the ability to learn a complex language being lost, what is it then? Nature or nurture? Actually we can't draw a clear line that easily in many cases, especially if its about humans, because humans can't exist without their social and cultural environment giving them certain stimuli - they can't develop in any normal or "natural" way without.


Therefore I say that human miscegenation is unnatural in a state of nature, it being the result of human culture and civilisation which latter are unnatural.

Thats definitely false. Civilisation, trade, traffic and overpopulation made miscegenation just more likely in some cases, but it didnt "invented" it. Mixture happened before. Actually I think its quite funny that some people which consider the possibility that Neandertals mixed with Homo sapiens and the offspring survived to this day can even think about miscegenation being "unnatural". Because every Negroid of today is closer to an Europid than classic Neandertals, with the mixture with those being close to bestiality if it took place.


Once placed in the unnatural realm of civilisation, man began to practice unnatural things, such as race-mixing et al.,

Thats very wrong. Actually humans did a lot of stupid things which were not biologically rational latest since they developed the higher consciousness which defines modern humans - its the result of our instinctive insecurity, just compare with the comments and links in my first post in this thread. Primitive societies long before civilisation had often strong tendencies towards spiritual degeneration and useless rules and actions.

On instinctive insecurity and cultural deviations I wrote in other threads:
"Human instinctive insecurity":
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=44382

Great thread on cultural degenerations in primitive societies:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=46038



Therefore, various taboos against miscegenation had to be brought-in to prevent man from becoming completely unnatural and perverse.

Thats a cultural category, whats crucial is: Biologically rational and useful.

That matters, everything "unnatural or perverse" in a cultural sense should be, if its biologically rational, negative for the survival of the individuals, group and species. If some people say "racism is perverted" ,thats as meaningless as speaking about miscegenation being "unnatural", because that means to use biological categories in a cultural way.

The cultural perspective on a behaviour or practise can be very degenerated, the most reliable and important evaluation being again the biological rationality which we can argue about, try to prove, try to explain, but again WE finally decide, the human group X, whats allowed and whats not, whats in "a moral sense 'natural' or perverted".

Miscegenation is biologically irrational in a certain context, but not in general like I tried to explain above.


Rules against race-mixing are natural because they seek to turn man back to his natural state - his state of nature as a Blond Beast.

They are natural because they help the dominant group to secure its existence, survival and dominance on the longer run. If looking at certain rules against different kinds of "mixture", many were again culturally degenerated. Just think about social categories being not allowed to procreate in a given society, even if "the lower" being biologically very valuable, but the relation of a degenerated foreign individual of "high social standard" with the best of the own group being allowed.

So again, this can be helpful and biologically rational for a given people, group and whole mankind, but it depends. Everything can degenerate and "natural" is the wrong term if meaning "useful".

Pro-Alpine
Tuesday, November 21st, 2006, 09:52 PM
If it is done intentionally then It's also unethical.

Hoarsewhisper
Tuesday, November 21st, 2006, 10:55 PM
The Universe is perfect.
Imperfection is a part of the perfection.

All is perfect, nothing is perfect.

What does "perfect" mean anyway?

Nothing in nature is "perfect", there are soars and bends everywhere?

Look at the woods. Perfect chaotic, seems to be no order or symmetry. But nature is perfect, that is our measure, nature is not perfect, that is perfect.

Sometimes I see crippled handicaps, limitless more "perfect" than surfacial "perfect", walking pieces of meat.

But of course there are exeptions, Roosevelt was probably crippled and corrupted both external and internal.

But rarely, I see something as beautiful, as "cripples",victorious over their own handicaps. Victory is beautiful. And specially victory after strive against high odds.

Such are more perfect than " normals", not able to rise themselves above the expected patterns for their standards.

Bridie
Wednesday, November 22nd, 2006, 03:38 PM
Well Bridie, now I see that our disagreement reaches right down to the philosophical fundamentals, since we seem to have completely different epistemologies, cosmologies and concepts of nature.
I think so too. :)



As I said, I don't see how our modern environment is unnatural for us. It's unusual compared to environments humans had lived in before, but I think it makes definite sense to call human, like Agrippa did, a "cultural and self-domesticated species". The latter is especially important, since it contains the notion that the question of our genetic development has always been a cultural matter and not merely biological/"natural". So the "laws" of human nature, if you like to use this term, are in part written by ourselves and have always been, since humans have always lived in more or less complex cultures/civilizations that also contained rules for appropriate or inappropriate ("natural"/"unnatural") forms of mating.
Our modern environments are unnatural for humans because they have been constructed via disregarding, exploiting and perverting natural human instincts, natural human needs and behaviours. Multiculturalism and widespread family breakdown, for example, are products of such exploitation and perversion.... they are not in accordance with human nature. Human culture, when it is an expression of true human nature and sustains healthy, well-functioning human populations as a result, is natural enough.

Human genetic development is not solely or even mostly a cultural matter imo. Mating may be in part be controlled by cultural norms, but what are cultural norms controlled by? Well in a natural environment cultural norms within a population will be a healthy expression of human nature, and will necessarily cater to human needs. But whatever the case, cultural norms and rules of socially acceptable behaviour may help to shape genotypical combinations within a population to a degree... but random genetic mutations which allow natural selection to result in evolution is out of the hands of humans. They occur due to environmental stressors, natural or otherwise.



When you say that "it's natural for men to want to bonk any and every woman they see" in a polemical fashion you still seem to use "natural" synonymously to "normal" or "acceptable" which I think is not what "natural" means.I didn't state that it's natural for men to want to bonk any woman they see no matter how repulsive ;) , I don't think it is (natural, or even normal). I posed a question : "maybe it's natural for men to want to bonk any and every woman they see - no matter how repulsive or threatening they find them even sometimes???" in an attempt to get feedback from the guys... for male opinions. It occurred to me for a moment that perhaps when I write of people feeling a natural aversion to mating with those who are foreign to them I may only be speaking about females really, and I was essentially trying to encourage blokes to confirm or deny whether the indisciminate sexual behaviour of modern males is natural instinct, or a perversion of natural instinct.



you still seem to use "natural" synonymously to "normal" or "acceptable" which I think is not what "natural" means.I've never used the word "natural" synonymously with "normal" or "acceptable". In my opinion, even unnatural things can be normal. Using the multiculturalism example again; racial/cultural diversity is "normal" in many countries of the world now... but I don't believe it to be a natural situation for humanity.



Not so sure, depends on how you define "normal conditions" in the case of mankind. I meant "in times of peace" there. Not in times of invasion or war.



I'm not an expert on this but I'd suppose that anthropological data would rather show that miscegenation among human(o)id populations of the past was quite common Yes, I'd hazard a guess that it was common in times of invasion and war. ;)



quite common (i.e. in your sense [?] natural).
No! :-O ;) I've argued against "natural" being the same as "common".


Petitio principii. :) This is a complicated epistemological question of course. But it seems clear that some kind of induction from empirical data is involved in postulating "principles of nature". So their "existence" is derivative from a certain interpretation of evidence.
Without interpretation, nothing would exist. I'm sure you're familiar with the philospohical process of "deconstruction" (it's one of Agrippa's favourites! :D ). I'm all in favour of using deconstruction to a certain degree as a discriminatory tool... but one can only go so far with it. ;) We have to trust something... why not what can be observed and measured??



Illness not natural? :-O What else? Is it induced by demons? You're not a secret adherent of the Aborigine "dream time" religion are you? ;)
Illness is a deviation of natural physiology. A failure of homeostatic mechanisms. This failure is common enough, but is still not what we were designed for. We could see it as the breakdown of our natural states.




Quote Bridie:
Not at all. Arguably natural laws and systems have evolved to allow lifeforms to thrive under "natural" conditions (and these will necessarily be ancient conditions, since evolution is a long and slow process - therefore it could not have possibly caught up with modern standards/environments of living just yet). Certain safe-guards or protective mechanisms have evolved to provide optimum chances of these natural systems to function as they were designed to. This can be observed on a cellular level right through to a global level.

Quote Perv:
I think this view of natural conditions and adaptedness is too static. If you see evolution as an ongoing process of successive adaptions, it's hardly plausible to postulate 'eternally' stable ideal (another non-synonym of "natural) conditions for a given (sub-)species.

As I said, evolution (if it really exists ;) ) is such a slow, gradual process that a highly dynamic definition of "natural conditions" would be inappropriate and invalid. In an anatomical/physiological sense, modern humans do not differ from the humans of say 3000 years ago.


But 'patho-physiology' is part of medicine, not biology. Medicine is a normative science (or rather art) in that it judges biological phenomena according to the value-terms "healthy" and "sick" and under the premiss of preserving or reestablishing health.
Wrong. Pathophysiology is not only part of biology, it is a category of biological science in it's own right.... just as anatomy and physiology are. Medicine incorporates many different areas of science from pharmacology - psychology, from anatomy and physiology to pathophysiology. And medical science entails the observation of human physiology and deviations of it via the breakdown or failure of homeostatic mechanisms. Patho = deviation of natural state. Illness is common, but still a perversion of natural states as they were designed to function. This can be readily observed.



From a sceptical point of view we must suspend our judgement about any suche "divine" or "necessary" restrictions of ourselves. We can only judge our potential by actively exploring its possibilities (theoretically, not by practising miscegenation).
But what if we stuff up in the process and wipe ourselves out? Or worse, what if we make the world a living hell with no way of returning to a more natural, healthy way of life?? Oops... too late. We've already done that. :-O ;)




Quote Bridie:
The fact that some males are attracted to racially foreign women is as I've already suggested a perversion resulting from our sick modern societies. It would be "unnatural" to purposefully, selectively interbreed people from varying racial groups... unnatural in the sense that it would be a perversion of natural human behaviour.

Again, petitio principii. It's a unnatural because it's a perversion and it's a perversion because it's unnatural ... Inconclusive.
No, you've misunderstood me. All I've said there is that males being attracted to foreign females is unnatural, and selectively interbreeding people from varying racial groups is unnatural too. They are both perversions of natural human reproductive behaviour.




Quote Bridie:
It can observed. For example, we know that humans who are totally isolated from human contact for long periods suffer mental illness ---> so humans are "wired for" social interaction---> therefore, it is "natural" for humans to socially interact.


Blaming it on nature or on the way we are "wired" (are we?) is not an observation but a (possible) explanation. But (1) there are counterexamples to this, e.g. hermites living in seclusion without getting (overly) crazy. (2) Even if we consider social isolation as unnatural for humans, is it valid to put it on one level with miscegenation?
I wasn't "blaming" anything. I was just saying that we can observe that humans are wired for social interaction by observing how they respond to long periods of social isolation. Yes, some conclusions would have to be drawn to make such observations useful or functional. It was only an example though to illustrate my point. The example itself isn't of any great importance here. I wasn't comparing social isolation being unnatural for humans with miscegenation.


Btw why are you putting natural into " "-marks sometimes? Seems that you're not convinced that your use of the term "natural" is more than metaphorical.
LOL No. Sometimes I use quotation marks for emphasis, and sometimes, as in the instance you're referring to, I use them to compare or relate terms in a paragraph or sentence. I rarely use them to indicate irony or metaphorical language.


I'll finish the rest tommorrow. :) I'm buggered now. :D

Siegfried
Wednesday, November 22nd, 2006, 03:53 PM
So an steroid speeding through space is not part of nature? Or do I have simply another concept of the word natural?

The asteroid is surely a part of nature, but I'm applying the following example used by Thorburn in analogy:


Such a mandate of nature could be your development from a baby to a teenager. It should happen; that's your natural purpose. Your destiny. To develop to an adult. If it doesn't occur because you have a car accident at the age of eight, then that's unfortunate, but it changes nothing about the fact that your development from a baby to a teenager is a mandate of nature; something that should happen (but not necessarily must in reality).

When the asteroid collides with the earth, as in your example, that is an unnatural occurance in the wide definition used in this thread, as the resulting destruction of the biosphere contravenes the mandate of nature.

Pervitinist
Wednesday, November 22nd, 2006, 07:40 PM
The asteroid is surely a part of nature, but I'm applying the following example used by Tryggvi in analogy:

When the asteroid collides with the earth, as in your example, that is an unnatural occurance in the wide definition used in this thread, as the resulting destruction of the biosphere contravenes the mandate of nature.

Hmmm maybe. But doesn't this prove that the concept of a "mandate of nature" is relative to our particular human (earth-dwelling) interests while nature 'her'self simply doesn't care about the preservation or destruction of our particular biosphere (including our species and our race)?

There are possibly zillions of other biospheres out there in the universe and billions that are inhabited by other intelligent species. Perhaps one of them would be destroyed if the very asteroid that threatens to destroy ours misses its target and continues its course through the galaxy until it hits another inhabited planet.

This would create a dilemma: If the asteroid hits our planet, it violates the mandate of nature relative to our biosphere. If it hits the other planet, it violates the mandate of nature relative to their biosphere.
Similarly, when all humans would have left earth and moved e.g. to Mars, this would clearly change our attribution of the mandate of nature. We wouldn't care anymore about the destruction of the earth biosphere but rather about the survival of our settlements on Mars.

I thin this shows that there is no absolute mandate of nature.
From a purely naturalistic point of view, every event in the universe can be attributed with an infinite number of alternative and in some cases conflicting 'mandates of nature'. When we claim that there is something like a natural purpose e.g. in the preservation of a certain race of homo sapiens sapiens, we can only do so by considering nature and her purposes relative to the perspective of this particular race. Such a racial perspectivism is neither self-contradictory nor incompatible with a broader view of nature, but it clearly goes beyond a mere naturalistic description of evolutionary processes.

That's why I'd still say that there is no reason to deny miscegenation the status of being natural. It simply depends on the perspective.

From the viewpoint of an essentially mongrel population, nothing would be more natural than miscegenation. When we choose not to accept miscegenation as a cultural practice, this choice is based on a conscious affirmation of our particular perspective and racial identity rather than on an objective knowledge of the laws or principles of nature.

So I think we can only reasonably justify our opposition to miscegenation if we argue from a non-naturalistic basis and admit the perspectivity of our position as racially aware Europids.

SuuT
Wednesday, November 22nd, 2006, 08:47 PM
"Man is the moral animal" (Aristotle).

"There are no moral phenomena at all; only moral interpretation of phenomena" (Nietzsche).

"Nothing leads to good that is not natural" (Friedrich Schiller).

"The wish to acquire more is admittedly a very natural and common thing; and when men succeed in this they are always praised rather than condemned. But when they lack the ability to do so and yet want to acquire more at all costs, they deserve condemnation for their mistakes" (Niccolo Machiavelli).



"Reason is the natural order of truth; but imagination is the organ of meaning" (C. S. Lewis).


"Man is the measure of all things" (Protagoras).



The theme I'm trying to get at here is that without the capacity to separate ourselves from the human condition, i.e propreoperception (the awareness of ourselves in space and time), consciousness and cognizance, existential angst, anthropomorphous suppositions and presuppositions that have proven indispensable to the human condition, we are barred from being able to justify ourselves in assertions of what is not natural on a macroscopic level. Thore Hund has a great point: the perfection of imperfection. - it is a well-rounded view.


However, Man, due to the very things that bar him from justifiable absolutes, can will forth a macrocosm of perspective that suits his needs; moreover, calling out in defiance of his condition: "I will - therefore I am."


I'll tell you that the bottom line of this analysis is this, and it is no other: it is against our will to miscegenate, be the aversion Natural, or no.


We proceed from that.

Bridie
Thursday, November 23rd, 2006, 05:49 AM
Jesus, now it's getting really problematic. I think we shouldn't miscegenate, however not because of following some mysterious "natural law", but by following our own reason. I think we can learn more about this topic from cultural than from natural history. Of course, a naturalistic concept (the concept of race) is at the core of the issue, but in the case of miscegenation it's not to be used in a naturalstic but in a cultural context.
Well I wasn't really talking about some kind of natural law that exists outside of ourselves that would require concerted effort and analysis to abide... I was talking about relying on the natural laws that are a part of us... that govern us on a healthy level to guide us in our choices. Not so much following reason, as intellect and intuition. Anything can seem "reasonable", even harmful, or unintelligent things. ;) (I always find it strange that so many men around these boards love to sing the praises of "rationality" when "rationality" can be just as harmful as it can be virtuous. For anything can be rationalised... even paedophilia, rape and murder.)

The main problem that I have with merely following reason without taking into account the true nature of natural homeostatic balance within in humans (physical and psychological) is what I've already stated.... anything can be deemed "reasonable"... what is considered "reasonable" by the majority and what's not, is too dynamic, unreliable and unstable.

We may deem miscegenation unreasonable now (many would not)... but what about the next generation? Or the generation after that?

The only thing that remains trustworthy and constant is the law of nature (or laws).



It's natural enough to not contradict the prospect of survival of the species.Yet we (in the developed world) do it now. Still think that our modern world culture is natural?? ;)



Agreed, but this is, again, a cultural, not a biological/naturalistic question. To put it bluntly: Nature doesn't care whether the lives of individual members of a species are "healthy" as long as the species as a whole survives and evolves in accordance with a changing environment and in co-evolution with other species.
I disagree. Nature does naturally cater to the holistic well-being of animals (and humans), and "cares" little for en masse survival... it is human interference with natural processes and the perversion of human needs/behaviour (poor govt) that has led to the modern phenomenon of people living long, but physically and mentally feeble lives. So consumed is modern man with prolonging life for all, (not only the young and healthy, but the old, disabled, deformed, retarded, ill etc too) that we now have the situation of the "low level" humans outbreeding the "high level"... as well as more suffering and weakness in our species.

In the natural world the strongest and fittest survive, (and the numbers of these individuals were relatively low).... not massive numbers of weak and unfit as we see in our unnatural cultural environments today.

So mere survival of the species at any cost isn't a natural phenomenon. Nature only wants the species to survive if it's strong and resilient enough.



Ok, the metaphor of a "fight" against our (presumably deficient) nature was a bit too strong perhaps, but I think we should really work towards improving it rather than being nostalgic about some imagined bio-mythological past.I've never presumed that our natures are deficient... you have. You say that we need to use reason to over-come and control human nature, I disagree. I believe that everything we need to thrive is already within us... but all that we need within ourselves is currently being perverted in our unnatural modern cultures and lifestyles.

I don't think we need to be "improved", as I said before, we just need to sort out the gold from the rubbish within us. To me, if you say we need "improving" it implies that we need to become more than we are now... that we're not good enough the way we are... but I don't think that's right... we're already great, we're just perverted and need to get back on course.



The romantic affirmation of naturalness is in itself a cultural phenomenon, and any "status naturalis" is an abstraction that can never transcend the conceptual bounds of our present state of civilization. So even when we imagine ourselves as going back to nature, we're still unable to leave our civilization. So the logical thing to do would be to use the tools given to us by our civilization to improve this civilization along with our 'nature',We're not disagreeing here.... you just misunderstand me I think. I've never advocated going back a natural, primitive way of life. I just think that looking at human nature/needs is the best way to guide us forward. Looking at primitive environments can give us clues as to our nature.




Quote Bridie:
You think it's normal and desirable for social cohesion for a negro child to be raised by and surrounded by say, a European family/community?? :-O If that were the case, then white parents would naturally bear negro kids on occasion. But they don't.
Quote Perv:
I said the exact opposite (and clearly enough, I think). But that it's "unnormal" in the sense of being undesirable still doesn't mean that it's unnatural (cf. Agrippa's posting).

Not clearly enough... this is what you said :

Quote:
It's normal, yes. And it's desirable for the cohesion of a society. But is it also natural? I don't think so.
If that's not "it's normal and desirable for social cohesion", I don't know what is! :D You're getting confused in your old age Perv! :P



Humans have virtually bred themselves since the beginning of their existence as a species. Today's human races and subraces are - just as much as the species as a whole - the result of some substantial change going on in human nature. Nope. You're underestimating the role of our greater external environment, including spontaneous genetic mutations, and the role that sub-conscious human nature and human instincts have played in the development of humanity.



Our nature/biological structure is basically not static but dynamic and involved in an ongoing evolutionary process.
I'm very skeptical about evolution to be honest. Human biology is dynamic to an extent for sure... life is never static... but to the extent that the term "evolution" would presuppose?? I don't think it's likely. But that really is a whole different discussion... one I've had before on Skadi. ;) :)



Based on this assumption my thesis would be that if we don't take this evolution into our own hands once again, like ancient cultures e.g. did instinctively or by following a certain tradition (Suut mentioned the Law of Manu which is an excellent example), we'd leave our biological future to mere chance and probably miss the chance of giving future generations a better, more harmonious life as further evolved human beings (not as fantastic 'superhumans' but simply as healthier, more complete, more coherent individuals living in functioning, complex societies).We wouldn't need to take it into our hands and control human reproduction if we lived in accordance and harmony with true human nature/needs.

As I said before.... everything we need to thrive is already within us.

Carl
Thursday, November 23rd, 2006, 10:05 AM
"Man is the moral animal" (Aristotle).

I'll tell you that the bottom line of this analysis is this, and it is no other: it is against our will to miscegenate, be the aversion Natural, or no.

We proceed from that.

If we are talking about our human nature then I am sure you are right. It is within our moral nature to willfully oppose miscegenation and the political circumstances which enable it. ( We would oppose all such unnatural mixing , that which is for us contra natura.). To be in possession of our will is to behave in a way that is natural to us. But that is because it is our will , it may not be the will of others! Unless our will is socially paramount, our will may not be realized about us!

I feel sure that Aristotle would have look cooly at nature and seen such things were not only naturally possible - but actual!

Bridie
Thursday, November 23rd, 2006, 02:08 PM
Finally I get around to responding to Agrippa's post. :)



Infanticids were used for birth control and Eugenic measures in many cultures, probably in most of the more distant past, because especially hunter and gatherers as well as herders had, if not having the chance to really expand into wealthy areas or taking other groups ressources away, not too much options for having too much children without losing living standard and survival rates. So they could, even had to select from the beginning, from birth - whereas farmers more often used every child they could get for working on the fields which produced food and ressources on its own.

Women and clans used infanticid and abandonment, this is proven. However, even if a women abandoned her newborn or tried to abort the pregnancy, they still had a high investment and risk!
I wasn't actually talking about infanticide though. And I was referring to mothers abandoning their children in more modern times, although I'm sure it's always happened throughout history for one reason or another (albeit infrequently as today). Mothers can leave their offspring just as fathers can... although both scenarios are totally immoral and irresponsible in my opinion. Why even one of my good friends was abandoned by her mother at the age of 18 months, and was left to be reared by her father (and eventually step-mother).

However I'm sure child abandonment by mothers must be a much more difficult, painful, and dysfunctional situation, and far less frequently occurring at any time in history, than men abandoning their children. So I acknowledge that women of the past (before effective birth control) invested more in sexual relationships. Not so relevant nowadays though.



Thats true if they like the woman and the child, if they dont like the woman or disregarded her and/or the child doesnt look like they wanted, they were more likely to abandon it.
This is something I still have problems with grasping.... what are men doing having sex with women they don't "like" in the first place?? Men just don't discriminate? Punch a hole in a couch and they'd probably stick their dick in it. :lol

And what do you mean "if the child doesn't look like they wanted" they'd abandon it?? So they'd leave the mother too just because she gave birth to an ugly baby?? That ugly baby being his own flesh and blood?? I honestly don't think you grasp the significance of fatherhood Agrippa... the emotions for new fathers attached to bringing a new little person into the world. I just don't think that this is true that men have always found it so easy to disregard or abandon their babies.




That was selection in fact and is one reason why Eurasians being higher evolved. Women which acted too risky and sexually promiscuitive, which lacked traits men sought for, had a great problem with getting a male helping her and the potential offspring through the winter in particular. In the tropics a "single mother" could simply search for food, gather something probably, so a male could have more women for which he hadnt care as much. In Eurasia a woman was accepted and supported by the group and male - fully - or not, if not chances for successful reproduction were much lower than in other regions.
For that to be correct one would have to prove that women who behave in a promiscuous fashion or engage in risky behaviour produce inferior children. Doesn't make sense... promiscuity or lack of is a socio-cultural issue, has nothing to do with inferior or superior genes.




Thats true, but one high level male can "take over free females" so that there is no loss of numbers nor general quality, just of (higher level) variation which is not good neither, but not as bad, especially if the dead male had relatives too.
One high level male couldn't effectively care, provide for and protect 3 females and all of their children unless he was extremely wealthy and didn't have to work or go away hunting for extended periods. Essentially to do an adequate job he'd have to be a privileged leader of some sort... in which case, he wouldn't be so expendable anyway.

If too many males in a group had to partner with several women, the level of paternal care would decrease for the children... and there would be less material goods to go around for everyone in the group, as too many men would need to have a larger share of the resources to provide for their huge families. Could you imagine the weakness of a small tribe with too few men and too many women and children to provide for and protect?




I thought about it afterwards honestly, but in fact, thats a major factor for more sensitive-schizothymic females caring for immigrants, getting in contact with them first and finally forming sexual relationships quite often (!). "Helping nurse" syndrome one might call it. Together with the socio-cultural tendencies in our societies it explains a lot, especially if speaking about Negroids being on a low level FOR THEIR RACIAL STANDARD EVEN which gained access to medium to high level Europid women, WHICH HAS TO be explained actually.
You could be right there. But why would sensitive-schizothymic females be more prone to the "helping nurse syndrome"? I think most women do this. Well, those with strong maternal instincts anyway.



Because if speaking about "an ebonic god" one could argue in one way, but if looking at the average Negroids in my city and the females they have, they are clearly not better IN ANY WAY than the Europid males those girls could have access too. So they have the choice and still take lower level Negroids for very specific reasons...:( I'm sorry to hear that. (And quite thankful at this point in time that we really don't have too many negroes at all in Australia. I never see any.) What an appalling state of affairs.





Actually women go more for status and personality than wealth me thinks, at least the majority and if its about long term relationships, compare:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2006/11/being-rich-and-attractive-lowers-mens.html
Being rich can be a minus even in certain settings at least!

Quote from link :

Empirical evidence concerning human mate-choice preferences suggests that females should select partners on the basis of cues to genetic quality and/or ability to contribute resources to childcare.So men seeking to be polygynists would be out of luck then. ;)

Paradoxically, while high levels of both factors should be an attractive combination to females, they might also dissuade females from entering into a relationship with such males since, by definition, they are likely to be highly attractive to other females, and therefore might increase the likelihood that such a male may cheat or desert the relationship. If so, females should be wary of entering into long-term relationships with physically attractive, high status males as compared with males of lower physical attractiveness or status. We asked females to rate a number of different males in terms of attractiveness as a long-term partner. Females were presented with attractive, average and unattractive male faces paired with lonely-hearts advertisements implying high, medium or low socio-economic status. Highest ratings were consistently given to attractive males of medium status rather than high status. We suggest that females see physically attractive, high status males as being more likely to pursue a mating strategy rather than parenting strategy. Under particular circumstances, high socio-economic status in males can be subtly counter-productive in terms of attractiveness as a long-term partner.
What does it tell you though if men of high socio-economic status are more attractive to other women therefore making them less desirable to those for those looking for a long-term relationship?? That being rich is in fact a highly desirable trait.(!) And so many women wouldn't be after rich men if it weren't for wanting a rich man to have a long-term relationship with... not too many women are out there seeking men just to have flings with unless they've got intimacy/past relationship issues (ie, comparatively, not that many). Most women seek men that would be a good long-term bet.

I just don't buy this proposal I'm afraid. I think it's wishful thinking on behalf of some blokes. ;) :D I would say that if women are shown to seek men of poorer socio-economic status it has more to do with self-esteem issues of the women... their own thoughts that they aren't good enough to aim too high.

One must keep in mind with such studies too, that the chosen group of women surveyed may be biased or not entirely too well representative of all women.



Yes, thats true for their alpha and beta women, but not for "the rest" they dont care as much. The rest is just "gambling", which explains lose relationships of males. If the woman gets pregnant, a woman with which they had no close relationship with, she can get a child from him and not from another (foreign) male (competition), and if she gets the child through, he won, if not, he didnt lost neither. Sounds very primitive and animalistic. :|




For the female if acting normal the opposite is true, she must oppose too lose relationships, especially if being materially not that well off, and try to bond the male to her. For the male thats only interesting once he began to invest, because then its about securing that his woman dont cheats him and his children survive, so that his investment will not be lost. Thats why a lot of women feel comfortable if a man shows "the readiness to invest" even if its just "a bad show" and all people around her tell her that, and feel uncomfortable if being not sure about this "readiness to bond and provide", f.e. if the man is too dry and not that sociable, emotional towards her etc., even if the environment might tell her he is a rational man who will care for her...its the facade she looks at and from which she tries to gets cues from.
:) All makes sense Agrippa... but women want their men to be emotionally engaging for more complex reasons than merely feeling secure in the relationship. Just having a rational man who will provide for her and protect her isn't enough for the vast majority of women, I feel confident in saying... and it has little to do with anxiety about potential abandonment.

On the same token, would having a pretty woman who is faithful be enough for most men? I'm afraid there's so much more to it than that...




I think sociobiological perspectives explain a lot of human stupidities.
You mean that you think women are stupid for wanting men to be emotionally intimate and romantic? :-O




Its a fight of harmony vs. defence, both leading to a more passive and tolerant stance on that. Females can survive an invasion much more easily than males too. There were cases of conquerors killing all males from the baby to the old, but letting all young and fertile women survive.
It depends on what you consider "surviving"... I'll bet that the vast majority of women would rather die than be taken as a sex slave to be raped, abused and abhorred by their enemy. I don't call being taken prisoner by the enemy surviving really. I still stand by what I said... women have more to lose if successfully invaded and conquered by outsiders. They are more vulnerable.



Again I might repeat something very simple: There are natural, biological and physical rules, but there is no clear distinction between natural and unnatural in general and in humans even less so.
I still disagree.




"Natural" is easy to define for a species which was being formed for a specific habitat and being totally controlled by its instincts and drives, but even then mutations and evolutionary change can occur, can change whats "normal in a natural way" for a species. One could take such a lower developed animal out of its context and it will still act more or less the same.
For mammals, even more so primates, especially chimpanzees to give an example, things are more complicated with individuals having a specific ontogenesis, phases of social learning and imitation, cultural practises etc. So the "natural aspects" being always connected with cultural strategies to deal with the natural challenges - the value of a behaviour, be it genetically or environmentally determined, can be evaluated by judging whether it helps a bloodline and population and finally species to survive and develop on or not.
Exactly... and modern leaders in the developed world have come to the conclusion that the promotion and acceptance miscegenation is a necessary strategy for modern survival in the current socio-cultural-political environment. So miscegenation and multiculturalism has been promoted as "natural" and people have bought it, even though it goes against their natural instincts.

It's not natural behaviour for humans to desire to form emotional connections and sexual relationships with those who are foreign and strange to themselves.

The problem is that cultural differences between racially variable populations are being eroded, so people are more likely to see racially different people as "the same as themselves", and therefore more likely to entertain the idea of an intimate relationship. This is further encouraged by the media and the global economy.

Moody
Thursday, November 23rd, 2006, 03:09 PM
If there is a predisposition for a given behaviour, like language, but if the input, the stimulus doesnt come in a certain age, the ability to learn a complex language being lost, what is it then? Nature or nurture?

Language is the beginning of Signification.
It is therefore not natural, but unnatural.


Actually we can't draw a clear line that easily in many cases, especially if its about humans, because humans can't exist without their social and cultural environment giving them certain stimuli - they can't develop in any normal or "natural" way without.

That is the line; human as we know it and experience it is unnatural.
The human prior to humanisation is not 'human' [although we recognise him as an ancestor] and therefore natural.


Civilisation, trade, traffic and overpopulation made miscegenation just more likely in some cases, but it didnt "invent" it. Mixture happened before.

Misce-genation literally means the mixing of one or more (unspecified) human races; there were no human races prior to the humanisation.


Actually I think its quite funny that some people which consider the possibility that Neandertals mixed with Homo sapiens and the offspring survived to this day can even think about miscegenation being "unnatural". Because every Negroid of today is closer to an Europid than classic Neandertals, with the mixture with those being close to bestiality if it took place.

These are all retrospective and reconstructed late humanoid concepts of possible ancestors amongst humans - they are not prior to the human, the natural Blond Beast which is prior to Signification, and who is thereby not lighted by the beacon of human meaning.


Actually humans did a lot of stupid things which were not biologically rational latest since they developed the higher consciousness which defines modern humans - its the result of our instinctive insecurity. Primitive societies long before civilisation had often strong tendencies towards spiritual degeneration and useless rules and actions.

Yes - I said culture and civilisation; primitive cultures are still human and posterior to Signification.
In all these cases you are speaking of the human, which is unnnatural.

My contention is that the natural 'man' [and this term 'man' is anachronistic, as such a being did not consider itself a 'man'] - the Blonde Beast - was a race apart and only able to breed amongst itself.

It was a unique Beast prior to Signification and therefore prior to hominids and other self-classifications.

[u]Any beast which classifies itself is necessarily unnatural.

Therefore all race-mixing has occurred only during the unnatural phase of human existence.
The Blond Beast would/could not race mix.

Ergo, miscegenation is unnatural.

Aryanism [rejection of race-mixture] is possibly a distant avatism of Blond Beastism.

Agrippa
Thursday, November 23rd, 2006, 11:03 PM
However I'm sure child abandonment by mothers must be a much more difficult, painful, and dysfunctional situation, and far less frequently occurring at any time in history, than men abandoning their children. So I acknowledge that women of the past (before effective birth control) invested more in sexual relationships. Not so relevant nowadays though.

Which is one of the major reasons why it goes downwards with the West. However, women were bred to think that way, so they still think different on such matters than males, for exactly those reasons.


This is something I still have problems with grasping.... what are men doing having sex with women they don't "like" in the first place??

Competition with other males and chances for getting more offspring are some of the main reasons why males being more indiferent about sexuality usually.


And what do you mean "if the child doesn't look like they wanted" they'd abandon it?? So they'd leave the mother too just because she gave birth to an ugly baby?? That ugly baby being his own flesh and blood?? I honestly don't think you grasp the significance of fatherhood Agrippa... the emotions for new fathers attached to bringing a new little person into the world. I just don't think that this is true that men have always found it so easy to disregard or abandon their babies.

The father was proud if he respected and wanted the mother of his child as his mate, and he was proud of a healthy child with good traits of his own blood. Substitute one of this elements, and he as well as his clan will not look friendly at the mother and her child. Thats just biologically rational of course. Just imagine her giving birth to a cripple who will just use up ressources and die soon afterwards, the shame for the clan and the people for being "punished by god" or the child dont looking like the father, looking like the chief of the foreign, hostile clan. Why upraising a "cuckoo-child" of the enemy? So there were typical reactions quite often...


For that to be correct one would have to prove that women who behave in a promiscuous fashion or engage in risky behaviour produce inferior children. Doesn't make sense... promiscuity or lack of is a socio-cultural issue, has nothing to do with inferior or superior genes.

There is, however, a genetic component. And, a woman which behaved that way acted more risky for herself and the group, cheated the males who trusted in her, so a clan having just women of that kind would be more prone to raise foreign children, having more conflicts between males, more diseases being spread in the group, less successful rates for upraising, males investing less in the children etc. All this would be things seriously weakening the group and its competitiveness in comparison to a group with women which were trustworthy and faithful.

So there was a double selection: Cultural and genetic. Patriarchal societies with faithful women were the winners.


One high level male couldn't effectively care, provide for and protect 3 females and all of their children unless he was extremely wealthy and didn't have to work or go away hunting for extended periods. Essentially to do an adequate job he'd have to be a privileged leader of some sort... in which case, he wouldn't be so expendable anyway.

Well, you/we confused different times. I spoke about the time of hunter-gatherers and the Ice Age, seasons etc., but the later would be more true for the time of more intensive group selection for refined versatile forms, at this time we talk about pastoralists and mixed economy agriculturalists mostly, hunting and gathering being still important, but secondary after all. At this times, from Neolithics on, we had larger groups of people, milder climate and the ability of females to care for limited times at least for the families on their own.


If too many males in a group had to partner with several women, the level of paternal care would decrease for the children... and there would be less material goods to go around for everyone in the group, as too many men would need to have a larger share of the resources to provide for their huge families. Could you imagine the weakness of a small tribe with too few men and too many women and children to provide for and protect?

Just in one generation. Thats the point. Its about expansion. Just imagine the victorious herder group overtaking large herds, a lot of females and subjugated peasantry. At that point they could upraise a full generation of future herder warriors at the expense of those they defeated. This was the positive group selection of the Neolithic times. Those who couldnt defend their own group, females, ressources and area were eliminated or their numbers reduced - not just by direct war and killings, but also by being pushed away from the most fertile and best grounds, losing a lot of their capacity for further reproduction. For the herders: Well, there would have been a limitation of children to the actual capacity most of the time and if one group was too large, it was again time to try to gain something...this went on and on for centuries, so the best of mankind was bred. Hard selection both by nature and because of human competition, for performance and not just numbers and saving.


You could be right there. But why would sensitive-schizothymic females be more prone to the "helping nurse syndrome"? I think most women do this. Well, those with strong maternal instincts anyway.

Because they interpret things - they dont just feel, but being influenced by their images of reality and ideals. So if they follow a "caring and tolerant ideal" in which "black refugees are poor victims who need help and understanding", they might perceive things very different. Their corrupted Idealism leads them into that, not just emotions of the moment like in other females...


So men seeking to be polygynists would be out of luck then.

To give an example: Would you prefer to own or share a Ferrari (every week 2 days)? Of course you would prefer to own it. But what to say if its about sharing a Ferrari or owning a moped?

So there is a basic rule: Women prefer a male of which they think they dont have to share it if its about competing males of otherwise the same level. However, if having to chose between attractive and valuable polygynist vs. unattractive and valueless monogynist, things get more complicated.

Furthermore its about rules vs. individual cases too. F.e. a rich male might be more trustworthy than a middle class one. A male being unattractive on a picture might be interesting in real life for a variety of reasons to the same woman who would have rejected him if her decision would have been based on an image alone etc.


What does it tell you though if men of high socio-economic status are more attractive to other women therefore making them less desirable to those for those looking for a long-term relationship?? That being rich is in fact a highly desirable trait.(!) And so many women wouldn't be after rich men if it weren't for wanting a rich man to have a long-term relationship with... not too many women are out there seeking men just to have flings with unless they've got intimacy/past relationship issues (ie, comparatively, not that many). Most women seek men that would be a good long-term bet.

Its all about risk. Similar things happen with males: A very attractive and stylish girl was once compared with the same girl running around rather ordinary, being "dressed down" actually. Well, more males approached her the second time, because they felt it was "their level" and "chances being higher" - furthermore they might have subconsciouly feared too much competition and the risk of her going to cheat them in the future etc. Actually thats somewhat irrational, especially the last part, but on the other hand, after thousands of years of selection, it makes sense ON AVERAGE.


I just don't buy this proposal I'm afraid. I think it's wishful thinking on behalf of some blokes. ;) :D I would say that if women are shown to seek men of poorer socio-economic status it has more to do with self-esteem issues of the women... their own thoughts that they aren't good enough to aim too high.

Right. But which woman is good enough for a highest class male looking very good and being at the same time very rich and well mannered? She might feel he loves her and its ok, but of course, she will know, especially if not having the same level, that he could have other, even better women all the time.


One must keep in mind with such studies too, that the chosen group of women surveyed may be biased or not entirely too well representative of all women.

Thats CERTAINLY true.


All makes sense Agrippa... but women want their men to be emotionally engaging for more complex reasons than merely feeling secure in the relationship. Just having a rational man who will provide for her and protect her isn't enough for the vast majority of women, I feel confident in saying... and it has little to do with anxiety about potential abandonment.

Yes, they look for many things. But why are they doing so? Exactly, because women were bred for doing anything to prevent them being left alone when they are pregnant. Its not even normal for all species to live together after sex, for humans however, sexuality is also there to keep the partners together, at least for a certain time. Its all about reproduction and forming a social unity which is strong enough to raise children. Women feel the way they do because this way of feelings the average women has was advantageous in the evolutionary past.


On the same token, would having a pretty woman who is faithful be enough for most men? I'm afraid there's so much more to it than that...

Same thing...well, of course there is more about this, namely wanting the partner being effective in competition too and having valuable traits for the possible offspring. Just compare how intelligent women often look for intelligent men, not just because of status, but to not breeding down as well I'd say...


You mean that you think women are stupid for wanting men to be emotionally intimate and romantic?

Only if they miss the point. Thats like doing a "rain dance" or praying for rain without even knowing what this dance or prayer is about...

Some behaviours which were successful in the evolutionary past are now, or sometimes even were in the past, rather suboptimal, they were "just good enough for survival". Nowadays many of those behaviours being no longer as valuable and can be actually harmful for the individual and group. Just think about "sweet food tasting good". Well, that was fine if eating sweet fruits which were good food, but not if "having the same good taste and feeling" through harmful substances and a lot of sugar. The preference for sweet fruits was important for survival, it would be still good if there would be just fruits and honey which is sweet, but thats no longer the case, therefore this preference can have very negative consequences.

Same goes for certain feelings, including those in partnerships in a modern society...


It depends on what you consider "surviving"... I'll bet that the vast majority of women would rather die than be taken as a sex slave to be raped, abused and abhorred by their enemy. I don't call being taken prisoner by the enemy surviving really. I still stand by what I said... women have more to lose if successfully invaded and conquered by outsiders. They are more vulnerable.

Well, like all humans of today are descendents of "murderers", people who killed other humans this or that way, a lot of female lines might be descendents of females which survived exactly the way you described it. But I agree, it depends on the exact personality and situation. "Sex slave" is a modern word, the reality of those time would have looked different finally, sooner or later those women might have been integrated in the "new group" they now belonged to, and latest when they got their first children a lot of them might have felt connected with the group...

@Moody:
Interesting perspective. But to consider all of modern mankind being "unnatural" goes a way too far and if there was never a time of natural humans avoiding miscenegation IN GENERAL, we must consider it being naturel per definition.
There are natural tendencies which act in favour and against miscegenation, it depends on the exact situation which tendency prevails, and this situation being usually, not only but primarily, determined by cultural trends which can both reduce or increase the aversion to race mixture.

On a general side note I might add that if going after my personal perceptions, there is a decrease or increase of "natural" (sexual, instinctive) aversion against sexual contacts with foreign races depending on general similarity and relatedness. F.e. the aversion being definitely strongest if talking about groups of people which deviate extremely and in a negative way from European standards like the Bambutids (African Pygmies). Those people are also by racial specialisation, original geographic-climatic and genetic distance under those being furthest away from Europeans. That any European can prefer such individuals before European ones seem to be indeed "unnatural".

There was a "breeding of distance" too probably, even inside of the Europid racial spectrum, which resulted in groups trying to differentiate each other. Thats even more true in a situation of group selection in which there is a direct competition of two groups of racially and culturally different people. Partner selection in Europeans leads constantly to a preference of partners which share certain facial details f.e. Such "Homogamic marriages" might be also more successful even.

Bridie
Friday, November 24th, 2006, 04:48 AM
Which is one of the major reasons why it goes downwards with the West. However, women were bred to think that way, so they still think different on such matters than males, for exactly those reasons.
I agree with you that women not taking as much responsibility for their own sexuality in modern times is a harmful and destructive situation. (And this is currently happening the world over... not just in "the West".) However, I think that it's also harmful and destructive for men not to equally take responsibility for their sexuality and be discriminating to the point that they will only seek to have sex with women which they would be happy to commit to and care for the offspring. It doesn't make sense that men would be "designed" to be sexually promiscuous. It's not a good situation for all of the men, no matter how unintelligent, brutish, insensitive, and irrational, to go around trying to impregnate as many women as possible. Not good for breeding high level offspring, and not good for the protection and provision of the women and children. Not good for social stability. Particularly when you consider that in more ancient times men obtaining sex via rape would have been more common, (not that it's uncommon these days) so potentially you would have a situation where low level males (arguably more likely to partake in rape) would be impregnating high level females fairly regularly.

Obviously the ideal situation for the good of the population would be for men to be as discriminating and emotionally invested in sexual relationships as women naturally are.

And I think men actually do invest more in sexual relationships than popular stereotyping would have us believe.



The father was proud if he respected and wanted the mother of his child as his mate, and he was proud of a healthy child with good traits of his own blood. Substitute one of this elements, and he as well as his clan will not look friendly at the mother and her child. Thats just biologically rational of course. Just imagine her giving birth to a cripple who will just use up ressources and die soon afterwards, the shame for the clan and the people for being "punished by god" or the child dont looking like the father, looking like the chief of the foreign, hostile clan. Why upraising a "cuckoo-child" of the enemy? So there were typical reactions quite often...
Well it's not too rational to think that disabled babies are born due to the gods wanting to punish the population! :D :P I know what you're getting at though. ;)

However, it still doesn't make sense that the father would abandon the mother in these sorts of incidences, (except in the situation of it becoming obvious that the baby's biological father is indeed another man! :-O In which case, caring for the mother and baby would be the other man's responsibility.) I would have thought that the most rational and healthy decision would be to either allow the disabled/malformed infant to die, or dare I say it... practice infanticide.



There is, however, a genetic component.
I sincerely doubt that Agrippa. I'm not even going to ask you for proof, as I know there is not any. You seem to categorise promiscuous and non-promiscuous women almost as if they were opposite creatures. As if promiscuous behaviour is fixed or a congenital fate. For one... some females, just like males, can go through promiscuous periods throughout their lives, and then become highly discriminating or even celebate at other times due to personal development. Two... Some women may be promiscuous due to past experiences... I have read studies which show that girls who are sexually abused in childhood are far more likely to become promiscuous adults (largely due to issues of poor self-esteem/self-hatred and an inability to differentiate between love and sex). I still maintain that promiscuity of both males and females in a population is indicative of social dysfunction, and is therefore a social-cultural issue... nothing to do with genetic make-up.

So I think that your original idea that men are designed to be promiscuous partly in order to separate the "good women" from the "bad women" (the "bad women" being abandoned and their offspring less likely to survive) is FALSE.




And, a woman which behaved that way acted more risky for herself and the group, cheated the males who trusted in her, so a clan having just women of that kind would be more prone to raise foreign children, having more conflicts between males, more diseases being spread in the group, less successful rates for upraising, males investing less in the children etc. All this would be things seriously weakening the group and its competitiveness in comparison to a group with women which were trustworthy and faithful.

Yes, I agree that it would weaken the group considerably to have many sexually irresponsible females among their numbers... but the same goes for sexually irresponsible males too. Promiscuous males are a liability... spreading disease, contributing to family breakdown, the more brutish ones being inclined to rape innocent women and children, low level ones spreading about their undesirable traits, children not being provided and cared for as they should be, conflicts between the women of the group, etc etc.




Quote Bridie:
One high level male couldn't effectively care, provide for and protect 3 females and all of their children unless he was extremely wealthy and didn't have to work or go away hunting for extended periods. Essentially to do an adequate job he'd have to be a privileged leader of some sort... in which case, he wouldn't be so expendable anyway.
Quote Agrippa:
Well, you/we confused different times. I spoke about the time of hunter-gatherers and the Ice Age, seasons etc., but the later would be more true for the time of more intensive group selection for refined versatile forms, at this time we talk about pastoralists and mixed economy agriculturalists mostly, hunting and gathering being still important, but secondary after all. At this times, from Neolithics on, we had larger groups of people, milder climate and the ability of females to care for limited times at least for the families on their own.
I honestly think it applies on a simple level to any time throughout human history. Resources are resources and we need them to survive. If one man can't provide enough for all of his children it is a disadvantage. Mothers who are caring for young, dependant children, or are pregnant, are not capable of going out to acquire necessary resources no matter how mild the weather is. Mothers are dependant on their male partners. And fathers do have the responsibility to help raise the children too. Kids need paternal input. Could you imagine a father with 15 sons having to teach all of them how to socialise (be "men"), hunt, fish, farm or whatever. A man with 15 sons to 3 or 4 different women would be disadvantaging his kids and his women.


I'll finish the rest later. :)

Moody
Friday, November 24th, 2006, 02:17 PM
A biological or philosophical question?
... and that's a philosophical, meta-biological question.
In our minds, nature is only established by our grasp of its concept or notion.

Obviously I am trying to approach the philosophical question established in the first post of the thread above.

We can see from the above statements that Thorburn intended to open up a philosophical aspect.

However, it needs not just philosophical 'aspects', but rather a philosophical grounding - a Floor as well as a Field.

There is, in this philosophical approach, a much deeper and primordial question to be asked as to our understandings of 'natural' (nasci from PIE *gene-), 'races' (-genation, from PIE *gen-) and 'mixture' (misce-, from PIE *meik-).

These are not givens in the way that those starting from a scientific viewpoint might assume.

Only when these philosophical questions are faced can a floored [rather than flawed] position on the so-called 'naturalness/unnaturalness of race-mixing' be entertained.


But to consider all of modern mankind being "unnatural" goes a way too far and if there was never a time of natural humans avoiding miscenegation IN GENERAL, we must consider it being naturel per definition.

The understanding of the human as anti-natural is operative here as the question is framed as one of the natural or counter-natural.

'Natural' is properly contrasted with the 'human', which can be defined as being "of the world of nature (especially as opposed to man)" [this is from an early usage of around 1300;http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=natural&searchmode=none.

Therefore, by this philosophical reading, the natural is always opposed to man: and if man - as you claim - has "never" avoided "misegenation", then miscegenation is unnatural too.

If that can be upheld, then we might posit a type of 'man' prior to humanisation and its coeval unnaturalness.

Now, because 'miscegenation' implies the existence of more than one race, which races are able to interbreed [and are therefore 'sub-races', strictly speaking], we might say that the coexistence, and therefore the social and sexual intercourse of such subraces, is the beginning of humanisation.

We might then be able to say further that a type of man, prior to humanisation and a singularity [i.e., not split into subraces, nor in any kind of spatial or temporal proximity to any other such races even if they existed], would be both natural and [B]unmixed [not suffering subracialism in the first instance].

So we see that the type of man I am driving towards [which I call the 'Blond Beast'] is a Natural and Unmixed creature.

Now such Beings are perhaps dimly remembered by our ancient humanised and unnatural ancestors in their mythologies.

And let's not forget, that those mythologies are far more philosophical than is any science or sociology.

The Golden Age, the Atlantis of the philosopher Plato, the Realms of the Gods etc., all point to the possibility of this Pure and Natural existence.

Whether or not we want to believe in the latter, it still holds that man, as an unnatural creature is driven towards race-mixing in his increasing propensity towards anti-nature - even you admit that.

If this is so, and that an increase in anti-nature = an increase in misegenation, then why cannot the reverse be true? [I invite you all to reverse the formulation].

If we establish a revaluation of human values then are we not left with the antithesis, i.e., that of a Pure Unmixed & Natural Beast?

Agrippa
Friday, November 24th, 2006, 02:49 PM
I agree with you that women not taking as much responsibility for their own sexuality in modern times is a harmful and destructive situation. (And this is currently happening the world over... not just in "the West".) However, I think that it's also harmful and destructive for men not to equally take responsibility for their sexuality and be discriminating to the point that they will only seek to have sex with women which they would be happy to commit to and care for the offspring. It doesn't make sense that men would be "designed" to be sexually promiscuous. It's not a good situation for all of the men, no matter how unintelligent, brutish, insensitive, and irrational, to go around trying to impregnate as many women as possible. Not good for breeding high level offspring, and not good for the protection and provision of the women and children. Not good for social stability. Particularly when you consider that in more ancient times men obtaining sex via rape would have been more common, (not that it's uncommon these days) so potentially you would have a situation where low level males (arguably more likely to partake in rape) would be impregnating high level females fairly regularly.

No, they wouldnt. You know what a dominant clan would have made with males who did? Thats the point, the respect males had and have for high level females living chastely and being protected by powerful relatives. So the women would have a sense of honour and trying to control their sexual activities very consequently to not "losing face" nor coming in an unfavourable situation without care and protection from a male's clan. Once that level being reached, males simply dont have the chance to rape a woman unless its time for a greater war and the win. They can't impregnate women like they want, nor can women do what they want, because there are socio-cultural rules which limit both male and female standard behaviour of the majority. Just think about the "ask my father if you want to marry me". If he wouldnt, his whole clan could be shunned and hunted to death by a dominant clan. Again, thats how positive selection worked, if only those were able to protect and dominate which had good traits, being group oriented and effective.


Obviously the ideal situation for the good of the population would be for men to be as discriminating and emotionally invested in sexual relationships as women naturally are.

They did, if it was about the valuable high level women they strived for and the children were their's for sure and healthy.


And I think men actually do invest more in sexual relationships than popular stereotyping would have us believe.

Sure they do, once they reached a certain point.


However, it still doesn't make sense that the father would abandon the mother in these sorts of incidences, (except in the situation of it becoming obvious that the baby's biological father is indeed another man! :-O In which case, caring for the mother and baby would be the other man's responsibility.) I would have thought that the most rational and healthy decision would be to either allow the disabled/malformed infant to die, or dare I say it... practice infanticide.

Yes, you are right, that was the most common practise. Patria potestas and the women often led the child in front of the father and his clan, if they took it up, it was accepted, if not it had to be abandoned.

The idea of early infanticide being a serious crime was mainly introduced by Christianity:

Legal sanctions against infanticide were introduced in the fourth century as Christianity infused secular laws. The Roman emperor Constantine, a Christian convert, proclaimed the slaying of a child by the child's father to be a crime. Infanticide was punishable by the death penalty by the end of the fourth century. Around the same time, the Christian emperor Valentinian declared that it was illegal for parents to fail to provide for their offspring. Thus, by the Middle Ages, infanticide was no longer condoned by either church or state in Europe. However, as a result of hard times and a high illegitimacy rate, infanticide was the most common crime in Western Europe from the Middle Ages to the end of the eighteenth century.

http://www.deathreference.com/Ho-Ka/Infanticide.html

Compare with:
http://forums.skadi.net/european_core_banana_and_hajnal_line-t40331.html

The "European marriage pattern" being also a rather later result of Christian and specific late occidental cultural influences.


I sincerely doubt that Agrippa. I'm not even going to ask you for proof, as I know there is not any. You seem to categorise promiscuous and non-promiscuous women almost as if they were opposite creatures. As if promiscuous behaviour is fixed or a congenital fate. For one... some females, just like males, can go through promiscuous periods throughout their lives, and then become highly discriminating or even celebate at other times due to personal development. Two... Some women may be promiscuous due to past experiences... I have read studies which show that girls who are sexually abused in childhood are far more likely to become promiscuous adults (largely due to issues of poor self-esteem/self-hatred and an inability to differentiate between love and sex). I still maintain that promiscuity of both males and females in a population is indicative of social dysfunction, and is therefore a social-cultural issue... nothing to do with genetic make-up.

So I think that your original idea that men are designed to be promiscuous partly in order to separate the "good women" from the "bad women" (the "bad women" being abandoned and their offspring less likely to survive) is FALSE.

Well, there are cultural and genetic factors, certain women's personalities simply tend to act more promicuous rather than others. There are strong cultural influences of course, which explains why some people can change fast. But others dont.
I would compare it with people having bisexual experience only in our current environment, which wouldnt have done the same some decades ago, while others couldnt act in any other than a homosexual way.


Yes, I agree that it would weaken the group considerably to have many sexually irresponsible females among their numbers... but the same goes for sexually irresponsible males too. Promiscuous males are a liability... spreading disease, contributing to family breakdown, the more brutish ones being inclined to rape innocent women and children, low level ones spreading about their undesirable traits, children not being provided and cared for as they should be, conflicts between the women of the group, etc etc.

Depends on the context, compare with above. If they act really like sexualised and brutish animals, I agree, if they just try to spread genes and power in certain situations, not really.


Mothers are dependant on their male partners. And fathers do have the responsibility to help raise the children too. Kids need paternal input. Could you imagine a father with 15 sons having to teach all of them how to socialise (be "men"), hunt, fish, farm or whatever. A man with 15 sons to 3 or 4 different women would be disadvantaging his kids and his women.

Well, what you forgot is the kin and social unity! Such a dominant male would have half-adult sons already, probably brothers, for sure cousins and comrades. His sons would not be upraised neither by him or his wife(s) alone, but the whole group too, growing together with other males of the clan, learning together what a young herder and warrior had to learn etc. 15 sons would be very extreme though, thats something mainly a great chief or even king could achieve if at all, especially if just considering those which reached their 21st year of age at least...

Spjabork
Saturday, November 25th, 2006, 04:11 AM
@Moody Lawless & @Suut: what is the difference between humanization and hominization? The former labels a cultural, the latter a biological "process"? Is that your meaning? But is there any interdependence? Do they go the dame pace? I.e. would a being less hominized - on average - also be less humanized? ("Less" means just less, i.e. to a lower degree.)

And what are these two "processes" (or these two sides of one and the same process) triggered by?

And by which circumstances can they be inhibited or halted? Can they?

In 1828, the German literate Wolfgang Menzel wrote: "Yet Culture spreads everywhere. It can't be stopped."

We think, and say, that certain humans do seem to pause in their biological progress. It could be a mere matter of time.

The German playwright Heiner Müller said some twenty years ago, that - as he perceived it - the "development" goes into the direction of the "mating between man and machine". Therefore, the most advanced humans were those with the most advanced android technology.

I.e. the Japanese. They built the first android. And this year, the (South) Koreans built the second. The Holo-would jews recently made a film in which one einstein-style jew had created singlehandedly an artificial brain for an unmanned superfighter. But that was just film. The Japanese and Koreans really make androids.

Heiner Müller also said, every man who bears a cardiac pacemaker isn't 100% human anymore, but partly a machine. (Which sounds reasonable.) So, hominization now has become de-hominization.

Bridie
Saturday, November 25th, 2006, 02:42 PM
Quote:
If too many males in a group had to partner with several women, the level of paternal care would decrease for the children... and there would be less material goods to go around for everyone in the group, as too many men would need to have a larger share of the resources to provide for their huge families. Could you imagine the weakness of a small tribe with too few men and too many women and children to provide for and protect?


Just in one generation. Thats the point. Its about expansion. Just imagine the victorious herder group overtaking large herds, a lot of females and subjugated peasantry. At that point they could upraise a full generation of future herder warriors at the expense of those they defeated. This was the positive group selection of the Neolithic times. Those who couldnt defend their own group, females, ressources and area were eliminated or their numbers reduced - not just by direct war and killings, but also by being pushed away from the most fertile and best grounds, losing a lot of their capacity for further reproduction. For the herders: Well, there would have been a limitation of children to the actual capacity most of the time and if one group was too large, it was again time to try to gain something...this went on and on for centuries, so the best of mankind was bred. Hard selection both by nature and because of human competition, for performance and not just numbers and saving.
Are you suggesting that the victorious group who is obviously stronger and more intelligent should take wives from the weaker, less intelligent group?? I don't think you're being too clear here. Or are you saying that of the over-taken group, the men and women should be subjugated and the men (who's numbers were severely reduced in the battle/s) should take several wives in order to boost their numbers??

Either scenario is undesirable. The stronger group interbreeding with the weaker group's women would be down-breeding the stronger group, compromising their physical and mental advantage. Increasing the numbers of the weaker group would effectively increase their power and likelihood of over-throwing the victorious, dominant group.



To give an example: Would you prefer to own or share a Ferrari (every week 2 days)? Of course you would prefer to own it. But what to say if its about sharing a Ferrari or owning a moped?
Hmmm... let's see.... :chinrub ... would I prefer a used Ferrari that I have to share... one that has been around the block more times than I've had hot dinners... a car that leaves me feeling neglected, insecure and abandoned on a regular basis... one that I would always doubt really loves me and our little baby cars... and one that couldn't cater to my "driving" needs because it was too busy drving around other women (who incidently I would HATE for competing with me for MY CAR and making me feel like shit)... and a car that would ultimately erode away at my self-esteem, dreams and self-respect.... disempowering me and lowering my status... OR, would I prefer a nice, shiny new moped that would be devoted to me and our little half-mopeds... loving us and showering us with attention... making me feel secure and happy... knowing that any time virtually I wanted to drive it, it would be available... and would ultimately make me feel worthy, empowered, valuable and capable of respecting myself??

Well, that's a hard decision to make Agrippa... but I'll take the moped. ;) In fact, no, I'll take 2... or 3. :thumbsup

But at the end of the day, if I were repulsed by the moped and my only other option for a vehicle was a Ferrari that I knew I would have to share... I would choose not to buy a vehicle at all. The price would be too high for either of them...



So there is a basic rule: Women prefer a male of which they think they dont have to share it if its about competing males of otherwise the same level. However, if having to chose between attractive and valuable polygynist vs. unattractive and valueless monogynist, things get more complicated.
Flawed logic... a polygynist is not valuable... you may think he is, but I challenge you to find any intelligent, self-respecting woman who would agree with you.

If women choose lesser level males (less wealthy ones) due to fear of him screwing around and being unfaithful because he's more desirable to other women... what makes you think that women would choose a higher level male that she has to share, over a lower level male that she doesn't have to share???? I feel confident in saying that the VAST MAJORITY of women (all women except a few kinky perverts) would choose a less attractive, less wealthy, less intelligent male if it meant feeling secure, loved and respected.

And before you suggest it Agrippa, it has nothing to do with cultural context. ;)



Right. But which woman is good enough for a highest class male looking very good and being at the same time very rich and well mannered? She might feel he loves her and its ok, but of course, she will know, especially if not having the same level, that he could have other, even better women all the time.
The problem with that idea Agrippa is that even the highest level females may suffer low self-esteem and think themselves not good enough even for men who are inferior to them in many ways, and therefore end up going for the lowest level males (look at Heidi Klum!! :-O )... and the lowest level females may think themselves far better than they really are, ending up going after the highest level males...

Am I right in thinking that you assume only the highest level females will go for the highest level males?? I don't think they do.



Yes, they look for many things. But why are they doing so? Exactly, because women were bred for doing anything to prevent them being left alone when they are pregnant. Its not even normal for all species to live together after sex, for humans however, sexuality is also there to keep the partners together, at least for a certain time. Its all about reproduction and forming a social unity which is strong enough to raise children. Women feel the way they do because this way of feelings the average women has was advantageous in the evolutionary past.
Wow... well this is a big question.... I could write a book about it. But essentially, you're only seeing a small portion of the full story. There may even be an element of "the factors that are favourable for the survival of the species" being relevant to the to devolpment of women's emotional make-up... but to only focus on tangible biological forces would be a mistake.

Basically, for many women (going on myself and many close female friends I've had/have over the years) emotional connection in all relationships from friends to family to lovers is less about security and more about feeling inspired and alive and like life is worth living. Without emotional/intellectual relation and some level of understanding, life seems bleak and empty. There's no hope for evolving on a personal level without connection with others... how does one get a sense of context and relativity if never having input from others who truly understand them? And if there's no emotional connection, there's no understanding. How does one grow and learn new skills perspectives if never engaging with others on a profound level to look at life from fresh perspectives? Being stuck in one's own head without the freedom or encouragement to share and thus be grounded is destructive I know. It's so easy to get lost in the world of the mind... without meaningful communication, which essentially means "emotionally influenced", there will be no understanding of self, nor social context, nor others... there will be no healthy social cohesion, nor evolution... there will be nothing but oneself, and oneself will grow small and insignificant in the physical world.



Same thing...well, of course there is more about this, namely wanting the partner being effective in competition too and having valuable traits for the possible offspring. Just compare how intelligent women often look for intelligent men, not just because of status, but to not breeding down as well I'd say...
I was referring to personality compatibility and the ability of intimate relationships to make one feel whole, happy and good about oneself and life in general. ;)



Only if they miss the point. Thats like doing a "rain dance" or praying for rain without even knowing what this dance or prayer is about...
I don't think women ever miss the point on this count. The "rain dance" is symbolic, not to be literally interpreted, and every woman knows what it really means.

You're missing the point too... women NEED emotional connection... they don't just desire it because it makes them feel secure. If women demand or desire emotional relation to their significant other it's because without it their relationship is a dead end. "Nothing to be gained here".



The preference for sweet fruits was important for survival, it would be still good if there would be just fruits and honey which is sweet, but thats no longer the case, therefore this preference can have very negative consequences.

Same goes for certain feelings, including those in partnerships in a modern society...
I don't see how desiring emotional connection, and therefore love, can have negative consequences. If a guy can't give emotionally, then he needs to sort out his "fear of intimacy" issues.



"Sex slave" is a modern word, the reality of those time would have looked different finally, sooner or later those women might have been integrated in the "new group" they now belonged to, and latest when they got their first children a lot of them might have felt connected with the group...
I was going to write "slaves and sex slaves" but I thought it sounded strange... but women were oftentimes used as slaves in a general capacity too. And I doubt that too many of them would have felt particularly encouraged to count themselves as part of the enemy group who had killed their fathers, brothers, sons, friends and lovers and destroyed their lives and reduced their status in a most dehumanising way. As for women feeling connected to the group as a consequence of bearing a child most likely the result of rape... well, I doubt that too...



No, they wouldnt. You know what a dominant clan would have made with males who did? Thats the point, the respect males had and have for high level females living chastely and being protected by powerful relatives. So the women would have a sense of honour and trying to control their sexual activities very consequently to not "losing face" nor coming in an unfavourable situation without care and protection from a male's clan. Once that level being reached, males simply dont have the chance to rape a woman unless its time for a greater war and the win. They can't impregnate women like they want, nor can women do what they want, because there are socio-cultural rules which limit both male and female standard behaviour of the majority. Just think about the "ask my father if you want to marry me". If he wouldnt, his whole clan could be shunned and hunted to death by a dominant clan. Again, thats how positive selection worked, if only those were able to protect and dominate which had good traits, being group oriented and effective.
Well that's still far from a desirable system, nor is it acceptable! Sound too much to me like women having to take responsibility for men's own sexual behaviour. Women being subjugated, having to behave a certain way to appease society... men feeling privileged to take advantage of every situation they please and having the freedom to exploit, if given half the chance. Doesn't sound too noble or honourable. Doesn't even sound like a healthy situation. Men free to screw whoever they can get their hands on, women having to hide themselves away, always having to indirectly control men's sexuality because the men themselves are excused from having the capacity for controlling their own. Pathetic. It is this sort of thinking that used to see women (even young girls) blamed and held responsible if they were raped. Women and girls were shunned, dishonoured and their lives were basically screwed if they were sexually assaulted by some moron who couldn't keep it in his pants.

In ancient times even, if a high-status woman was perchance raped, it would not only be the rapist who would be punished... the victim herself would be too (and more harshly to boot).

Anyway, I think many men feel free to be promiscuous, sexually irresponsible and harmful to their sexual partners due to socio-cultural factors rather than biological ones. Namely, living in patriarchal societies where men are afforded too many privileges and not enough restrictions on destructive behaviour. Too many excuses are made for their lack of self-control and lack of intelligent decision making.

Male promiscuity is not any more natural than female promiscuity... it's a cultural phenomenon. And both male and female sluts are liabilities to social cohesion and individual well-being.




Quote:
Obviously the ideal situation for the good of the population would be for men to be as discriminating and emotionally invested in sexual relationships as women naturally are.

They did, if it was about the valuable high level women they strived for and the children were their's for sure and healthy.
So all the women who were judged as being of a "lower level" than a specific man were free to be treated like crap, abused and exploited by him? Whereas the "lower level" males would still hold a privileged position relative to the women of their own status? LOL What a joke!

Honestly, men who are promiscuous show themselves to lack psychic traits such as compassion, honourability, sensitivity, self-control, understanding of, or regard for, the significance of mental/emotional needs and health (therefore intelligence), consideration of consequences, strong principles and morals, rationality, self-respect and respect for others. All of these things make them low level males in my book... hardly ones I would count as valuable enough to be striving for higher level females.




Well, there are cultural and genetic factors, certain women's personalities simply tend to act more promicuous rather than others. There are strong cultural influences of course, which explains why some people can change fast. But others dont.
Well that applies to men too then. However, there is no proof that there are genetically determined characteristics involved. If it was ever proven, then obviously promiscuous men shouldn't be reproducing either (for the benefit of endeavouring to improve humanity).



Depends on the context, compare with above. If they act really like sexualised and brutish animals, I agree, if they just try to spread genes and power in certain situations, not really.Trying to spread about genes and dominate through sexuality isn't brutish?? Of course it is.

But in any case, apart from systematic ethnic cleansing, most of these conquering men that you like to see as virtuous and raping foreign women for the good of their people, didn't engage in sexual activity to purposely spread around their own people's genetic traits... they did it for the rush, for the fun of it and to get their rocks off. They did it because "they could".

Moody
Saturday, November 25th, 2006, 04:10 PM
what is the difference between humanization and hominization? The former labels a cultural, the latter a biological "process"? Is that your meaning? But is there any interdependence? Do they go the same pace? i.e. would a being less hominized - on average - also be less humanized? ("Less" means just less, i.e. to a lower degree.)

I would say that the "labels" human and hominid over-lap somewhat, and are just labels given by humans to themselves [as I said, the creature which labels itself is by dint of that fact 'unnatural'].

'Hominid' is meant to be slightly more primal than is 'human', according to the classifications devised by humans for humans, although both labels could be applied at various times and places in parallel.

The labels demonstrate the rise of labial Signification and Vocation [e.g., language, speech], more than they betoken any actual difference, deferance, between so-called 'hominids' and a so-called 'human beings'.


And what are these two "processes" (or these two sides of one and the same process) triggered by?

This assumes a causal and processional model of happenstance, when what it seems to be is just the result of humans inventing nominal classifications for themselves.

Just as another model has the myths speak of cycles of ages which revolve and repeat themselves across vast vestiges of time, each age having its own type of racial aspect.

Some singularly racially pure and natural, some multiple, mixed and unnatural.

In some cases, such ages - divided by catastrophe - have no 'biological' point of contact from one to the other, and so no possible causal "triggers" are possible on a biological level.


And by which circumstances can they be inhibited or halted? Can they?

Perhaps humans should stop living up to the classifications they invent for themselves - as they can be self-fulfilling prophecies.

Or, if they must live up to their self-imposed labels, they should invent ones which deserve to be lived up to.

I believe this was why Nietzsche wrote in his Zarathustra that man is a rope between ape and superman - a rope over an abyss.

The Blond Beast, Natural and Unmixed, was that Superhuman.
He should be lived-up-to today.

First point of emulation is to find misegenation human, all too human, and therefore wholly unnatural.

Human history shows the efficacy of self-fulfilling prophecy - indeed, perhaps that is what all history is.


In 1828, the German literate Wolfgang Menzel wrote: "Yet Culture spreads everywhere. It can't be stopped."

This is the idea, often mooted, that culture is a disease, a virus, an infection.

On that point, miscegenation is one of the symptoms of that disease.

The disease has rendered the body of the Blond Beast unnatural.

However, if culture is a disease then it can be stopped - or at least one can become immune to it.

There will be barbarous creatures who will be impervious to the infections of culture.
They will be Natural Creatures finding Race-Mixing not only unnatural but impossible to comprehend.


We think, and say, that certain humans do seem to pause in their biological progress. It could be a mere matter of time.

What do we mean by 'progress' here?
Is the European of today an example of 'progress' when compared to the European of 5,000 years ago?

How does one quantify "biological progress"?
Is increased miscegenation a feature of such biological progress?

Isn't there a problem in reducing Ex-istenz, or Das Sein to mere 'biology'?

If we do that then aren't we going to reduce ourselves too - and isn't this 'unnatural' in itself?


The German playwright Heiner Müller said some twenty years ago, that - as he perceived it - the "development" goes into the direction of the "mating between man and machine". Therefore, the most advanced humans were those with the most advanced android technology.

But isn't this just a gross form of miscegenation; the nightmare wrought by the technification of the world caused by those very reductionist, progressificist and humanist classifications we have been examining?


So, hominization now has become de-hominization.

I disagree; I believe it is just further progress down the road of anti-nature and so is very human.

Agrippa
Saturday, November 25th, 2006, 04:47 PM
Are you suggesting that the victorious group who is obviously stronger and more intelligent

Not always of course, they could be just more numerous, having one good leader and the rest is rather dumb, got weapons from a more advanced group which gives them an advantage in comparison to the neighboring tribe etc. So single cases might be "unfair" and lead to negative selection, but if dealing with a whole continent like Europe in which similar things happen everywere, the rule will be that the better racial types and clans will succeed in such a situation of group selection.


should take wives from the weaker, less intelligent group??

Depends on how many children they have with their main wives of their own group already, how many available ressources being present and whether they want to keep the subjugated group as a dependent work force alive. So again it depends on the situation, but as a rule, they shouldnt give the other group the chance to get too numerous and spreading their genes so to say.


Or are you saying that of the over-taken group, the men and women should be subjugated and the men (who's numbers were severely reduced in the battle/s) should take several wives in order to boost their numbers??

That happened, in Greece f.e. and Sparta in particular. Thats a very wrong strategy, but some used it, because they felt so superior, that they didnt cared for the subjugated peasantry and just tried to get more workers and auxiliaries for their armies. But thats already a later step on the way to states rather...


Either scenario is undesirable. The stronger group interbreeding with the weaker group's women would be down-breeding the stronger group, compromising their physical and mental advantage.

Its a question of ressources. If you dont have enough surplus, just enough for your main familly and clans, well, then its wrong. But dont forget, too much inbreeding isnt good neither and in such cases we speak often about rather related groups, so the distance being not too great between the winner and loser usually. Furthermore having more offspring, spreading genes faster, having "more heads" is always good. If the group selection is strong, those who "dont fit in" will be selected out later anyway. So if a group did really the wrong thing by mixing with a lower element, well, doesnt matter, another related higher level group will eliminate it. If it worked, good for the further spread of positive traits.

Usually most things always work for every group and individual, the same is true for most instincts and drives, human behavioural patterns, what really matters is the greater whole because "accidents and catastrophies" always happen...as long as it works in most cases, its a good strategy from a biological point of view. Remind you: Scientific rationality and knowledge for trying the presumably most effective strategy for every situation was no option at that time and still isnt for most humans in a way...


Increasing the numbers of the weaker group would effectively increase their power and likelihood of over-throwing the victorious, dominant group.

...by birthrates, yes, thats what happened in some "slave states" and feudal Europe too partly...


Hmmm... let's see.... :chinrub ... would I prefer a used Ferrari that I have to share... one that has been around the block more times than I've had hot dinners... a car that leaves me feeling neglected, insecure and abandoned on a regular basis... one that I would always doubt really loves me and our little baby cars... and one that couldn't cater to my "driving" needs because it was too busy drving around other women (who incidently I would HATE for competing with me for MY CAR and making me feel like shit)... and a car that would ultimately erode away at my self-esteem, dreams and self-respect.... disempowering me and lowering my status... OR, would I prefer a nice, shiny new moped that would be devoted to me and our little half-mopeds... loving us and showering us with attention... making me feel secure and happy... knowing that any time virtually I wanted to drive it, it would be available... and would ultimately make me feel worthy, empowered, valuable and capable of respecting myself??

Well, that's a hard decision to make Agrippa... but I'll take the moped. ;) In fact, no, I'll take 2... or 3. :thumbsup

Nice story :thumbup I thought about it too, I think its actually a difficult decision for a woman if having just those two options, if they had in the distant past an option at all, because like you might have recognised already, it was not just the woman's decision but also one of her clan.


I feel confident in saying that the VAST MAJORITY of women (all women except a few kinky perverts) would choose a less attractive, less wealthy, less intelligent male if it meant feeling secure, loved and respected.

I'm not sure about numbers, but thats definitely negative selection if it would be true. Especially if thinking about extreme examples, but of course, usually the women and clan could choose between more than just two extremes...


And before you suggest it Agrippa, it has nothing to do with cultural context.

I'm sure it has, because in an economically and technically less evolved society things would be very different. F.e. much more women would appreciate a second woman working in her mate's family.


The problem with that idea Agrippa is that even the highest level females may suffer low self-esteem and think themselves not good enough even for men who are inferior to them in many ways, and therefore end up going for the lowest level males (look at Heidi Klum!! :-O )... and the lowest level females may think themselves far better than they really are, ending up going after the highest level males...

But thats definitely a socio-cultural problem too, because such high level women live quite often after socio-cultural standards, they just want to be "appreciated, more on top and powerful", if this has to mean to be the 2nd wife of a monarch, they would usually agree.


Am I right in thinking that you assume only the highest level females will go for the highest level males?? I don't think they do.

Of course not. It depends on the social environment though. In a society in which everything is about the bloodline and success of the clan, about getting a valuable male and being honourable, those women will think very different from nowadays Western ones.


Wow... well this is a big question.... I could write a book about it. But essentially, you're only seeing a small portion of the full story. There may even be an element of "the factors that are favourable for the survival of the species" being relevant to the to devolpment of women's emotional make-up... but to only focus on tangible biological forces would be a mistake.

Well, genetically determined behavioural patterns and tendencies can be just the result of selection or non-detrimental changes by chance.


Basically, for many women (going on myself and many close female friends I've had/have over the years) emotional connection in all relationships from friends to family to lovers is less about security and more about feeling inspired and alive and like life is worth living. Without emotional/intellectual relation and some level of understanding, life seems bleak and empty. There's no hope for evolving on a personal level without connection with others...

Well, thats again the desire for a social environment. So you just prove what I said, that the majority of normal people searches for a secure position and social environment. In daily life those things being masked, can deviate and degenerate, or can be cultivated etc., but the real roots are still clear and visible. A lot of social interactions are just "grooming" like in primates, just on a higher level and with more people. Just imagine you would have to groom all people you meet every day, in a community with more than 120 individuals you would do nothing else the whole day and starve to death. Some primates get depressed and maladjusted if not having their "daily grooming", for humans its less extreme and superficial, but still, and especially for the average woman, we can see certain patterns.


There's no hope for evolving on a personal level without connection with others... how does one get a sense of context and relativity if never having input from others who truly understand them?

What does this understanding mean for a human psychologically? It means: I know how you are and feel, understand and appreciate you, am of a similar kind and will support you etc...everything which is not directly effective from a functional point of view, and in communications there is a lot of that, is just "grooming on a higher level"...


It's so easy to get lost in the world of the mind... without meaningful communication, which essentially means "emotionally influenced", there will be no understanding of self, nor social context, nor others... there will be no healthy social cohesion, nor evolution... there will be nothing but oneself, and oneself will grow small and insignificant in the physical world.

Thats because humans are a social and tribal species. If there would be no need for longer term partnerships and social structures, humans wouldnt feel that way, just having sex, the women gets a child, cares for it until its "ready for life" and then the child leaves her and things begin again...like in leopards or bears f.e. But since thats not the case and humans are a social species, they actually die, get made, or at least dont reproduce successfully without a wider social network, thats why they need and search for it and want to be appreciated.

Like Kevin MacDonald said:

This latest experience with the SPLC has improved my understanding of the dynamics of group control of individuals.
...

There have been times when I have had to endure vicious charges of anti-Semitism, for instance by Jacob Laksin (Cal State’s Professor of Anti-Semitism. Frontpagemag.com May 5 2006). But when discussion was confined to the impersonal world of the internet, it did not bother me. I would write a detailed reply and circulate it among the people who read me. I knew that people who support my writing would rally to my defense and say nice things about me and my reply to Laksin.

Naturally, I also knew that I would a get hate mail and maybe a couple of death threats. But that’s to be expected. And it’s all rather abstract, since I basically sit in solitude at my computer and read it all. It pretty much ends there. A part of me even sees some benefit in it because visits to my website are up and more people are buying my book.

But then came the SPLC and Heidi Beirich. Someone not connected to CSULB sent an email to the entire Psychology Department—except me—asking why they allowed an “anti-Semite” to teach there. The result was an uproar, with heated exchanges on the faculty email list, a departmental meeting on what to do about me and my work, and intense meetings of the departmental governing committee.

Cold shoulders, forced smiles and hostile stares became a reality. Going into my office to teach my classes and attend committee meetings became an ordeal.

I keep saying to myself: why is this so hard? At the conscious level I was perfectly confident that I could sit down with any of my colleagues and defend my ideas. I know rationally that a lot of the people giving me negative vibes are themselves members of ethnic minority groups—who like the present ethnic spoils system, such as affirmative action and ethnically-influenced foreign policy, just fine.

My theory: Ostracism and hostility from others in one’s face-to-face world trigger guilt feelings. These are automatic responses resulting ultimately from the importance of fitting into a group over evolutionary time. We Westerners are relatively prone to individualism. But we certainly don’t lack a sense of wanting to belong and to be accepted. Violating certain taboos carries huge emotional consequences.

http://forums.skadi.net/kevin_macdonald_splc_vs_academic_freedom-t82688.html

Good thread, worth reading!


I was referring to personality compatibility and the ability of intimate relationships to make one feel whole, happy and good about oneself and life in general.

Why tastes a good fruit good to you? Because to make you happy or because you should feel happy and satisfied while eating it because its good for your organism and survival? We dont have to think about biologically all the time, which would just hamper and harm us, but we should know where it comes from to correct degenerative and misleading, counterproductive tendencies - compare with the sugar example again.


I was going to write "slaves and sex slaves" but I thought it sounded strange... but women were oftentimes used as slaves in a general capacity too. And I doubt that too many of them would have felt particularly encouraged to count themselves as part of the enemy group who had killed their fathers, brothers, sons, friends and lovers and destroyed their lives and reduced their status in a most dehumanising way. As for women feeling connected to the group as a consequence of bearing a child most likely the result of rape... well, I doubt that too...

Well, you should read some stories about European children and women being abducted by Indians of which some fully adapted to the new lifestyle, especially if being rather young, until they were ready to fight for their "new group" and kill their own kin.
One has to look on more individual cases on that, things are complicated...


Men free to screw whoever they can get their hands on, women having to hide themselves away, always having to indirectly control men's sexuality because the men themselves are excused from having the capacity for controlling their own.

Thats how it works. Just imagine two groups:
One having males which just look after their single wife, but their wives being promiscuous - the other has promiscuous males and faithful women, who wins?

Thats why it can NEVER be the same, even though males impregnating foreign females must not be advantageous all the time neither, especially if spreading positive genes to real group enemies or taking about ressources which could be better used for "pure lines". It depends...
This has nothing to do with polygyny though, polygyny is always good as long as just a few and the (really, biologically!) most valuable males have more wives.


In ancient times even, if a high-status woman was perchance raped, it would not only be the rapist who would be punished... the victim herself would be too (and more harshly to boot).

Not always, depends again, but in general, its about standard behaviour vs. individual one...


Anyway, I think many men feel free to be promiscuous, sexually irresponsible and harmful to their sexual partners due to socio-cultural factors rather than biological ones. Namely, living in patriarchal societies where men are afforded too many privileges and not enough restrictions on destructive behaviour.

There is a cultural evolution in the case of group selection too, this led to those groups being most successful which had the right strategy, which made them stronger. What you told me now just was part of that. That doesnt mean its now "really necessary", but it was not irrational nor ineffective, because it simply worked.


Male promiscuity is not any more natural than female promiscuity...it's a cultural phenomenon. And both male and female sluts are liabilities to social cohesion and individual well-being.

Who gets pregnant? Which clan being dishonoured and having a "changeling" in his ranks? Who has a higher investment and risk in general? Whats the advantage of female promiscuous behavior? None. She might cheat a biologically less valuable male, that might make sense, but cheating alone doesnt mean promiscuity necessarily, its still about prefering X before Y and not taking W and X and Y and Z at the same time. This makes only sense for males which can eliminate competitors and spread their genes that way.


Honestly, men who are promiscuous show themselves to lack psychic traits such as compassion, honourability, sensitivity, self-control, understanding of, or regard for, the significance of mental/emotional needs and health (therefore intelligence), consideration of consequences, strong principles and morals, rationality, self-respect and respect for others. All of these things make them low level males in my book... hardly ones I would count as valuable enough to be striving for higher level females.

Constant promiscuity (as defined above and without investment in the offspring) without distinction is indeed a negative tendency both for males and females, but there are specific situations in which male promiscuity makes sense, female ones never for the bloodline and group on the longer run.

Of course I'm assuming always a male which has at least one or more women for which he really cares sooner or later, in which offspring he fully invests etc. A male just jumping from one bed to another is highly destructive if doing this inside of the own group. Because he just "steals and destroys" virginal and trustworthy women for the other group members. Thats why such a male would have been shunned sooner or later by the whole clan, his relatives, the relatives of the women he had sex with etc. He would have been punished sooner or later if not being the son of the chief or something like that - and even then it might have had consequences sometimes.

However, if just "impregnating" women of other and probably even foreign groups, its a very different matter, but it would have been "the job" of this group to defend their own women. If they couldnt they simply lost and would have been subjugated as a whole sooner or later anyway.


Well that applies to men too then. However, there is no proof that there are genetically determined characteristics involved. If it was ever proven, then obviously promiscuous men shouldn't be reproducing either (for the benefit of endeavouring to improve humanity).

As I said, for those males "not even searching for ANY serious relationship" in which they are willing to invest in the women and children, yes, thats a problem for the group, because the group will lose valuable women through such an irresponsible behaviour. One has to look at the reasons for both negative male and female behaviour on that. I didnt suggested everything is known, just that there is good reason to believe in personality and genetic factors being involved in certain cases too.


Trying to spread about genes and dominate through sexuality isn't brutish?? Of course it is.

But in any case, apart from systematic ethnic cleansing, most of these conquering men that you like to see as virtuous and raping foreign women for the good of their people, didn't engage in sexual activity to purposely spread around their own people's genetic traits... they did it for the rush, for the fun of it and to get their rocks off. They did it because "they could".

Here again the same applies as to what I said about "emotional female needs". It doesnt matter if the individual actually knows what it is doing, most dont anyway, but why such genetic and culturally determined behavioural strategies came up. I dont suggest that such actions are good and necessary now, but they worked for the past in a "brutish but effective" way and most interestingly this resulted in higher standards in the past than we can see them now.

Now, like brutal rituals and infanticids, such things are no longer necessary, we have more knowledge and options now, be thankful for that cultural advantages and progress. But we should never forget whats the base and when something is degenerated and foul, namely if it doesnt work for the individuals, group and species any more.

Pervitinist
Sunday, November 26th, 2006, 02:05 AM
Dear Bridie, I didn't forget about you (just had some off-line work to do in the meantime, so sorry for the delay):


Our modern environments are unnatural for humans because they have been constructed via disregarding, exploiting and perverting natural human instincts, natural human needs and behaviours. Multiculturalism and widespread family breakdown, for example, are products of such exploitation and perversion.... they are not in accordance with human nature. Human culture, when it is an expression of true human nature and sustains healthy, well-functioning human populations as a result, is natural enough.

Modern societies are perverted in many ways, yes; here we do agree. But in what sense are they perverted? How do we measure perversion - and what is perversion anyway? How do you define it? If we assume that perversion is the most extreme form of deviating from some ideal state (effectively turning it "inside out"), there remains the question: how and in which context are such ideals defined? If we say that our ideal consists in the realization of the 'natural' order of things, this claim is made from within a cultural, non-natural perspective. So if we say that miscegenaton is "unnatural", this doesn't mean that it's unnatural per se, but unnatural for us - according to the (deliberately chosen or traditionally inherited) rules of our ethno-cultural group. Nature does not prohibit miscegenation. It can take place. Plus one can imagine situations in which it is actually beneficial from an evolutionary point of view. Therefore it is not unnatural. When we say that we don't like it and don't want to see it in our society, this is due to a cultural telos we impose on nature. We want our nature to evolve in a certain direction; therefore we oppose anything that could alter this evolution. It is through our own free will and deliberate choice as a collective that the aim of our future evolution is defined. I still maintain that our nature is not fixed but still in the making. So we can't even know what it "is like" in an objective sense. But we can (and must) choose what we want it to become like in the future.


Human genetic development is not solely or even mostly a cultural matter imo. Mating may be in part be controlled by cultural norms, but what are cultural norms controlled by? Well in a natural environment cultural norms within a population will be a healthy expression of human nature, and will necessarily cater to human needs. But whatever the case, cultural norms and rules of socially acceptable behaviour may help to shape genotypical combinations within a population to a degree... but random genetic mutations which allow natural selection to result in evolution is out of the hands of humans. They occur due to environmental stressors, natural or otherwise.

Good points, but again I disagree with your notion of a ready-made human nature. Environmental influences shape human biology, yes, but the reverse is also true. Humans have always shaped their environment, and by shaping their environment they indirectly shaped their own nature. So it's up to us again what we want to accept as natural. In the case of humans, naturalness is not a given, but something like a projection of our will and intentions into the future.


I didn't state that it's natural for men to want to bonk any woman they see no matter how repulsive ;) , I don't think it is (natural, or even normal). I posed a question : "maybe it's natural for men to want to bonk any and every woman they see - no matter how repulsive or threatening they find them even sometimes???" in an attempt to get feedback from the guys... for male opinions. It occurred to me for a moment that perhaps when I write of people feeling a natural aversion to mating with those who are foreign to them I may only be speaking about females really, and I was essentially trying to encourage blokes to confirm or deny whether the indisciminate sexual behaviour of modern males is natural instinct, or a perversion of natural instinct.

First of all, I don't believe that males "want to bonk everything that walks on [at least] two legs" or however you like to put it. Males may have other criteria than females, but their choice is not indiscriminate. Secondly, you're simply presupposing that a "perversion of natural instinct" is at work here. I don't believe that. It's a perversion of our cultural values. In a purely naturalistic sense it might even make sense for whites to miscegenate, e.g. when they anticipate a global warming. Brownish people may turn out to have an evolutionary advantage over pale ones when it's getting hotter around here and the ozone hole expands further. Isn't skin cancer already a serious problem among white Australians? So, if you follow nature, nature tells you: miscegenate! But do we have to follow nature? No! As intelligent human beings we can replace nature - to an (exponentially) increasing degree - with technology and think of countermeasures against ecological changes without having to deviate from the path of racial purity (which is, again, a culturally defined telos and not something natural).


I've never used the word "natural" synonymously with "normal" or "acceptable". In my opinion, even unnatural things can be normal. Using the multiculturalism example again; racial/cultural diversity is "normal" in many countries of the world now... but I don't believe it to be a natural situation for humanity.

But there are at least two meanings of the word "normal" as well - one that is merely descriptive and one that contains a normative evaluation. You may not be using "natural" synonymously to "normal" in the descriptive sense, but you are using it in the normative sense.


I meant "in times of peace" there. Not in times of invasion or war.

But war is a natural (in the sense of normal ;)) part of our life. It belongs to our human history (and probably future). You shouldn't neglect this.


Yes, I'd hazard a guess that it was common in times of invasion and war. ;)

"was" - and will be - if we don't prohibit and sanction it.


No! :-O ;) I've argued against "natural" being the same as "common".

See above.


Without interpretation, nothing would exist. I'm sure you're familiar with the philospohical process of "deconstruction" (it's one of Agrippa's favourites! :D ). I'm all in favour of using deconstruction to a certain degree as a discriminatory tool... but one can only go so far with it. ;) We have to trust something... why not what can be observed and measured??

This is not about deconstruction but about epistemological foundations (about construction, if you like). Laws of nature are not simply there. What can be observed and measured is the basis, but to define laws of nature, the basic data must be interpreted in some way.


Illness is a deviation of natural physiology. A failure of homeostatic mechanisms. This failure is common enough, but is still not what we were designed for. We could see it as the breakdown of our natural states.

I think that this is simply not true. From an evolutionary perspective illness can have a positive function in controlling population sizes, etc. (as I said above). So even if it's a deviation from the state of being healthy (and is a living organism ever in perfect health?), it's not necessarily a deviation from nature.


As I said, evolution (if it really exists ;) ) is such a slow, gradual process that a highly dynamic definition of "natural conditions" would be inappropriate and invalid. In an anatomical/physiological sense, modern humans do not differ from the humans of say 3000 years ago.

Well, maybe. But this is rather the exception than the rule. In prehistoric times humans did experience physiological change. And there is no reason to doubt that this will happen again some time in the future.


Wrong. Pathophysiology is not only part of biology, it is a category of biological science in it's own right.... just as anatomy and physiology are.

I seriously doubt this. Medicine uses biology to achieve a specific aim (preserving or regaining health in an organism). Thereby the organism is being described (diagnosed) as more or less healthy. If you say that something is pathological, you're arguing from a medical viewpoint, not from a biological one.


Medicine incorporates many different areas of science from pharmacology - psychology, from anatomy and physiology to pathophysiology. And medical science entails the observation of human physiology and deviations of it via the breakdown or failure of homeostatic mechanisms. Patho = deviation of natural state. Illness is common, but still a perversion of natural states as they were designed to function. This can be readily observed.

Not really. What can be observed is that the organism doesn't function in the way it normally does. To describe this deviant behavior as pathological involves a value judgement. To describe it as a perversion is in my view a purely metaphorical expression (since perversion is a cultural term, not a biological or medical one).


But what if we stuff up in the process and wipe ourselves out? Or worse, what if we make the world a living hell with no way of returning to a more natural, healthy way of life?? Oops... too late. We've already done that. :-O ;)

Why be so pessimistic? Nature has fooled around with our DNA for millions of years. Mutations occur regularly. There is no difference in principle between mutations induced by chance (nature) and man-made mutations. I can't really follow the usual "hubris" arguments against genetic alterations. Of course such things have to be done very carefully, but there is no non-religious reason to prohibit them in an all-or-nothing fashion.


No, you've misunderstood me. All I've said there is that males being attracted to foreign females is unnatural, and selectively interbreeding people from varying racial groups is unnatural too. They are both perversions of natural human reproductive behaviour.

Even if such practices turn out to be unhealthy for the offspring (which seems to be the case; see OdinThor's links), this does not imply that they are unnatural. And perversion only takes place within culture. You may, of course, see culture as a whole as a perversion. But then humans, as cultural animals, are perverse by nature. :D

Agrippa
Sunday, November 26th, 2006, 03:22 AM
Not really. What can be observed is that the organism doesn't function in the way it normally does. To describe this deviant behavior as pathological involves a value judgement. To describe it as a perversion is in my view a purely metaphorical expression (since perversion is a cultural term, not a biological or medical one).

I might disagree on that. If there is a mutation which produces a deviation from the standard of a species and this mutation is maladaptive, one can see it as something pathological or even "perverted" from a biological standpoint too. The conditions can change and what was pathological can become normal in biology, but as a rule, this is rarely the case, namely as rare as a mutation produces something more valuable than the original allel for the survival rate of a bloodline.

To give an example from real life: A female lion which kills all cubs of related females, being therefore shunned and lives alone, without offspring on its own, just constantly trying to kill the cubs of the group, this is a pathological deviation, comparable to some human parasexual conditions of the worst kind.

I would define a pathological condition from a biological standpoint that way: A trait being clearly disadvantageous for the group and individual. This trait will be selected out under natural (for the species at that point of time and space usually) conditions with absolute certainty.

You might know the example of the Birkenspanner (butterfly: Biston betularia) which normal color was light, but when in an industrial zone all birches were colored dark by the soot of the factories, suddenly what was the anormal minority became the majority through selection, because light, white colors were no longer a protection but signal for the enemies - and again, when the factories became cleaner or closed, the birches became white again, everything fell back to the original white condition as well. This shows a plasticity of a given species and the useful variation which might be disadvantageous in most cases, but can be useful in others.

Now for the female lion one could discuss whether an additional behavioural combination could lead to a biological advantage of her trait, but if taken on its own and in the given context, it can be just a failure and is therefore pathological, like a blind or crippled human.

I know the whole debate happens in a grey zone, definitive answers and absolute conclusions being hard to make, but still there is the possibility of a useful biological definition deriving from whats actually happening in nature itself. We interpret it, but along the lines of real occurences we can observe without changing its factual content.

Pervitinist
Sunday, November 26th, 2006, 03:24 AM
Well I wasn't really talking about some kind of natural law that exists outside of ourselves that would require concerted effort and analysis to abide... I was talking about relying on the natural laws that are a part of us... that govern us on a healthy level to guide us in our choices.

What's the difference? Both kinds of laws exist "outside of ourselves". That's what the concept of a "law" is all about: external constraint.


Not so much following reason, as intellect and intuition. Anything can seem "reasonable", even harmful, or unintelligent things. ;) (I always find it strange that so many men around these boards love to sing the praises of "rationality" when "rationality" can be just as harmful as it can be virtuous. For anything can be rationalised... even paedophilia, rape and murder.) The main problem that I have with merely following reason without taking into account the true nature of natural homeostatic balance within in humans (physical and psychological) is what I've already stated.... anything can be deemed "reasonable"... what is considered "reasonable" by the majority and what's not, is too dynamic, unreliable and unstable.

Maybe. But where did I say anything about rationalism? Cultural habits can be just as irrational as natural instincts.


We may deem miscegenation unreasonable now (many would not)... but what about the next generation? Or the generation after that?

The only thing that remains trustworthy and constant is the law of nature (or laws).

If this is the case, then nothing is trustworthy (since we can't trust nature either).


Yet we (in the developed world) do it now. Still think that our modern world culture is natural?? ;)

Yes. Otherwise we wouldn't be here.


I disagree. Nature does naturally cater to the holistic well-being of animals (and humans), and "cares" little for en masse survival... it is human interference with natural processes and the perversion of human needs/behaviour (poor govt) that has led to the modern phenomenon of people living long, but physically and mentally feeble lives. So consumed is modern man with prolonging life for all, (not only the young and healthy, but the old, disabled, deformed, retarded, ill etc too) that we now have the situation of the "low level" humans outbreeding the "high level"... as well as more suffering and weakness in our species.

Low vs High level humans is also a cultural term. Nature herself may favour lowest-level bacteria over highly developed multicellular lifeforms. This is why our cultural existance is a constant battle against nature - both the nature around us and the nature within us. Nature can be a bitch, you know. ;)


In the natural world the strongest and fittest survive, (and the numbers of these individuals were relatively low).... not massive numbers of weak and unfit as we see in our unnatural cultural environments today.

So mere survival of the species at any cost isn't a natural phenomenon. Nature only wants the species to survive if it's strong and resilient enough.

You seem to have telepathic access to what nature "wants". Does she want anything at all (in an anthropomorphic sense)? And can we know what she wants? I don't think so.


I've never presumed that our natures are deficient... you have. You say that we need to use reason to over-come and control human nature,

That's not what I meant. Our nature is ok as it is. It's not deficient in itself. But we can still improve it. We don't have to necessarily, but there are good reasons to do it while nothing speaks against it except some old religious taboos. So why not do it?



I disagree. I believe that everything we need to thrive is already within us... but all that we need within ourselves is currently being perverted in our unnatural modern cultures and lifestyles.

I don't think we need to be "improved", as I said before, we just need to sort out the gold from the rubbish within us. To me, if you say we need "improving" it implies that we need to become more than we are now... that we're not good enough the way we are... but I don't think that's right... we're already great, we're just perverted and need to get back on course.

Well, as I said, we don't need to be improved, just as there was no need whatsoever for homo erectus to evolve any further. But if we want our evolution as a species to continue, we won't get around it.


We're not disagreeing here.... you just misunderstand me I think. I've never advocated going back a natural, primitive way of life. I just think that looking at human nature/needs is the best way to guide us forward. Looking at primitive environments can give us clues as to our nature.

Perhaps primitive environments can give us clues about the nature of primitive people like Aborigines or Bushmen, but our nature as members of the race that created the highest developed civilization on this planet is quite different. And why should we look back to some dreamtime-like paradise anyway? We should rather make plans for the future and for increasing the complexity of our civilization. Some time in the future we may need this complexity in order to survive.


If that's not "it's normal and desirable for social cohesion", I don't know what is! :D You're getting confused in your old age Perv! :P

You can actually be quite confusing sometimes ;) But in this case it was you who once again confused to different meanings of "natural". Your original statement was:

But is it natural for humans to grow up amongst those who are not their own kind? (I don't think so.) Is it natural to be reared by foreigners??
I answered that this can be seen as natural in the sense of not contradicting or violating any "law" or "principle of nature". Now you changed this ("not contradicting natural laws") into "being desirable". Obviously, that's nonsense.


Nope. You're underestimating the role of our greater external environment, including spontaneous genetic mutations, and the role that sub-conscious human nature and human instincts have played in the development of humanity.

Our evolution so far has been rather chaotic. But the future will probably be different - provided that the white race is not eliminated through mass miscegenation or genocide and that our culture doesn't become less but more complex.


I'm very skeptical about evolution to be honest. Human biology is dynamic to an extent for sure... life is never static... but to the extent that the term "evolution" would presuppose?? I don't think it's likely. But that really is a whole different discussion... one I've had before on Skadi. ;) :)

What's the alternative then? Creationism? :-O


We wouldn't need to take it into our hands and control human reproduction if we lived in accordance and harmony with true human nature/needs.

As I said before.... everything we need to thrive is already within us.

'We can live in harmony with our nature if we live in harmony with our nature?' What's the point about this? Our nature is the nature of a self-domesticated cultural animal. So cultural techniques of controlling our nature are actually part of our nature.

SuuT
Sunday, November 26th, 2006, 02:40 PM
... (W)hat is the difference between humanization and hominization? The former labels a cultural, the latter a biological "process"? Is that your meaning? But is there any interdependence? Do they go the (s)ame pace? I.e. would a being less hominized - on average - also be less humanized? ("Less" means just less, i.e. to a lower degree.)

Cultural and biological processes are inextricably bound up, if one accepts that all is part of a biological whole - (to argue against this is futile, indeed...). The key, here, being how we utilise the notions of free will and determinisim with repect to our own lives.

Really, I don't think that the issue is all that (philosophically) complex; although it is a dynamic interation of terms, abstractions, teleologies and ethics.

Epistemological disection of this issue is, to my mind, unnecessary, as some knowledge is simply incommunicable: in the end, miscegenation is, for those for whom it is, undesirable.

I think that we make necessary bifurcations and demarcations of the world around us for purposes of explication that continuously and unavoidably fall short of the world as it 'is' (in the ontological sense of substance/essence/universals and particulars): some people are more perceptive than others; in fact, clairvoyance/sagacity is as real to me as is the sun rise - yet to others, it is essentially rubbish.

So, whilst there is certainly a utility in separating 'Humanisation' and 'Hominisation' as mutually exculsive terms, my question would be: "why separate them?- is the separation necessary?" - at least in the context of this thread.

In the context of this issue, my answer we be a resounding "no."

Evola (and his very fertile imagination) took and ran with the Nietzschean assertion: "Man is retrogressing" - and developed a tenable "progressive archaism" as my friend Pervitinist has recognised. I subscribe to this assertion of Nietzsche's, and hinted upon by moderator Lawless.

The fact is this: I understand how the Theory of Racial Progression works; I can, therefore, function within its parameters. Philosophically, however, teleology is one of the most tremulous notions in the history of Philosophy - and this is but one of my objections to the essential aspect of the theory, specifically, 'hominisation'.

Part of the regression for the sake of progression that I speak of is accepting that circumstances have, for some millenia, been such that civilisation has further separated ourselves from the beasts: man has been internalised. - far too conscious of himself, which provides the illusion of exclusivity, and, that he is 'naturally' at the apex of the biological world.

In short, friend: man has become both too Human; and, too Hominised...

For those of us that recognise ourselves as - first and foremost - beasts, this is a sourse of both melancholy, and - Euphoria.


Let us posit a First principle that may serve as an answer to the remainder of your post: "Will".

And what are these two "processes" (or these two sides of one and the same process) triggered by?

And by which circumstances can they be inhibited or halted? Can they?

In 1828, the German literate Wolfgang Menzel wrote: "Yet Culture spreads everywhere. It can't be stopped."

We think, and say, that certain humans do seem to pause in their biological progress. It could be a mere matter of time.

The German playwright Heiner Müller said some twenty years ago, that - as he perceived it - the "development" goes into the direction of the "mating between man and machine". Therefore, the most advanced humans were those with the most advanced android technology.

I.e. the Japanese. They built the first android. And this year, the (South) Koreans built the second. The Holo-would jews recently made a film in which one einstein-style jew had created singlehandedly an artificial brain for an unmanned superfighter. But that was just film. The Japanese and Koreans really make androids.

Heiner Müller also said, every man who bears a cardiac pacemaker isn't 100% human anymore, but partly a machine. (Which sounds reasonable.) So, hominization now has become de-hominization.

Agrippa
Sunday, November 26th, 2006, 04:10 PM
One could also say that humans rediscovered "their beast" through modern science, but this rediscovery is never the same as being one, actually its one step further from this primitive condition away. In the past humans acted still like beasts, but their cultural customs and beliefs let them forget about it, they thought about themselves being something which is no longer "nature". That was a process in human civilisations, the higher they developed, the clearer such notions became. But the next step is to recognise "the beast" and what it needs, what humans need to develop on and survive, without falling back, but even on the contrary, going further. We now now where we came from and what we are and can therefore work better plans out which benefit both our individual and collective well being. That should be the task of the future.
Humans are cultural beings, but they should recognise in which world they are living and how it works, for the better of our self. To ignore the animalistic part and biological foundations OR to understimate the cultural side of our existence means to miss the point - either case.

Spjabork
Sunday, November 26th, 2006, 04:28 PM
But the next step is to recognise "the beast" and what it needs, what humans need to develop on and survive, without falling back, but even on the contrary, going further. We now now where we came from and what we are and can therefore work better plans out which benefit both our individual and collective well being. That should be the task of the future.
Agrippa, you are too good for this world.

The most important thing is to survive, not to have some fine ideas about survival.

I think all those masses of negros who are flooding us do not "know" how to survive
- in the sense as we "know" it -, but they do have some "primitive" strategies which work well and it looks rather as if they may well exterminate us with all our wisdom and certainly with all our "culture".

Agrippa
Sunday, November 26th, 2006, 04:52 PM
I think all those masses of negros who are flooding us do not "know" how to survive
- in the sense as we "know" it -, but they do have some "primitive" strategies which work well and it looks rather as if they may well exterminate us with all our wisdom and certainly with all our "culture".

Well, thats exactly the kind of cultural degeneration I meant, because if European would really know and understood and act accordingly, things would be very different.

And dont overestimate "more primitive groups", they might infiltrate a weak, decadent, degenerated group, but finally they will always be stopped by a higher form, because even inside of their ranks, the hierarchy will be on the long run determined by more evolved forms most likely. Thats just our mistake and cultural degeneration, it would be just about minor corrections and our general potential is much higher.

Carl
Sunday, November 26th, 2006, 06:03 PM
So if we say that miscegenaton is "unnatural", this doesn't mean that it's unnatural per se, but unnatural for us - -according to the (deliberately chosen or traditionally inherited) rules of our ethno-cultural group. Nature does not prohibit miscegenation. It can take place.........


Well for me this is the essence of the argument ; its a pity that the whole thing has been handled so heavily - although that is what happens when you move away from Science and into Philosophy. Oh , whatever happened to Occam? Its some time since I was obliged to study Zoology at University although as you can see that isn't my 'calling'.

Miscegenation is clearly natural from nature's point of view in purely biological terms., ie. that it is possible. It is unnatural in terms of human nature - as we would see it - or would wish to. Insofar as it can ( & does) take place, it belongs within the realm of natural possibility. However, WE assert that it is undesirable for psychosocial and cultural reasons which , given the higher capacity of mankind at his most advanced, we understand also to be an essential and intrinsic part of that nature.

Bridie
Monday, November 27th, 2006, 04:10 AM
I'll try to be brief. ;) :)



But dont forget, too much inbreeding isnt good neither and in such cases we speak often about rather related groups, so the distance being not too great between the winner and loser usually.
I think that the dangers of inbreeding are most often exaggerated to the point of being false. In a population where there are certain recessive genetic conditions (whose symptoms don't manifest until middle - late adulthood (so after fertile years)) there can be problems of the condition becoming more prevalent... but so too are the strong points of the population increased. In this day and age of medical sophistication these sorts of recessive conditions would be less of a problem due to the possibility of diagnoses at birth. Then if those affected weren't allowed to reproduce the condition would be eliminated.

Of course, we're talking about what did happen, and what can happen now... which are fairly inconsistent... but still, I don't think outbreeding for populations these days is necessary. In fact, for many populations I don't think it was imperative in the past either.

My thought is that stories of the horrors of inbreeding arose from religious groups which frowned upon interbreeding within families (between brothers and sisters etc), and thereby used modern science and a twisted knowledge of genetics to justify their teachings. Religious groups have always relied on the relative lack of knowledge of the general population, who won't question so-called experts as a result. At one time in the fairly recent past it was quite common for first cousins to marry and interbreed without any more chance of poor health, but even this now is taboo. This is a cultural matter based on religious ideals and an interpretation of medical science.

People who argue for miscegenation for reasons of increasing genetic diversity within a population are just talking crap in my opinion.



Usually most things always work for every group and individual, the same is true for most instincts and drives, human behavioural patterns, what really matters is the greater whole because "accidents and catastrophies" always happen...as long as it works in most cases, its a good strategy from a biological point of view.
This is exactly what I have been arguing... that miscegenation (or forming intimate relationships/breeding with foreigners) goes against human nature. It's natural for humans to feel comfortable amongst their own kind, to feel loyalty and affection for their own kind, to feel protective of their kin and to desire their company... it's unnatural for humans to form bonds with those who are foreign to them. Remember that these sorts of natural behavioural patterns/instincts arose when human populations were relatively very isolated from one another, so their differences seemed greater, probably insurmountable. You argued previously that behavioural patterns from our distant past are still found today and are what drive us today regardless of our changed environment (this too I have argued for - since our environment is changing a lot faster than we are!!), I say that human nature is such that being attracted to forming intimate relationships with those who are vastly different from themselves is unnatural. And this is a good strategy from a biological point of view too.



I think its actually a difficult decision for a woman if having just those two options,Not so difficult I don't think... the moped would always be a more attractive choice in my opinion. Either that, or don't have a vehicle at all.




Quote:
I feel confident in saying that the VAST MAJORITY of women (all women except a few kinky perverts) would choose a less attractive, less wealthy, less intelligent male if it meant feeling secure, loved and respected.

I'm not sure about numbers, but thats definitely negative selection if it would be true. Ah now... there's a silver lining in every dark cloud Agrippa. ;) Not so much negative selection in my opinion, as controlling unfavourable behaviour in men (behaviour that compromises women and children). If women rejected the men that they felt couldn't provide them with what they need, then men would be forced to step up and improve themselves. Eg, men who would otherwise be inclined to be philanderous, selfish and flippant would be more likely to willfully become more responsible, considerate of others, stable and reliable if it meant being able to attract a better quality mate.

This could be seen as encouraging positive selection, as it would be the most intelligent, strong willed males who would best be able to control their behaviour and make themselves most attractive to the intelligent, discerning females. The men who are incapable of working out strategies and modifying their behaviour to suit would be left with the low level, unintelligent, weak willed sluts.



But thats definitely a socio-cultural problem too, because such high level women live quite often after socio-cultural standards, they just want to be "appreciated, more on top and powerful", if this has to mean to be the 2nd wife of a monarch, they would usually agree.
Well firstly, being just another wife of a polygynist, no matter how powerful he may be, will always lower a woman's status and power, (no matter the socio-cultural environment) relative to what she could have if she were the only wife of a monogamist.

Secondly, I seriously doubt that any woman would merely seek to be appreciated and more powerful above anything else... this is what men seek, you know that! :) It's natural for men to seek power and appreciation, for it is power that men respect most in other men, making them more intimidating, and therefore more competitive... and the best competitors that will come out on top. Those who aren't will be the losers (who incidently will be more unattractive to women). If men are to be natural leaders in the public sphere then they must be competitive... and this means striving for respect and status. So men are wired to want respect, power and to be seen as self-sufficient at any cost.

For women, the rules of the game are different. Powerful women are shunned quite often by other women and by men. Showing a certain degree of vulnerability and powerlessness can be a plus... other people will be more receptive to her then, making them more likely to help and support her if she needs it.... making it more likely that she will be accepted. Women generally desire security and adoration (which isn't the same as appreciation)... and this means monogamy.




Quote:
Am I right in thinking that you assume only the highest level females will go for the highest level males?? I don't think they do.


Of course not. It depends on the social environment though. In a society in which everything is about the bloodline and success of the clan, about getting a valuable male and being honourable, those women will think very different from nowadays Western ones.
Sure, but what I meant was, do you think that the highest level females and males will always know that they are the "highest level" and seek partners of their own level? I don't think so.




Quote:
Wow... well this is a big question.... I could write a book about it. But essentially, you're only seeing a small portion of the full story. There may even be an element of "the factors that are favourable for the survival of the species" being relevant to the to devolpment of women's emotional make-up... but to only focus on tangible biological forces would be a mistake.

Well, genetically determined behavioural patterns and tendencies can be just the result of selection or non-detrimental changes by chance.
But then it's really a question of which behavioural patterns and tendencies are 100% genetically determined...

But here you're essentially implying that the tendency for women to require emotional engagement from their male partners was positively selected as a survival mechanism... surely this must still be relevant today! Without it, exclusivity of relationships and two people really caring for one and other would be at serious risk... and this would be detrimental to their offspring. So why call it human stupidity? :-O




Quote:
Basically, for many women (going on myself and many close female friends I've had/have over the years) emotional connection in all relationships from friends to family to lovers is less about security and more about feeling inspired and alive and like life is worth living. Without emotional/intellectual relation and some level of understanding, life seems bleak and empty. There's no hope for evolving on a personal level without connection with others...

Well, thats again the desire for a social environment. So you just prove what I said, that the majority of normal people searches for a secure position and social environment. In daily life those things being masked, can deviate and degenerate, or can be cultivated etc., but the real roots are still clear and visible. A lot of social interactions are just "grooming" like in primates, just on a higher level and with more people. Just imagine you would have to groom all people you meet every day, in a community with more than 120 individuals you would do nothing else the whole day and starve to death. Some primates get depressed and maladjusted if not having their "daily grooming", for humans its less extreme and superficial, but still, and especially for the average woman, we can see certain patterns.
I agree with you here (although I still think it's a rather limited interpretation) except on the point that men aren't so inclined to such social "grooming". Men's grooming is just different to women's that's all. For women it's about emotional connection, for men it's about acquiring a sense of achievement and being appreciated for their efforts. Where women like to hear "I love you", "I understand you", "I want you"... men like to hear "I admire you", "I appreciate you", "I need you".

Men ridiculing women for basing their self-worth and sense of personal security on interpersonal emotional connections and romantic (symbolic) gestures, would be as unfair as women ridiculing men for basing their self-worth and personal security on their ability to be independant, to obtain a sense of achievement and to be needed.

Whether or not there is a biological function for these human desires and needs is kind of irrelevant imo. Although it is interesting to see where they came from. :) To live consciously is always preferable.




Quote:
There's no hope for evolving on a personal level without connection with others... how does one get a sense of context and relativity if never having input from others who truly understand them?


What does this understanding mean for a human psychologically? It means: I know how you are and feel, understand and appreciate you, am of a similar kind and will support you etc...everything which is not directly effective from a functional point of view, and in communications there is a lot of that, is just "grooming on a higher level"...
I would interpret it differently... I see meaningful social interaction/connection as being a great tool for self-realisation and self-discovery. That's what I meant by "get a sense of context and relativity". :) Have you ever noticed that you can learn far more about yourself, and with greater ease, when you travel to foreign lands than you can when you're home? ;)




Quote:
It's so easy to get lost in the world of the mind... without meaningful communication, which essentially means "emotionally influenced", there will be no understanding of self, nor social context, nor others... there will be no healthy social cohesion, nor evolution... there will be nothing but oneself, and oneself will grow small and insignificant in the physical world.


Thats because humans are a social and tribal species. If there would be no need for longer term partnerships and social structures, humans wouldnt feel that way, just having sex, the women gets a child, cares for it until its "ready for life" and then the child leaves her and things begin again...like in leopards or bears f.e. But since thats not the case and humans are a social species, they actually die, get made, or at least dont reproduce successfully without a wider social network, thats why they need and search for it and want to be appreciated.
So you think the reason for humans being social animals is the survival of the species, it's a survival mechanism... and I can agree with this... but taking it to the next level, I also see the reason for humans being social animals as the facilitation of human development or spiritual evolution. So it's also an spiritual evolutionary mechanism. Now this is going to get too "out there", but I guess it all depends on your opinion as to why we're here at all. Well, I don't presume to know, but I suspect that it has something to do with becoming more conscious... more awake.




Like Kevin MacDonald said:

Quote:
This latest experience with the SPLC has improved my understanding of the dynamics of group control of individuals.
...

Quote:
There have been times when I have had to endure vicious charges of anti-Semitism, for instance by Jacob Laksin (Cal State’s Professor of Anti-Semitism. Frontpagemag.com May 5 2006). But when discussion was confined to the impersonal world of the internet, it did not bother me. I would write a detailed reply and circulate it among the people who read me. I knew that people who support my writing would rally to my defense and say nice things about me and my reply to Laksin.

Naturally, I also knew that I would a get hate mail and maybe a couple of death threats. But that’s to be expected. And it’s all rather abstract, since I basically sit in solitude at my computer and read it all. It pretty much ends there. A part of me even sees some benefit in it because visits to my website are up and more people are buying my book.

But then came the SPLC and Heidi Beirich. Someone not connected to CSULB sent an email to the entire Psychology Department—except me—asking why they allowed an “anti-Semite” to teach there. The result was an uproar, with heated exchanges on the faculty email list, a departmental meeting on what to do about me and my work, and intense meetings of the departmental governing committee.

Cold shoulders, forced smiles and hostile stares became a reality. Going into my office to teach my classes and attend committee meetings became an ordeal.

I keep saying to myself: why is this so hard? At the conscious level I was perfectly confident that I could sit down with any of my colleagues and defend my ideas. I know rationally that a lot of the people giving me negative vibes are themselves members of ethnic minority groups—who like the present ethnic spoils system, such as affirmative action and ethnically-influenced foreign policy, just fine.

My theory: Ostracism and hostility from others in one’s face-to-face world trigger guilt feelings. These are automatic responses resulting ultimately from the importance of fitting into a group over evolutionary time. We Westerners are relatively prone to individualism. But we certainly don’t lack a sense of wanting to belong and to be accepted. Violating certain taboos carries huge emotional consequences.
http://forums.skadi.net/kevin_macdona...om-t82688.html (http://forums.skadi.net/kevin_macdonald_splc_vs_academic_freedom-t82688.html)

Good thread, worth reading!
:thumbup I'll definately read it. It does sound interesting, thanks. :)





Quote:
I was referring to personality compatibility and the ability of intimate relationships to make one feel whole, happy and good about oneself and life in general.

Why tastes a good fruit good to you? Because to make you happy or because you should feel happy and satisfied while eating it because its good for your organism and survival? We dont have to think about biologically all the time, which would just hamper and harm us, but we should know where it comes from to correct degenerative and misleading, counterproductive tendencies - compare with the sugar example again.
You're right. I think it's important to live consciously so that we're not ruled by our more harmful primitive impulses too. :) But then, it's also equally important to really analyse exactly what is harmful and what is helpful... sometimes they may be deceiving.




Well, you should read some stories about European children and women being abducted by Indians of which some fully adapted to the new lifestyle, especially if being rather young, until they were ready to fight for their "new group" and kill their own kin.
One has to look on more individual cases on that, things are complicated...
I've read about such cases, but I think that the case of women being taken from the more powerful, dominant group to live with the less powerful, "victimised" group is very different from the opposite case. There would be for various reasons for this from; the possibility that the women from the more dominant group would be more likely to feel sympathy or compassion for the sub-dominant one... thereby making them more receptive to adaptation; to the possibility that the women from the dominant group may be held in higher esteem (and treated better) by the sub-dominants than would be case in the opposite situation (and groups were often more dominant by virtue of being more aggressive and merciless anyway, making it more likely that women slaves taken from the sub-dominant group could be treated more cruelly than vice versa).

Only theories of course. :)



must finish the rest later! :)

Spjabork
Monday, November 27th, 2006, 06:33 AM
Miscegenation is clearly natural from nature's point of view in purely biological terms., ie. that it is possible. It is unnatural in terms of human nature - as we would see it - or would wish to. Insofar as it can ( & does) take place, it belongs within the realm of natural possibility. However, WE assert that it is undesirable for psychosocial and cultural reasons which , given the higher capacity of mankind at his most advanced, we understand also to be an essential and intrinsic part of that nature.
"Never was said something so concise, about something so complex, in so few words."

Spjurchill

Bridie
Monday, November 27th, 2006, 03:39 PM
Quote:
Men free to screw whoever they can get their hands on, women having to hide themselves away, always having to indirectly control men's sexuality because the men themselves are excused from having the capacity for controlling their own.

Thats how it works. Just imagine two groups:
One having males which just look after their single wife, but their wives being promiscuous - the other has promiscuous males and faithful women, who wins?
That not how it works... that's the scenario that you feel comfortable with because you're a male. Quite frankly, I feel comfortable with the first option faithful men and promiscuous wives, because my security and position in society wouldn't be threatened by it. In fact it would boost me and all other women to an elevated status above all men. And that's the same reason why you have no problem with the notion of it being acceptable for men to be promiscuous. But at the end of the day, neither group would win... both would be at a serious disadvantage compared to a group that had strong family values and strict codes of moral behaviour for both men and women.

Women's promiscuity could just as easily be controlled by men being as pious as nuns. And quite frankly, with all of the crap I hear about men being so superior in emotional and behavioural control, men supposedly being so much more rational and logical, being so worthy of leadership and responsibility, surely they must be capable of controlling their own sexual impulses too. And if they're not, well I sure as hell don't trust them to hold any positions of great responsibility! :|

I can just imagine it... an immoral, decadent, irresponsible, selfish man trying to teach his children the virtues of morality, sacrifice, responsibility and consideration for others!! LOL What a joke.


Disadvantages of having promiscuous males with faithful wives :

* Spread of disease.
* Relationship breakdown between spouses (and this is a big one - from women feeling abandoned, unloved, undervalued and insecure... to men becoming emotionally and sexually distant from their wives with the increased chance of them leaving their wives and children in a compromised position - without provision or protection).
* Males needing to provide for a large number of children.
* Competitiveness between children from the varying women the men have fathered children with. Possible erosion of self-esteem and difficulty in trusting the father.
* If men shirk that responsibility of providing for their own offspring, their children will suffer - physically, emotionally and mentally. (And why should the children suffer just because Daddy wanted to screw over Mummy??)
* Widespread decadence and immoral behaviour leading to insecurity for families and consequently social breakdown.
* Widespread disrespect for women... taught to young boys as soon as they're old enough to realise that Daddy likes to go out screwing other women while Mummy stays at home faithfully cooking Daddy's meals, cleaning his clothes and ironing his shirts. (In other words they are taught that women are doormats and whores to be treated any way a man sees fit.)




Quote:
Anyway, I think many men feel free to be promiscuous, sexually irresponsible and harmful to their sexual partners due to socio-cultural factors rather than biological ones. Namely, living in patriarchal societies where men are afforded too many privileges and not enough restrictions on destructive behaviour.

There is a cultural evolution in the case of group selection too, this led to those groups being most successful which had the right strategy, which made them stronger. What you told me now just was part of that. That doesnt mean its now "really necessary", but it was not irrational nor ineffective, because it simply worked.

We will never know though how much more "effective" our societies could have been had women always been treated more in a more healthy fashion. It's not for the good of a population that women are down-graded. And rationality is irrelevant. As I've said before; anything... even the most cruel and abhorrant actions... can be rationalised. Rationalisation without compassion and the consideration of various points of view is empty and without great merit.




Which clan being dishonoured and having a "changeling" in his ranks?
Well that's a cultural issue. There could still be restrictions placed on women having sex with only high level males... or to use birth control if having sex with undesirables. Either way, the "honour" issue is only about male acceptance of the practice or lack of...



Whats the advantage of female promiscuous behavior? None. We've been through this before ;) .... Enjoyment and contentment for the females. A way of making the low level males useful. A way of ensuring more males to provide for and protect her and her children...

There's an idea. :D The highest level females should be allowed many men to help provide for and protect her children. This would increase the chances of the highest level children thriving. The low level males could be sterilised, the high level ones could impregnate her over the years.



She might cheat a biologically less valuable male, that might make sense, but cheating alone doesnt mean promiscuity necessarily, its still about prefering X before Y and not taking W and X and Y and Z at the same time. This makes only sense for males which can eliminate competitors and spread their genes that way.
Won't be much good if they don't stick around to care for their offspring... and even then, their competitors may just impregnate the women once their babies are born. Some women can fall pregnant merely a couple of months after giving birth.



A male just jumping from one bed to another is highly destructive if doing this inside of the own group. Because he just "steals and destroys" virginal and trustworthy women for the other group members. Once again you're not seeing the full picture Agrippa. It is not only destructive due to spoiling the virginal and trustworthy women for the other men (I find it particularly disturbing that you speak of women as objects without personal value... you speak of them as though their value only extends as far as their usefulness to others goes... as if they're farm animals or some other kind of commodity), it is destructive because it entails a complete disrespect for one's body and an unhealthy disconnection of sex from emotions, responsibility, and caring. It also spreads disease. It is destructive because it can cause emotional pain.

You know, what you've just said above reminds me of a Arabic movie I saw once... (I can't remember which country it came from - it was years ago now)... the basic storyline was that there was a young girl (maybe 13 or 14 years old) locked away in a room of a large apartment block. She was being "saved" for marriage to a much older bloke. Eventually after much torment, she escaped and was running through the streets to get away... to be free... but along the way a rather large group of men caught her and gang raped her. When they were finished with her, the old guy who was to marry her realised that she was missing from her prison and ran off to find her. When he found the group who'd just finished gang raping her he yelled out "Nooo... you fools! I was going to marry her! Now look what you've done!" (obviously pissed off that his goods had been spoilt) The movie ended with the rapists basically saying "whoops! We didn't realise!" The message was that gang rape is okay, but it sucks if it's your future wife that gets raped because then you can't marry the damaged girl and you have to find another one.

Perhaps you and the Arabs have a similar way of viewing women Agrippa?

Anyway, I've had a gutful now, I'll have to reply to Perv's post later if I can bring myself to.

The more I'm on Skadi the more I find myself re-discovering my long lost feminist roots.

Pervitinist
Monday, November 27th, 2006, 08:18 PM
@Bridie I may be wrong, but I think you're misrepresenting Agrippa's intention here.

He said:

A male just jumping from one bed to another is highly destructive if doing this inside of the own group. Because he just "steals and destroys" virginal and trustworthy women for the other group members.

And you replied:

Once again you're not seeing the full picture Agrippa. It is not only destructive due to spoiling the virginal and trustworthy women for the other men (I find it particularly disturbing that you speak of women as objects without personal value... you speak of them as though their value only extends as far as their usefulness to others goes... as if they're farm animals or some other kind of commodity), it is destructive because it entails a complete disrespect for one's body and an unhealthy disconnection of sex from emotions, responsibility, and caring. It also spreads disease. It is destructive because it can cause emotional pain.

As far as I understood Agrippa, he meant destructive in a purely evolutionary sense in view of the relative competitiveness of different human groups. So issues like disrespect or emotional pain don't play any role in such an argument as long as they don't affect the survival and fitness of the group.


You know, what you've just said above reminds me of a Arabic movie I saw once... (I can't remember which country it came from - it was years ago now)... the basic storyline was that there was a young girl (maybe 13 or 14 years old) locked away in a room of a large apartment block. She was being "saved" for marriage to a much older bloke. Eventually after much torment, she escaped and was running through the streets to get away... to be free... but along the way a rather large group of men caught her and gang raped her. When they were finished with her, the old guy who was to marry her realised that she was missing from her prison and ran off to find her. When he found the group who'd just finished gang raping her he yelled out "Nooo... you fools! I was going to marry her! Now look what you've done!" (obviously pissed off that his goods had been spoilt) The movie ended with the rapists basically saying "whoops! We didn't realise!" The message was that gang rape is okay, but it sucks if it's your future wife that gets raped because then you can't marry the damaged girl and you have to find another one.

Perhaps you and the Arabs have a similar way of viewing women Agrippa?

Now you're drawing an emotionally loaded conclusion from misconstruing Agrippa's purely biological argument as some kind of moral imperative. Describing the biological side of human reproductive behavior doesn't mean prescribing it as some rule that we should follow in a civilized society. On the contrary, the contradiction between what is best biologically and what seems right to us shows that following nature is not always the best choice - emotionally and rationally.


Anyway, I've had a gutful now, I'll have to reply to Perv's post later if I can bring myself to.

The more I'm on Skadi the more I find myself re-discovering my long lost feminist roots.

What's next? Rediscovering your interest in gay rights? :sway ... j/k :fwink:

Bridie
Tuesday, November 28th, 2006, 12:23 AM
@Bridie I may be wrong, but I think you're misrepresenting Agrippa's intention here.
Agrippa's intention to justify his stance by objectifying certain members of the community and reducing their status to breeding stock for the benefit of others is clear in this instance. No misinterpretation on my part.



He said:


Quote:
A male just jumping from one bed to another is highly destructive if doing this inside of the own group. Because he just "steals and destroys" virginal and trustworthy women for the other group members.
Yes, I never denied that he acknowledges that it's highly destructive in this capacity... but I read it like this :

A male just jumping from one bed to another is highly destructive if doing this inside of the own group. Because he just "steals and destroys" virginal and trustworthy women for the other group members.
It's the "because..." bit that I'm upset by. Women are not commodities that can be "stolen" and "destroyed" by having sex with other men. There are great implications for describing people in such a way. Anyway, I just said that Agrippa is not seeing the full picture, and he's not. Leaving out facets of an argument to strengthen it is misleading.


Now you're drawing an emotionally loaded conclusion from misconstruing Agrippa's purely biological argument as some kind of moral imperative. So "purely biological" arguments aren't ever offensive? Of course they can be. I've misconstrued nothing.


Describing the biological side of human reproductive behavior doesn't mean prescribing it as some rule that we should follow in a civilized society.Whether or not he was prescribing his ideas as some rule that we should follow is irrelevant. He wasn't merely describing the biological side of human reproduction (which does necessarily include psychological aspects of humanity too, by the way), he was placing women in a dehumanised, down-graded position to support his ideas. I won't tolerate this.

My comparison between the Arabian film and Agrippa's attitudes towards women wasn't intended to be emotionally loaded either. As I read his text I was reminded of this film... the sort of mentality where women are reduced to "things" whose only value is their usefulness to society leads to the sorts of cultural attitudes prevalent among Middle Easterners and other such primitives. That was my point.



And as for me re-discovering feminism... I was 100% serious. The fact that men are inclined to assign great value to anything that can be rationalised, even if it's to the point of being harmful, makes me anxious. Being able to readily separate emotional responses, and thereby compassion and consideration of others, from intellectual processes is not a virtue in my opinion... it's just narrow-minded, intellectually lazy, and it's dangerous.

Now this is NOT related to Agrippa, but just to further explain my thoughts on why I resist "rational" ideas spoken without consideration for emotional issues and human rights... Serial killers and other such monsters are among the most rational, unemotional, intelligent humans... the difference being that they don't have the capacity to empathise with others. They are not capable of compassion.

Carl
Tuesday, November 28th, 2006, 10:07 AM
Bridie! Women & Motherhood must be respected ; I can't believe anyone will want to deny that . It is the future of the Race...all the rest is speculation and misunderstanding. Bring back the Mutter awards - with an extra bar for those who argue succinctly.!

C - :D - :) - ;) :ffear:

Bridie
Tuesday, November 28th, 2006, 12:46 PM
with an extra bar for those who argue succinctly.!
Bugger. :| Well I guess I won't be getting an "extra bar" then. :~( :D And what are the Mutter awards?? :scratch

Jäger
Tuesday, November 28th, 2006, 12:54 PM
And what are the Mutter awards?? :scratch

The Mothers Cross
http://www.omsa.org/photopost/data/528/medium/177CROSS_OF_HONOR_OF_THE_GERMAN_MOTHER_I N_GOLD.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Honor_of_the_German_Mother

Bridie
Tuesday, November 28th, 2006, 01:01 PM
^ What a lovely idea! :) This should definately be re-instituted. :thumbup

This is an interesting, old thread that's quite relevant to this question of whether or not it's natural to find people of differing races sexually attractive : http://forums.skadi.net/do_non_european_women_turn_you-t11451.html?

Some interesting quotes from it...



Quote:
Originally Posted by MeriLundChoos
For me women of all races (Black, White, Chinese, Indian, Mestizo etc.) sexually arouse me. Am I normal? Or should I only be turned on by a specific race???


No, not normal, but the product of decades of efforts to pervert the normal and natural sexual instincts.




Quote:
Originally Posted by MeriLundChoos
Do you think maybe it's a biological thing that makes you guys find 'Women of Color' totally unattractive in the sexual sense. Or is it an environmental thing, where you've been conditioned to find people of a different kind attractive. Maybe theres a way of being 'reconditioned' to find Non-white women attractive.


Quote:
Do you think maybe it's a biological thing that makes guys like u find 'Trees" with holes totally unattractive in the sexual sense. Or is it an environmental thing, where you've been conditioned to find trees of every kind attractive. Maybe theres a way of being 'reconditioned' to find trees attractive.

Quote:
Well, as far as conditioning goes the media and political correctness are certainly trying to make us find black skin and multiracial promiscuity normal and worthwhile. So I guess it is biological genetically coded self-preservation.

Agrippa
Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 03:46 AM
I think that the dangers of inbreeding are most often exaggerated to the point of being false. In a population where there are certain recessive genetic conditions (whose symptoms don't manifest until middle - late adulthood (so after fertile years)) there can be problems of the condition becoming more prevalent... but so too are the strong points of the population increased. In this day and age of medical sophistication these sorts of recessive conditions would be less of a problem due to the possibility of diagnoses at birth. Then if those affected weren't allowed to reproduce the condition would be eliminated.

Thats true in some cases, but still one things can be said with certainty:
If assuming you have the choice between two individuals of largely the same biological level its always better to choose one who is not your cousin, because if you have a disease recessively, and in most families are some recessive diseases, malign dispositions, they might appear or being strengthened through the partner and if the partner is closely related, chances are just much higher for that.
Now one could argue two ways: Really bad traits will be selected out anyway, so nature took care of that - yes, but the respective line, in extreme cases the whole clan or population, might be threatened if negative traits spread that way. Not all defects are harmless in an recessive form and would be selected out if being homozygous. F.e. some defects leading to imbecility in the homozygous form might still reduce the intelligence level in the heterozygous one.

You are right for modern times, and modern prenatal and medical measures, with which we can work out a human Eugenic program, but this wasnt true for the evolutionary past and thats what I'm speaking about and still this evolutionary past influences how we act, behave and sometimes this influences are, like I said, still advantageous, sometimes not, it depends. Race mixture is not good nor bad in general, it depends too, namely on the result for the respective group(s) and species. For Europeans in Europe the case is clear now, thats what I tried to emphasise.


Of course, we're talking about what did happen, and what can happen now... which are fairly inconsistent... but still, I don't think outbreeding for populations these days is necessary. In fact, for many populations I don't think it was imperative in the past either.

Its a question of the size of the genpool too. I mean the inbreeding had particularly negative consequences sometimes if cousins bred with cousins or even members of the same nuclear family over generations, not because one member of the German population numbering 100 millions procreated with another German, probably even from the other end of the populations living space, habitat.

So I spoke about very ancient times and smaller groups, not modern populations of millions. I mean if that would be inbreeding, humans would have done nothing but inbreeding most of the time, because there were not more humans on this planet for quite some time!


People who argue for miscegenation for reasons of increasing genetic diversity within a population are just talking crap in my opinion.

For some small islanders it might be not crap, for Europe it is, because there is more diversity and are more people on this continent than on the whole world for the human species for a long time.


This is exactly what I have been arguing... that miscegenation (or forming intimate relationships/breeding with foreigners) goes against human nature. It's natural for humans to feel comfortable amongst their own kind, to feel loyalty and affection for their own kind, to feel protective of their kin and to desire their company... it's unnatural for humans to form bonds with those who are foreign to them.

I think to put it that way would be more reasonable: Its "more natural" for humans to prefer their own kind, that doesnt mean however, they dont procreate with other kinds of people if there is no other choice or a great choice of valuable procreation from an instinctive point of view.


I say that human nature is such that being attracted to forming intimate relationships with those who are vastly different from themselves is unnatural. And this is a good strategy from a biological point of view too.

We are speaking about preferences and possibilities though. I can agree with you that this is basically true as a tendency, but still its a too strong word to call miscegenation "unnatural". It seems unnatural for certain extremes for sure, but if dealing with individuals which have a high generalised genetic fitness and attractiveness, this led to mixture if the chances were there all the time, so we can't consider that being unnatural.
Thats a problem of space and distance rather. Like I said in this thread:
http://forums.skadi.net/interracial_relationships-t56932.html

http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=445184&postcount=5


Not so difficult I don't think... the moped would always be a more attractive choice in my opinion. Either that, or don't have a vehicle at all.

Well, there are good arguments for the Ferrari and the moped, but there is no rational one for "no vehicle", because this would mean death of the bloodline, whereas either choice means a chance.


Not so much negative selection in my opinion, as controlling unfavourable behaviour in men (behaviour that compromises women and children). If women rejected the men that they felt couldn't provide them with what they need, then men would be forced to step up and improve themselves. Eg, men who would otherwise be inclined to be philanderous, selfish and flippant would be more likely to willfully become more responsible, considerate of others, stable and reliable if it meant being able to attract a better quality mate.

Males must strive for higher goals and ideals, so they must be ready to sacrifice themselves and everything it makes the group more successful in a critical situation. Actually women often chose males which just fake what they want and are not always that fond of individuals which dont try to fake things. I think the majority of women want to hear lies.


willfully become more responsible, considerate of others, stable and reliable if it meant being able to attract a better quality mate.

This can mean contraselection again, because this could lead to very compliant, pragmatic, opportunistic and indifferent males. I'm not saying that must be the case, but if not its mainly because a lot of females still like more risk taking, creative, very idealistic or even fanatic males or those which are just generally "successful and/or dominant".

I mean not that what you said is negative, EVEN ON THE CONTRARY, but if thats THE ONLY or at least main criteria for selecting a male, there would be a problem indeed.


This could be seen as encouraging positive selection, as it would be the most intelligent, strong willed males who would best be able to control their behaviour and make themselves most attractive to the intelligent, discerning females. The men who are incapable of working out strategies and modifying their behaviour to suit would be left with the low level, unintelligent, weak willed sluts.

True, but only if they learn "to fake better" or adapt their behaviour in an intelligent way without compromising other qualities of even as great or greater importance to the needs of women, because if they really become the caricature of "small househusbands", I know what the next more progressive and aggressive would do with this group and it would be "just natural"...

Just imagine a group of herder-warriors which try to expand and gain some ressources from a hostile tribe, but the females decide and prefer those who stay at home and "help them with the cattles" rather than trying to do something risky. Or a "nice husband" having just one female though being successful: Bad luck, she is infertile, but oh well, he doesnt care and stays with her, though being a great individual he will die childless...
The final invoice comes when the individual is dead and one can look at what he did for his group, race, species and the ecosystem both by keeping or better expanding his bloodline, spreading his genes and improving and spreading cultural achievements - or at least one of this.


Well firstly, being just another wife of a polygynist, no matter how powerful he may be, will always lower a woman's status and power, (no matter the socio-cultural environment) relative to what she could have if she were the only wife of a monogamist.

Thats only true for a polygynist and monogamist of the same status and quality though.


Sure, but what I meant was, do you think that the highest level females and males will always know that they are the "highest level" and seek partners of their own level? I don't think so.

It works more often if giving them free choice (similar to preferring partners with the own traits), however it goes wrong too often and cultural degeneration can be a very important factor.


But here you're essentially implying that the tendency for women to require emotional engagement from their male partners was positively selected as a survival mechanism... surely this must still be relevant today! Without it, exclusivity of relationships and two people really caring for one and other would be at serious risk... and this would be detrimental to their offspring. So why call it human stupidity?

Its then stupid if doesnt fulfil for what it was originally made for. F.e. a women talking all the time about "their dream man" and having irrational requirements for him, at the same time wanting him to be different things the same time and being highly influenced by their environment and career plans. So they actually try to get and retain a male just for themselves, but want no children, they want his emotional care, but no children, they want him to be intelligent and dominant, but he must "accept her career and plans in life". Neither males nor females always got what they really wanted, but today they think they have a "god given right to get what they want". So in the past there were corrective measures which ensured a good outcome for the group, nowadays the opposite is true, but males and females still play the same game without stake in the game and without this stake they lose everything, act biologically dumber than monkeys but still feel "great and more advanced" than their ancestors...


Whether or not there is a biological function for these human desires and needs is kind of irrelevant imo.

Its not, because the female way behavioural pattern is, like I said in other threads too, meant "for the inside", the male one for both, behaviour in- and outside of the group. This has immense consequences.


I would interpret it differently... I see meaningful social interaction/connection as being a great tool for self-realisation and self-discovery.

I can appreciate such things "as the individual Agrippa in real life", but still I know were it comes from and that finally, in the end, at least the majority of behavioural patterns should serve a purpose for the biological base or AT LEAST dont harm it. If the latter is true, this must be eliminated no matter if its fun or nice for this or that subject on the long run.


Well, I don't presume to know, but I suspect that it has something to do with becoming more conscious... more awake.

Again, personally I can agree, but I also know that there are certain preconditions for reaching that actually human-made but good goal, good for the spiritual health and advancement and the survival - and thats it, if the group doesnt survive, the group can't become more conscious neither. If the group biologically or culturally degenerates neither.


But then, it's also equally important to really analyse exactly what is harmful and what is helpful... sometimes they may be deceiving.

Most certainly. One has to be careful on some issues, whereas others are quite clear already, but still new informations and insights should be always considered and the attitude changed accordingly.


That not how it works... that's the scenario that you feel comfortable with because you're a male. Quite frankly, I feel comfortable with the first option faithful men and promiscuous wives, because my security and position in society wouldn't be threatened by it.

You simply refuse to accept the biological reality. Women's numbers of children being limited no matter how many males they have, whereas males can have an increased number of potentially surviving children if having more females. The pure lines of a group being exclusively determined by the female behaviour too, because a reduced number of males or males having mixed offspring doesnt necessarily reduce the numbers for pure offspring of the group.


In fact it would boost me and all other women to an elevated status above all men. And that's the same reason why you have no problem with the notion of it being acceptable for men to be promiscuous. But at the end of the day, neither group would win... both would be at a serious disadvantage compared to a group that had strong family values and strict codes of moral behaviour for both men and women.

I agree with that, but it has little to do with polygyny or monogamy nor extramarital male offspring. I just have to think about many great individuals in history which were "illegitimate"...

I just make a dumb beside your points, I always compared what you said to the situation of a clan based society. I might add that you seem to constantly mix promiscuous and polygynous behaviour up, thats not the same!

Disadvantages of having promiscuous males with faithful wives :

* Spread of disease.

Best argument probably, but not such an issue in a clan based society of the past usually.


* Relationship breakdown between spouses (and this is a big one - from women feeling abandoned, unloved, undervalued and insecure... to men becoming emotionally and sexually distant from their wives with the increased chance of them leaving their wives and children in a compromised position - without provision or protection).

Depends on the social rules of the group.


* Males needing to provide for a large number of children. Depends on the situation, must be planned.


* Competitiveness between children from the varying women the men have fathered children with. Possible erosion of self-esteem and difficulty in trusting the father.

:thumbdown Question of upraising and social cohesion in the group as a whole too. Competitiveness will be always and issue and can sometimes even have positive effects.


* If men shirk that responsibility of providing for their own offspring, their children will suffer - physically, emotionally and mentally. (And why should the children suffer just because Daddy wanted to screw over Mummy??)

Related to provisioning and care. Again its a question for the specific male and its status and potential.


* Widespread decadence and immoral behaviour leading to insecurity for families and consequently social breakdown.

Rather true for really promisuous behaviour which would be a hard issue in a smaller clan based group anyway.


* Widespread disrespect for women... taught to young boys as soon as they're old enough to realise that Daddy likes to go out screwing other women while Mummy stays at home faithfully cooking Daddy's meals, cleaning his clothes and ironing his shirts. (In other words they are taught that women are doormats and whores to be treated any way a man sees fit.)

Well, you directly compare a situation of the 1950's with what I was talking about, namely prehistoric times and "primitive societies". Furthermore they might have more respect for faithful and loyal women then, if losing the respect for other women which didnt act accordingly, thats another matter and just increases the social cohesion and positive pressures inside of the group. Thats a question of details again. If they would think that way:

In other words they are taught that women are doormats and whores to be treated any way a man sees fit
That would be a general problem with many ugly consequences if it goes that far. In such a case I would oppose it for psychological hygiene and social considerations for the women and families. Men can have a hard stance on certain women, but they must respect those doing the right things. They do whats good for the group and males and get respect and whats good for them back. Thats how it should work out in an ideal case.
Interestingly a lot of patriarchal groups, if being still rather healthy and living in a more clan based and rural society, had often (it depends on exact mentality and ways of life though) more respect for their women than most males today - but in another way. They didnt respected them for f******g around and doing what they want, but for being the respected partners and mothers. Some were and felt more appreciated in a polygynous family than many women in our current Western world where they try to benumb themselves with the two C's, career and consumption in a hedomatic manner...


And rationality is irrelevant.

Not for humans at least...


Rationalisation without compassion and the consideration of various points of view is empty and without great merit.

To not consider various points of view is in my opinion a rational flaw. Rational, especially if combined with higher, rationalised Idealism I appreciate so much means to me: To consider all views and finally estimating costs and benefits for the individuals, group and species, deciding accordingly. This has to mean to not consider everything in an equal manner, namely what doesnt improve the situation of the majority of individuals, group and species going after what we know so far.


Well that's a cultural issue. There could still be restrictions placed on women having sex with only high level males... or to use birth control if having sex with undesirables. Either way, the "honour" issue is only about male acceptance of the practice or lack of...

Exactly. Those societies in which males accepted it were weaker and lost, those which made up a "system of honour" based on biological rationality, at least in an indirect manner, were stronger and won. Thats why patriarchal clan systems dominated most of the world for quite some time.


We've been through this before .... Enjoyment and contentment for the females. A way of making the low level males useful. A way of ensuring more males to provide for and protect her and her children...

There's an idea. The highest level females should be allowed many men to help provide for and protect her children. This would increase the chances of the highest level children thriving. The low level males could be sterilised, the high level ones could impregnate her over the years.

Well, that would only make "some sense" in a very abstract and "science fiction manner" if there would be a horrible overpopulation and one would reduce the number of fertile females to reduce the numbers of births. But even then both low level males and females should be sterilised in such a catastrophic situation, with the high level males and females being left to reproduce themselves. Why should a high level male allow a low level one to "go over his woman"? If a society would produce such males, it must be on its knees already and as I said, there would be no positive effect coming from that.

The only situation in which this would make sense if two cousins of the same quality would be on an island and having just one woman or a similar biological situation. So increasing variation through children of different males if there is a lack of valuable females, so that no male line of higher quality being lost. Otherwise it would never make sense both from a biological and social point of view.


Won't be much good if they don't stick around to care for their offspring... and even then, their competitors may just impregnate the women once their babies are born. Some women can fall pregnant merely a couple of months after giving birth.

Still its a loss.


Once again you're not seeing the full picture Agrippa. It is not only destructive due to spoiling the virginal and trustworthy women for the other men (I find it particularly disturbing that you speak of women as objects without personal value... you speak of them as though their value only extends as far as their usefulness to others goes... as if they're farm animals or some other kind of commodity), it is destructive because it entails a complete disrespect for one's body and an unhealthy disconnection of sex from emotions, responsibility, and caring. It also spreads disease. It is destructive because it can cause emotional pain.

Emotional pain might be a consideration for the respective male, but its no biological category to consider if dealing with successful strategies for survival as long as the emotional pain does not reduce the success rate, whereas to try to reduce the emotional pain would.
I'm not saying I dont consider that for a political solution now and for real life, nor in my personal partnerships, BUT that is another matter and what I did was the trial of a theoretical analysis of the biological consequences of a certain behaviour!

You appreciate motherhood and feminity? Well, why are there sexes? Why are human females as they are? Because they run faster, jump or fight better than their male counterparts? No, because they being specialised for getting children and caring for them, building up a basic social unit in which the group's bloodlines can survive, in the inner circle. The job of the males was primarily to protect this inner circle from unwanted and negative influences. It was not the job of the females to have last word on that. Thats why the function in a different way, which logic applies best to "friendly forces", not hostile or non-integrable ones.
Females might look more often at a foreign (f.e. Negroid) individual and think, "he looks sad", like if this individual would be her kin, but thats not the case! There is an overlap of male and female behavioural patterns of course, but still the differences are quite obvious and how a female dominance can weaken the group too.


The message was that gang rape is okay, but it sucks if it's your future wife that gets raped because then you can't marry the damaged girl and you have to find another one.

What is the message behind that if its would be a true case. Just recapitulate. The female was running around without male protection, so she was considered "fair game", but once they realised that a male of their group was "her protector", the whole situation changed immediately. What was described here was rather degenerated too, so more common in an urban area than under Bedus I'd say, which treat their females better usually too...

The problem with the Indo-Pakistani view on things I explained here:
http://forums.skadi.net/some_things_sexual_selection-t44384.html

The problem with Arabs is that they lack a certain dynamic and sexual selection of females can get low. Female become something like goods which have choice in mate selection any more and wealth determines everything. This can have negative biological side effects, typically more in an urban environment again.

To pay for a bride was better than a dowry sometimes, because the female was an investment of the group from which it came in a patrilocal society, so it would have been valued more if the bridegrooms family had to pay than if the family of the bride had to pay a dowry which finally came to the grooms family like in India over time - so the brides family not just losing a member but also the dowry and costs for the marriage.

Again what I'm saying applies all to a clan based society, not the modern societies to the same degree of course.

Compare with the development in the West:
http://forums.skadi.net/european_core_banana_and_hajnal_line-t40331.html
I posted the link more than once already because its a very important topic to understand certain Western characteristics.

Arabic behaviour can be funny too by the way ;)
http://forums.skadi.net/sudan_man_forced_marry_goat-t50682.html


Agrippa's intention to justify his stance by objectifying certain members of the community and reducing their status to breeding stock for the benefit of others is clear in this instance. No misinterpretation on my part.

If you feel better call the males cannon fodder and the females breeding stock for the sake of equal treatment of the sexes, because that sums the reality of human sexual specialisations up *lol*


It's the "because..." bit that I'm upset by. Women are not commodities that can be "stolen" and "destroyed" by having sex with other men.

Sure they are. They came from one clan and are the reproductive base for everyone who takes her from a biological point of view. This means, if one group "owned her", what would be the case even if she loves her husband and likes his clan, is free to go wherever she wants etc., thats not the question, and another male takes her away - again it doesnt matter how and why etc. - he has stolen her, because its a loss of reproductive potential for whatever group.
The same way the Ottomans have stolen young boys from the Balkan and made soldiers out of them, the janissaries. They were most of the time not allowed to have offspring, so just being used as a fighting force.

So the Ottomans took both from the Balkan people: The women for reproduction, the males for their army. That sums it up again...


So "purely biological" arguments aren't ever offensive?

Sure they can, but thats like saying, "oh no, dont speak about Darwin and apemen, that might offend my Christian uncle, he believes in the Creation of the world like it is written in the bible."

Well, I can't care for every opinion and right or wrong, useful or useless for the people are what I try to consider first.


He wasn't merely describing the biological side of human reproduction (which does necessarily include psychological aspects of humanity too, by the way),

Exactly: "Includes" (!)

Its part of that and must be judged biologically, by biological and reproductive fitness like anything else, like the motility of the sperm or the blood circulation in the uterus, since it can have same consequences, namely biological success or failure.


The fact that men are inclined to assign great value to anything that can be rationalised, even if it's to the point of being harmful, makes me anxious. Being able to readily separate emotional responses, and thereby compassion and consideration of others, from intellectual processes is not a virtue in my opinion... it's just narrow-minded, intellectually lazy, and it's dangerous.

Actually emotions and compassion, considerations of all kind being to me, as I said above, part of the "rational equation". But one should be able, for the sake of an argument and basic truth, to get rid of that in a theoretical debate.
Afterwards, in an aftermath, its about the analysis of what one could have learned from the facts, than its time to consider individual preferences as far as possible, though it should be clear that the group's interests have the primacy if necessary.


the difference being that they don't have the capacity to empathise with others. They are not capable of compassion.

There is a difference between not considering, not letting one to be driven by emotional considerations and compassion, ignoring empathy in a very specific moment or environment, or lacking it alltogether. The latter I consider a defect, the first a great ability of the schizothymic mind. Thats why they could have been rational and fanatic, caring fathers and partners but at the same hard and if necessary even cruel warriors...
But people without empathy in general, not just in exceptional situations in which it improves their ability to survive and to defend the group and their bloodlines, are, as I pointed out, dangerous (in general) and defect individuals.

Bridie
Thursday, November 30th, 2006, 02:02 AM
in most families are some recessive diseases, malign dispositions,And that's the crux of the argument against "inbreeding".... yet I don't think that it's true. Certainly, recessive conditions aren't so common. And of them, it's mostly the ones that don't manifest in one's phenotype until later in life (after fertile years) that are the most common, yet the least worrisome if looking at it from a purely rational, biological survival point of view.



I mean the inbreeding had particularly negative consequences sometimes if cousins bred with cousins or even members of the same nuclear family over generations,Only if recessive health conditions and negative traits were present in the family's genetic make-up. Could you imagine how strong and resilient a population could become if they possessed no detrimental negative traits and they inbred only to increase their positive traits? They'd become like super-humans! Unrealistic as this scenario is. ;)



I think to put it that way would be more reasonable: Its "more natural" for humans to prefer their own kind, that doesnt mean however, they dont procreate with other kinds of people if there is no other choice or a great choice of valuable procreation from an instinctive point of view.
So essentially you agree with me :D ... only you use different words to explain it. I say it is natural for humans to prefer their own kind, and if they have no other choice as far as they see it they will deviate from what is natural and interbreed with foreigners. I've never denied that this is possible... just that it goes against human (tribal) nature.

And what people feel is natural for them in this day and age of perversion of human instincts and needs, of harmful cultural perversions, is not necessarily what is truly natural for them either.



I can agree with you that this is basically true as a tendency, but still its a too strong word to call miscegenation "unnatural".
Well, our differences in opinion are just down to semantics then. You have stricter requirements on degree when assessing something as "natural" or "unnatural". :)



It seems unnatural for certain extremes for sure, but if dealing with individuals which have a high generalised genetic fitness and attractiveness, this led to mixture if the chances were there all the time, so we can't consider that being unnatural.
Well, I wasn't ever speaking from exclusively a "physical possibility" or "sexual attraction" point of view... I always incorporated cultural, behavioural, mental and emotional considerations too. All of these aspects are part of biology as well, insofar as the brain controls them, with being an expression of the latter three areas of humanity resulting in culture.



Well, there are good arguments for the Ferrari and the moped, but there is no rational one for "no vehicle", because this would mean death of the bloodline, whereas either choice means a chance.
Well, we were talking about what women generally prefer or desire... not the cold, hard, rational decisions that should be made for the good of the group. And if we are to take into account women's happiness and interpersonal harmony, which will determine social cohesion (for, as you've already admitted, this is the responsibility of women to a great degree) and the good of the children, then we must also take into account the fact that WOMEN DON'T WANT POLYGYNY!! It doesn't make them happy, and it doesn't provide them with what they need on an emotional level.

My Dad often travels to India... he has a Sikh friend who has several wives. My Dad and this friend of his both think that polygyny is a bad idea too (his friend rues the fact that he has so many wives - SERIOUSLY!), because apparently the women are always bickering and fighting... and it is usually left to their husband to sort it out. Young blokes from countries where monogamy is the norm probably look at polygynists and think "great! Lot's of sex with different women and I get to spread around my seed!" But the reality is more complex than that. Daily peace and harmony being destroyed... constant inter-family fighting and discord.... financial strain and responsibility... unreasonably high emotional and physical demands placed on the husband, all make polygyny a not-so-attractive prospect in reality, and a less than ideal social environment to raise children in.

Since befriending this Indian guy my Dad says, "I find it hard enough to put up with one woman... God help the man who has to put up with 3 or 4!" Okay, so he's trying to have a go at women :P , but there's an element of truth to it. Ever seen women competing with each other?? It's a bitchy, underhanded and deceptive game... and for a lot of the time in this circumstance, the women's bitchiness and spite will be directed at the husband, not the other women. Believe me, women who constantly feel angry, neglected and emotionally abandoned by their partner in life will just grow bitter and hateful toward the man whom they hold responsible for making them feel that way. Perhaps even the women may resort to bonding more with each other and decide to team up against the man....



whereas either choice means a chance.A chance for what? A chance for a woman to choose to sustain a population and culture that makes life hell for her? I personally would rather see a population like that die out. If they were my people I would either run away to support a group of people that I could love and feel passionate about devoting myself to, or I would kill myself. I would honestly rather die than support people who betray me and disrespect me - but that's just me, I'm sure not many women feel this strongly about such things. LOL



Actually women often chose males which just fake what they want and are not always that fond of individuals which dont try to fake things.I know what you mean Agrippa... and I don't understand such women that are charmed by obviously fake men with no integrity, honour or common sense either. It's always been a mystery to me why some women go for "bad boys", at least for short-term relationships. I've always prefered gentlemen myself. But I think the majority of women do prefer good, stable, genuine men for a long-term bet. (Well, the majority of women I know seem to anyway.) I hate to say it, but I think sometimes that it may be a socio-economic/intelligence thing (not to say that socio-economic status and intelligence are neccessarily inter-dependant of course). Most of the women you see around the place with scum-bag boyfriends/husbands, husbands who are philanderous liars, with loose morals and are hopelessly unstable are either very much lower socio-economic women, or extremely unintelligent women. Or maybe even women who have EXTREMELY low self-esteem and seem to think they're not deserving of a better quality man who will be able to treat her well and offer her security.



I think the majority of women want to hear lies.
Ah now Agrippa... "lies" is such a harsh word. ;) Men and women rarely speak the same language that's all. Women don't want to hear lies... men just don't interpret the questions properly :wsg ...

let me give you an example...

she says : "honey, does my ass look big in this dress?"
she means : "honey, I'm feeling really crappy and unlovable right now... it's hurting me... can you make me feel better? Help me."

he hears : "honey, does my ass look big in this dress".
he answers : "just a bit"

she hears : "sorry, but I don't think you're worth all of the effort that it requires for me to make you feel better. I don't care that much about you, and I won't support you. You're hurting? Well I don't care."

OR

he answers : "no sweetheart, you always look beautiful to me".

she hears : "I love you... you're worthy, you're valuable and I will always be here to support you if you need me."

Of course at this point she will pretend that she doesn't believe him and will say something like "oh, you're just saying that".... but she really just wants to hear it again... and again... it's such a high. LOL

So it's not so much lying, as understanding what she really means. Difficult for the man if he doesn't know her very well... easy if he knows her intimately. And this is one of the main reasons why women desire emotional intimacy... so he can know her, and she can know him, and they can look after each other's real needs.

Women most often don't take things as literally as men do. This is something that is evident in even very young boys and girls. Boys are more transparent, more up-front, more unemotional and straight talking. Girls are more emotional, relying heavily on symbolic interpretations and hidden emotions or thoughts surfacing in ambiguous ways. So girls and women aren't so transparent, but if you understand the rules of play, and are able to interpret words in conjunction with body language, tone of voice, context in which the words are spoken etc, women are simple creatures really.


I'll finish the rest later. :)

Carl
Thursday, November 30th, 2006, 01:52 PM
Ah now Agrippa...let me give you an example......

she says : "honey, does my ass look big in this dress?"
she means : "honey, I'm feeling really crappy and unlovable right now... it's hurting me... can you make me feel better? Help me."

he hears : "honey, does my ass look big in this dress".
he answers : "just a bit"

she hears : "sorry, but I don't think you're worth all of the effort that it requires for me to make you feel better. I don't care that much about you, and I won't support you. You're hurting? Well I don't care."

OR

he answers : "no sweetheart, you always look beautiful to me".

she hears : "I love you... you're worthy, you're valuable and I will always be here to support you if you need me."

Of course at this point she will pretend that she doesn't believe him and will say something like "oh, you're just saying that".... but she really just wants to hear it again... and again... it's such a high. LOL

I'll finish the rest later.

Oh BUT BRIDIE --- You have surely discovered your greatest talent :

.......................... YOU MUST WRITE A PLAY!!

You will become famous the world over -- your name will be in Lights in all the greatest cities!!!!!!! :)


..............:pcchattin............ :balloons.................. :smilies

ca:) rl

Desert Fox
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 05:27 PM
@ PERVITINIST

I think a better question for the Forum should be:

"Is mating/dating with divergent races beneficial to Whites? (including all the subspecies within the White race)"

Pervitinist
Monday, January 1st, 2007, 10:20 PM
@ PERVITINIST
I think a better question for the Forum should be:
"Is mating/dating with divergent races beneficial to Whites? (including all the subspecies within the White race)"

... and we would all unanimously shout "NO!! Of course not!!". :D

That's probably why Thorburn posed the question in a more philosophical (or weird) way.

SubGnostic
Friday, January 12th, 2007, 05:23 PM
And that's the crux of the argument against "inbreeding".... yet I don't think that it's true. Certainly, recessive conditions aren't so common. And of them, it's mostly the ones that don't manifest in one's phenotype until later in life (after fertile years) that are the most common, yet the least worrisome if looking at it from a purely rational, biological survival point of view.Humans accumulate about one hundred mutations per generation. While most of them don't have any effect at all, even one base in a codon substituted, due to error in replication, in the wrong place of the DNA strand can lead to severe diseases, metabolic disorders or/and mental retardation. And there's over 3 billion bases (nucleotides) in the human genome. An example of a recessive genetic disorder that is caused by a single substitution of a base is phenylketonuria (PKU). PKU causes severe mental retardation if it is not spotted at birth and if the child does not follow an absurdly strict diet.
The single recessive gene is present in about 2 percent of Europeans, and about 1 in 16,000 births inherits the double recessive [!disorder is expressed].---Lynn

The reason for the high prevalence of genetic disorders in children of close relatives is because recessive disorders are relatively common.


There are a large number of potentially harmful single recessives in the population, and it is generally considered that virtually everyone has at least one of these and many people have several.---Lynn


Prevalence Rates of Genetic Disorders per 1,000 Live Births in Canada:
Disorder Prevalence
Dominant 1.4
Recessive 1.7
X-linked (recessive) 0.5
Multifactorial disorders 47.0
Chromosome disorders 1.9
Unknown genetic cause 1.2
TOTAL 53.7--- Lynn

Recessive-gene disorders:
PKU

Cystic fibrosis 4% of Europeans are carriers, birth incidence about 1 in 2,500

Sjorgen-Larssen Syndrome - fish-scale-like skin rash, spasticity, three-quarters are confined to wheelchairs, mental handicap, degeneration of the retina, visual disability

X-linked recessives (females are carriers, disorders generally appear in males):

Hemophilia

Color blindeness - 8 percent of males, 1 percent of females

Fragile X syndrome - about 1 in 1,250 males and 1 in 2,000 females, all affected males are severely mentally retarded with average IQs around 40, females mildly retarded with average IQs of 50-70.

Duchennes muscular dystrophy - occurs in about 1 in 3,000 boys, progressive weakening of muscles, by the age of 12 affected boys are unable to walk at all and they normally die in adolescence usually from a chest infection of heart failure

Lesch-Nyhan syndrome - sufferers have uncontrollable fits of self-mutlation and frequently chew off their own fingers

...to name a few.

Also, as bizarre as it may sound, studies have shown that people find the sweat of those genetically more distant less repulsive. This is because it is beneficient to have genetically diverse offspring to decrease the possibility of heritable disorders. One should of course consider "diverse" within the bounds of genetic ethnicity.

I'd vote for natural in the context of "occurring in nature". The human organism relying on subconscious instincts is not concerned about mental qualities or aesthetics, but about survival, and quite short sightedly.


Only if recessive health conditions and negative traits were present in the family's genetic make-up. Could you imagine how strong and resilient a population could become if they possessed no detrimental negative traits and they inbred only to increase their positive traits? They'd become like super-humans! Unrealistic as this scenario is. ;) Not unrealistic. Unfortunately, eugenics became a dirty word after the second world war. The whole of western civilization is a dysgenic trend. As natural selection has ceased to weed out the undesirable , the financial support of the genetic underclass and modern medicine will eventually lead to the demise of Europe.


People who argue for miscegenation for reasons of increasing genetic diversity within a population are just talking crap in my opinion.Of course it is crap. Frank Salter analyzes the costs and benefits of exo- and endogamy in modern populations in his book "On Genetic Interests - Family, Ethnicity, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration". I wholeheartedly recommend for anyone to read it. He argues for genetic continuity as being the ultimate interest of people.
In purely eugenic consideration, miscegenation for Europeans is degenerative, unless the variation comes from two certain ethnic groups.

Æmeric
Friday, November 16th, 2007, 12:30 AM
An excellent essay on the subject of miscegenation. I do not know who authored it, but I found it at http://www.westerncritique.org, and it is written from the point of view of a Englishman or Englishwoman.


Why miscegenation is wrong

Miscegenation is a term that refers to the mixing of genes between genotypes of different human races. It also sometimes refers to interracial relationships in general. In the context of this article it refers to the descendants of interracial couples. Of all the effects of immigration and multiculturalism, rampant miscegenation is by far the most corrosive agent to racial cohesion because it cannot be reversed. This applies to any indigenous group though it's whites that this issue relates to. It's impact is similar to the devastation of the Amazon rainforest - the unique ecosystem cannot be re-grown once it's been razed for cattle grazing. For a heavily racially mixed population to genetically recombinate to resemble its original form requires many generations of selective breeding with wholly white individuals. There are no historical examples of this. On the other hand there are historical cases where past civilizations have withered out due to decadence induced by racial mixing, as disturbing as this may sound. Some scholars have suggested the Roman Empire dissipated for this reason. Whereas miscegenation has sporadically occurred to a lower extent in various cultures over the ages, it was forbidden by law in North America even before the founding of the United States. As late as the 1950s half the states in America upheld laws that prohibited miscegenation. These were laws devised for protection rather than petty prejudice which they are widely perceived as.

The topic of miscegenation may be embarrassing to raise but it is nevertheless legitimate concern for patriots because it is a major factor that is whittling down the white population in Britain and other western countries. It also creates adverse social and cultural side effects that will be summarised later in this essay. Opposing miscegenation should not be rashly misconstrued as detesting other races. You may even like or respect other races without wanting mixing. For example, it is logical to oppose the concept of breeding Tigers with Lions on the basis that it would lead to the loss of distinctive traits which distinguish these majestic beasts of the cat family. And it also means that the race or the sub species with the lesser population then the other ones it mates with will eventually face extinction. Whites are a relative minority group on the planet, constituting no more than 15&#37; of the human population. Maybe even less. So opposing the extinction of a group is actually moral as this essay will later discuss.

For the overwhelming duration of Britain's history, miscegenation was not a practiced or a recognised phenomenon. Granted, the settling tribes of Celts, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings and Normans had their differences, but they still shared a common northern European heritage, so the eventual mingling that took place between them cannot be classified as miscegenation. Centuries later today there are still individuals who are mainly Anglo-Saxon by descent, such as in the Home Counties, or Viking as found in the Yorkshire counties. In step with the growth of a multicultural society in Britain that traces its origins from the 1950s with the arrival of Commonwealth immigrants, racial mixing gradually proliferated, mainly in London and other major cities. But it's exponential increase didn't transpire until as late as the 1990s. I attribute this not only to the burgeoning ethnic minority population, but also due to an abandonment of restraint and morality provoked by relentless interracial propaganda in television, films, magazines, and even government advertising. The most stereotypical example of interracial couples are of course the black man and white woman. Most can see that black men love white women, obviously for their soft beauty and the badge of honour they derive from achieving this status symbol. In the vast majority of cases such relationships develop primarily from physical attraction. Most Afro-Caribbean black men for example would enter a relationship with a white woman without qualms. If that sounds a sweeping generalisation, I can only say I base it from a long consistent period of observation of black male preferences. In a way, black men demonstrate a subtle form of racism through their undeniable preference for white women above their own. It's no mere coincidence that nearly all the top black British football (soccer) players have white wives or girlfriends, just as many black musicians and actors have hooked up with white partners. Black men are certainly not doing this due to a shortage of eligible black women. It is reasonable to assume that most black women would be over the moon to marry a wealthy and successful black man of renowned prestige.

London, as well as the political capital of the Britain, is also the melting pot capital of the country, if not the world. Whites are highly sought after as sexual partners by many ethnic minorities. There are a number of reasons for this. White women, particularly of northern European extraction are especially desired by most men for their fairness and delicate features. They are prized diamonds. Whites in general, especially the Anglo-Saxon English in England, have traits of generosity and compromise that enable them to get on with many other ethnic minorities who would otherwise only date or marry someone of their own racial background. Many whites appear to have an innate sense of generosity that is 'excited' by races different to them, even though this is not the case with other peoples.

Taking an excursion on the streets of the capital, it's distressing to encounter the number of white women that have carelessly chosen black partners and sired mixed race children. At best I can only imagine the majority of these mindless, naive women don't realise they are jeopardising a stable future for white children, who will find themselves an embarrassing minority in a black and mixed race culture in the bleak years ahead. These future white children may come to learn the treasonous negligence of their forebears who determined their miserable fate. The women creating this impending genetic disarray cannot grasp the concept that they are playing a decisive role in shaping the future society. They simply don't think of the consequences of their tastes, or don't nurture much love, recognition, or appreciation of white beauty, nor their own races welfare and integrity. Tomorrow is of no concern to them. They act selfishly as if they have no obligation to the group they belong to. Worse still, a smaller minority of these deluded ladies even subscribe to the warped belief that they're making society a better place by bringing more interracial children into the world. That would seem to be the case given that interracial couples tend to bear more kids on average than white couples. And if they don't bear large families for that reason, perhaps they do it for social security payments or just as a spiteful vengeance against the white population. I don't know how these lost, deranged whites came to believe such self-loathing insanity, apart from falling under the insidious spell of anti-white, pro-multicultural brainwashing. Do they not realise that a nation is bound together by a degree of commonality and general consensus on fundamental issues of identity? It would seem they do not realise, nor do most of them apparently care that they're sowing the seeds of future disunity and unhappiness. The emerging mass of mixed race children with confused identities resulting from their diverse ancestral origins will not be a utopian place of contentment and harmony. Already this is evident in parts of London where immigration and racial mixing have eroded the healthy bonds of a community bound together by trust and a shared heritage. The most salient point about the decadent age of miscegenation we have entered is that it's not occurring in a climate of universal love and brotherhood. Besides the fact it's whites who are mainly mixing with other races rather than the Asiatic races amongst themselves, it is occurring in a society suffering rising crime, weakening identity, juvenile delinquency, declining public manners, vulgarity on television, the list goes on. But even if these ills weren't ubiquitous I would still prefer white people to love their own kind and unique type. Though many rational people may be persuaded to understand that miscegenation is flourishing in the growing degeneracy of modern Britain today, they may underestimate the danger it poses to long term stability and prosperity. It is no coincidence that in the last 10 years (since 1997) Britain has progressively degenerated into an uglier, nastier and less civilised place as miscegenation has increased. Both immigration and miscegenation have weakened collective British identity. The view that ethnically diverse communities are less socially harmonious was also affirmed by Harvard Professor Carl Putnam, who notes: "Inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbours regardless of the colour of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can make a difference."

I sometimes wonder if the whites who sexually mix with other races are bright enough to foresee the kind of society we're heading to by their actions, assuming they are not chronically naive. Most interracial relationships have tended to involve white women. Now white men are catching up by choosing non-white partners and bearing children, usually with Jewish or Oriental women. Possibly the men now have fewer suitable white females to choose from. In my view these men are caving in to propaganda and crass fashions promoted in pop culture. It does make one wonder if these whites actually think about the relative position of their own group in the world, that is to say, have racial awareness. Do they understand that whites as whole are a minority group in the world, and obviously the white Anglo-Saxon sub-branch a tinier minority still? Nevertheless, if you expressed disapproval to a white person over their choice of a non-white partner, they might call you a racist, tell you to mind your own business, or retort they have a right to date or marry whomever they wish. They don't want to see that their actions have a direct and detrimental impact on the rest of society. They are not concerned with issues such as dwindling white population, quality of relations between whites, and the destiny of a nation. Their stance is one of the mindless liberal 'do what you want and to hell with everyone else' variety. Or they might say the world is changing, even though most probably haven't visited every continent on Earth to observe that interracial relationships are not pervasive in the Asiatic world. Some white women partake in interracial relationships with a mild sense of shame, but this does not excuse them. It's like shoplifting with a sheepish attitude when there is no survival reason to shop lift. After all, there are plenty of white single men around for women to approach. Furthermore, with the growth of Internet dating agencies it is easier than ever for an attractive woman to take steps to find a single white man keen to initiate a relationship, even if the lady doesn't reside in a majority white area. And from what I've seen of these women, it wouldn't take them too long to find a man of their own kin.

As unpleasant as it may sound there are self-satisfied women who enjoy spiting their own men by smugly eloping with black men in public. Visit the West End district of Central London on a weekend evening and you will see a fair number of white women smiling and gloating with a black man or other ethnic minority on their arm. For them it is a laugh. They do not care about the message being sent by so many of them doing it. That is just one facet of the sickly 'self-hating' mindset that is endemic in English people. A major drawback of British society is that English people are not friendly enough to each other nor do the public as a whole take the question of race seriously enough. Friendliness and familiarity between indigenous members of a nation is essential for healthy relationships to develop. Yet the English as a whole do not respect kinship between themselves as the Scots do, or as you find in most European countries. This raises a curious paradox about the high rate of interracial relationships between white Anglo-Saxon English and ethnic minorities. White English people are very exclusive and cliquey about whom they will associate with in addition to the historical class divisions, yet do not apply this discernment to ethnic minorities. In particular white English women are quite stuck up and stand offish from my experience. It's almost as if the English like everybody else except themselves. This dysfunctional attitude is exceptionally harmful to white group solidarity in a multiracial society because it creates further divisions.

This whole sorry situation is ridiculous really, and one I never envisaged would arise back in my younger years. When I was a child I never imagined that in years to come I would be silently yearning in my mind for the women of my own race to love and admire their own men, as well as preserving a future for white children. I optimistically over estimated white British peoples (well English to be more precise) tastes and sensibilities. I thought my own people would be able to see what I can clearly see, and that they would educate their children about the importance of identity. And I also underestimated the hypnotising power of the media and entertainment industry to influence racial tastes.

To be part of the suburban London white English community today is like being a member of a mass suicide cult. And for patriotic whites, living in London is similar to sailing on a ship where your fellow passengers are drilling a hole on it. I wouldn't cringe at the odd interracial couple, but the extent to which this has spread is hastening the eventual demise of whites in London. As with many trends, it tends to accelerate once it becomes common enough to become socially acceptable, as much as throwing litter on the ground is now. Man is a social animal, and most people in society will try to behave in a manner that aligns with everyone else's behaviour. Social reinforcement bolsters approval from others. Following the herd satisfies the need to be included and be part of a community. Then a trend can almost become institutionalized, no matter how wrong or illogical it is. Some whites may chose to go 'interracial' not because they strongly desire someone different to them, but rather because they think its cool to posture in such a relationship. The individuals who enter such relationships may do it partly through their own preferences, but also the influence of fashions promoted in the TV, newspapers, magazines. The media and big business are partly culpable for this by jumping on the multicultural bandwagon. They have frequently published adverts with black men and white women in sexually suggestive positions, and suppressed discussion of rational objections to interracial relationships. In consumer advertising it has literally become the modus operandi for black men and white women to be positioned in close proximity in all scenes featuring a multi-racial cast. In fact whenever a black man, white man, and white woman are featured together in a group scene, the white man is rarely placed standing next to the white woman. Instead the black man takes his place, often with an arm round her or his body close. This framing is by no means coincidental or an innocuous reflection of current societal trends. Even in Microsoft Windows XP the white female icons are placed next to a darkened male icon. Microsoft somehow thinks its 'immoral' to show white men and women together! All of this is part of an overall deliberate conditioning process to promote the unnatural condescending notion that black men are somehow entitled to pretty white women. The white man is consigned to a nonchalant back seat. We have reached a point now in England where advertisers often refrain from casting an attractive white man and women together, less it be considered somehow off the agenda. Such a stance, if not warped reasoning, is pure hatred of course, and is only directed at whites. Tragically, many whites sense of dignity has become numb to it through repetitive intake, and they accept it without objection. Mainstream white society is unaware of the level of hatred fomented against them. The average person doesn't dwell much on such matters. Their pressing concerns are limited to their own family's welfare, not their extended family or race. The indifference to mounting hate against whites was noticed by the late Professor Relivo Oliver, an American professor of the classics in the 1960s. Oliver is widely regarded as one of Americas pioneer white nationalists. During the turbulent counter culture social revolution of the 1960s he was already convinced that white Americans had been taught to hate themselves, had accepted an incredible inversion of moral values, and succumbed to a suicidal masochism through their concerns of other races and nations above their own interests. This masochistic mindset is equally applicable in Britain today. And when in the very near future there were barely be any whites in consumer ads, and certainly no white couples together in them, the majority of whites won't blink an eye. Such an outcome would be a testament to the effectiveness of gradual progressive conditioning. A corollary of this is the boiling frog story. In the 19th century it was stated that a frog could be boiled to death if was placed in cool water initially. It simply adjusted to the heating water rather than jump out to save itself. Today the frog represents society and the heating water are the forces working against it in the forms of immigration and anti-white propaganda. Society is merely adjusting to unhealthy trends foisted upon it, even through the cumulative effect of those trends will lead to its demise.

Propaganda through advertising and television shows has definitely played its part in enticing white women to choose Blacks as partners. An example of this is the Big Brother television programme, a crass 'reality' show here a group of contestants aim to remain in a house for weeks while performing various activities including household duties and trying to get on with each other. It has become one of the most influential programs on British television to date. This is despite the fact that the program exposes a crass, banal and vulgar conduct of British behaviour. It is also a program that has generated controversy since its inception in 2001. Of these the most loudest incident was the racial taunting of Shilpa Shetty, an Indian lady, by two other contestants. Even though the program was merely entertainment it wielded enough cultural influence to warrant serious discussion in House of Commons, something no entertainment program has achieved before. It even attracted comments by then Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, now Prime Minister. Any other racially insensitive remark by contestants have also forced them to express remorse. In the latest series the show has promoted interracial sex by showing intimate scenes with a black male contestant and a blonde lady. Such lurid scenes will no doubt play a subversive role in conditioning young women to engage in such relationships in fashionable copycat escapades. Television incidentally has proved the most powerful medium in promoting interracial fashions, as it has a hypnotising effect over the viewer. It functions as a tool not only to report on the nation and world news, but also promote how the viewers should interact with society depicted on it. It acts as a form of authority, and many people respect it as they naively assume it represents the underlying beliefs and desires of the audience it captivates. Television almost constitutes a hidden form of government in the eyes of the masses. This is a dangerous and decpetive fallacy though. Just because a message reaches out to millions doesn't imply it is legitimate or fair. Only the Internet can claim to represent the uncensored opinions of thinking people.

If an image is marketed as being cool or fashionable then many women slavishly conform to it, and not simply preferences in clothing. It seeps into the subconscious minds of women so that in many cases they make an unsavoury choice without realising it has been programmed into them. Years of this conditioning during the 1990s have perverted women's healthy normal instincts to choose a mate from a similar background. It is fair to say this when you consider genetic evolution. Why would a beautiful white women whose genetic inheritance resulted from centuries of selective breeding suddenly abandon a sensible genetic instinct and throw away that distinct type by marrying a black man and bearing mixed race children? It doesn't make sense when you analyze the longer evolutionary history of white people i.e. how we got to where we are now. It is not a white womans automatic instinct to seek a man of a different ethnicity unless there is some kind of external influence. While it can be argued that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it could be argued that beauty was not created arbitrarily, but rather is a product of nature for a purpose. Some scientists even think that blondeness in females in northern Europe was natures response to encourage scarce men at the time to seek them as mates during the end of the last ice age. An interesting concept. I myself believe that aesthetic beauty is not an accident or solely a perception of an individual, and was intended by nature. Black men certainly know how to discern beauty in white women! However natural beauty is taken for granted by whites today in the dumbed down, crass and banal society we live in. White women often want to look glamorous for personal success yet they do take perpetuating that beauty to the next generation with much seriousness. White female celebrities epitomise this through their careless cavorting with non-white partners in public (usually parties). As usual so many of these women turn out to be English more so than American or any other white nationality. They causally race mix without thinking of the deeper consequences both in the short term and the long term. And quite a few interracial marriages have broken up due to genetically rooted differences. Nevertheless, the media appear to get a kick out of publicising these relationships. The same media that on one hand often complains about mass immigration and it's threat to British identity, promotes a fashion that is the most detrimental aspect of multiculturalism, as stated at the beginning of this essay.

Meanwhile, black males in contemporary pop-culture are portrayed as cool, suave, macho and self-assured. To some extent there is an inkling of truth in the qualities that are drummed up by media and consumer advertisers. Many black men are athletically inclined, with many possessing faster reflexes than whites, and denser bones, which gives them the edge in jumping sports such as basketball. And I myself admit that a black man can exude an alluring charisma that could tempt a white woman. As for sexual magnetism, I don't think any perceived belief about Black men being better endowed than white men is the predominant factor as to why white women choose them. White women may envisage a relationship with a black man as a kind of exotic adventure, and they neglect all ethical considerations as I will outline later. Now if you challenged the architects of these ads over their sly subliminal messaging, they'd typically argue they are promoting inclusion of ethnic minorities, or fostering racial harmony between the races. I reject such lame excuses for these targeted propaganda tricks. Why are whites targeted for pairing together with non-whites rather than Asians with Blacks or Orthodox Jews with Chinese, etc? And why is it that black women are rarely shown with black men in these adverts? It must be demeaning for black women to be snubbed and excluded from them, whilst they most obviously see that their own men's lustful preference for white women is enthusiastically endorsed and embraced by the advertisers? Think of the numerous single black women who may be denied a suitable partner due to their male counterparts fondness for white women. Viewing it from this perspective you can see the motive behind the themed advertising is to program young naive white women with the idea that having a black boyfriend is fashionable or socially desirable, and that a white woman's love should be channelled away from her own men. The net result is to insult the white man, and shun the black woman. A self-respecting single white man is effectively emasculated when he sees white women with black male partners everywhere he goes. It shoves a depressing dual message of rejection and inferiority to his face. In that regard, high rates of interracial relationships/marriage are an indicator of self-hatred and division within a race, not a sign of 'harmony' as liberals typically claim. If that was the case then nationalism wouldn't be growing like never before. However the media and multicultural apparatus won't permit such views on on rare discussions of this subject because it might stimulate people to think rationally. As far their concerned black men have a licence to get white women It might even awaken people as to who is hating whom.

Such trends can even accelerate the phenomenon known as 'white flight', as disenfranchised whites no longer identify with the transfigured character of the neighbourhood. The racially liberal preferences of their kinsmen can fracture and divide the community irrevocably. These disenfranchised whites become distraught at seeing so many other whites in interracial relationships and feel insecure about expressing their opposition to the pace of change. They no longer see them self as part of a nation and lose pride and hope for a better future.

The late William Gayley Simpson, an American nationalist who was a Franciscan monk and intellectual traveller, summed up this truth in his lifelong literary piece Which Way Western Man? He stressed that racial homogeneity is essential to any people's contentment, internal harmony, and national security. But we are still pressed with the question as to why these women don't seek white men? There is no shortage of white men looking for partners. Posing this question to white nationalists will elicit a variety of answers. Some think women are just capitulating to incessant multi-cultural propaganda in TV programmes and magazines. Others can see that white Anglo-Saxon women display a more intense partiality and predilection to Blacks compared to other ethnic sub-groups of the white European race, such as Celtic and Slavic branches. Indeed, rates of miscegenation in continental European countries are conspicuously lower than they are in Britain, such as in France for example, which houses an ethnic minority population comparable to Britain. Put simply, there is no other country apart from England I can think of in the recognised civilised world where its own native people are hating themselves into oblivion by miscegenation, even more so than in North America. Some argue this is just an inevitable worldwide phenomenon. This is not true on closer inspection. At a global level the Asiatic races of the world are retaining their genetic and cultural identity. And even if they weren't, any nation or people of the world should be entitled to preserve their heritage irrespective of how the other nations behave. Go to China and Japan, and you will not see much race mixing between the oriental peoples. The interracial couples you are most likely to spot in south east Asia are white western men in beach resorts who pick up oriental women for frolics or fast track marriage. They obviously do this as the oriental women are easier to attract than white women. The flourishing sex industry there is not the only reason, neither is it motivated by any wealth these tourists might flaunt. Female oriental immigrants to England not infrequently latch on to white men quite soon after their arrival. Thus from empirical observation one can see that the English are the least loyal subgroup of the white European family. And far too many white English women have no scruples. The selfishness of white women who choose blacks as sexual partners can also be ascribed to a breakdown of moral order. Ironically Richard Dawkins wrote a book in the seventies entitled 'The Selfish Gene' to explain the theory of evolution. In the hypothetical event he wrote a book to explain miscegenation between certain racial groups, it would be apt to name if 'The suicidal gene' for the harmful consequences it has on the white race. But deviance to chose someone genetically very different to you is not the sole reason for miscegenation. There is no doubt that an insidious combination of interracial themes in magazines, television and consumer advertising has increased the rate of this phenomenon that would have naturally occurred if these social engineering techniques were absent. In spite of all the propaganda, many whites still possess an innate instinct to choose a partner of their own race, and that even includes the English Anglo-Saxon racial sub group. Multicultural conditioning is only able to override inborn genetic preferences because human beings are sentient creatures who can sometimes be influenced through communication even when their instincts tell them it's not right. And whites have accepted multiculturalism more readily than other races because of their innate generosity and belief in universalist principles.

To summarise, the harmful effects of mass miscegenation upon a white population, or any distinct racially indigenous people for that matter are the following;

The genetic distance between members of the community is widened. This alienates whites who want their brethren to be united by blood kinship ties, cultural unity and physical similarity.

Families can break up when alienated relatives of the white [often female] partner disapprove of the sexual union with her non-white spouse and their offspring.

It creates a depressing, sullen atmosphere that the white community is not loving itself enough through social unity, but preferring the traits of the Asiatic races.

The bonds of trust within the white community can weaken. Whites can no longer trust white strangers they encounter in day to day life will share the same ideological outlook about race and nationhood. They may feel reluctant to openly express their concern how the society they are living in is suffering due to miscegenation, a symptom of multiculturalism.

It reduces the white population since the mixed race individuals usually do not look or behave white. There are fewer whites that other whites can select as mates.

There are no historical examples where rampant miscegenation has resulted in a happier, more unified, stronger, or more creative society.

Mixed race individuals sometimes wrestle with an identity crisis, or can occasionally have a confused direction in life due to conflicting instincts they have inherited.

What we do know undoubtedly is that interracial advertising is not found in every nation on the planet. If you visit China, you won't see adverts with smiling Chinese women with their heads close up to a black man, nor in Japan or numerous other Asian countries. Neither has anyone produced a convincing thesis why miscegenation is desirable from a social, scientific or moral perspective. As far as I'm concerned the people promoting this garbage are fundamentally malevolent, as they are literally endorsing the genocide of an entire race for no valid reason whatsoever. The term genocide is not an exaggeration in this context. It literally means a destruction of the genes. It must be stressed there is no rational reason for hatred on this scale. While the leftist anti-white sycophants usually deride white nationalists who oppose miscegenation as 'Nazis', the hypocritical scale of the hatred they endorse far exceeds Nazism, and is more on par with that of Stalinism, which does not get so much attention as the wartime atrocities committed by the Nazis. The anti-white liberals today do not consider these schemes as hate, nor are they concerned about any identity and solidarity that whites might seek. Some of the most audacious anti-white liberals would even spout rubbish such as why it's worth preserving the white race at all. Or thy might argue that since the white race is not pure due to [limited] mixing in the past then there is no reason for whites to think of themselves as a group. That reasoning is flawed. It's similar to saying that you shouldn't think of yourself as being clean because you have dirt under your fingernails, therefore its pointless taking a bath because you can't be fully clean. Another argument used in defence of interracial relationships is along the lines of 'why should two individuals who love each other and have compatible personalities be prevented from marrying and/or bearing children because they are racially different? The fallaciousness of this proposition can be affirmed in that the majority of interracial relationships show very distinct racial coupling patterns i.e. black men with white women, white men with oriental women. They don't usually form because of genuine individualism but rather from an infatuation of physical traits. If the individualist argument was true then you'd see other racial groups with each other, such as black men with oriental women, which are relatively rare. And even if an interracial couple get on well, they must also consider the future of their children, and the effect on the rest of the population.

If white society has deteriorated and neglecting its interests, is it worth saving? In spite of the mediocrity and irresponsibility I say yes. Certainly there are stupid, aggressive and unattractive people in the white race, but that is compensated by excellence and greatness. To paraphrase former President Bill Clinton (not exactly a pro-white paragon) who once said "There is nothing wrong with America that can't fixed with what is right with America", I say "There is nothing wrong with the white race that can't fixed by what is right with the white race'. If white organisation and technological prowess can put man on the moon and send probes to Mars, then I believe the noblest and passionate white role models can steer the masses in an upward direction. And that means away from self-loathing, away from mediocrity, away from rootless universalism, and towards personal responsibility and a restoration of traditional values that served Britain and kindred nations well in the past. Unlike cosmopolitan liberals, I see no evidence to substantiate that drastically reducing the white race in numbers or integrity is going to make the world any better. It would only lead to the development of the 'human herd': a debased mass of people on a global plantation with little in common with each other ancestrally, a world where beauty, tradition, and idealism have been snuffed out. That sort of world might appeal to the one-worlders and cultural Marxists, but it doesn't appeal to myself and other sane patriotic individuals. Incidentally, some conspiratorial minded people think the one-worlders want all races to blend and extinguish their identity. I don't think this is their intention. They would still grant most of the Asiatic world the right to preserve their autonomy. Their real target is western civilization. A free for all west with no racial identity in other words. And even the innocuous one-worlder who sincerely feels that humanity would be better off without the concept of nations are sorely mistaken that their model could work well. There still exists in the majority of any racial group a biological and spiritual urge to belong to a natural nation. You can't run a nation on the basis of self hate, where an irresponsible section of the citizenry are defecting away from their natural roots. Therefore it's preferable for everyone that all the races and nations preserve their identity while trying to stay on peaceful cordial terms with each other by maintaining contact through trade, tourism, and limited exchange programs. By contrast, the racially mixed and socially stratified Brazil ominously points to the future of Britain if current trends persist, and perhaps even worse, as Britain occupies a much smaller land area. We still must address why its worthwhile for the white race to preserve itself, rather than ignobly dissolve itself into a 'human' biomass. Answering that question in detail would require an essay in itself. But to summarise it in a nutshell, we should strive to preserve the white race by avoiding miscegenation for the following reasons;

To honour the struggles of our ancestors who worked hard so their efforts to build and maintain a civilisation could be passed down honourably to their descendants for posterity.

To uphold and revere the beauty of white women, who enhance the aesthetic experience and pleasure of society.

We have a sense of self respect that urges us to preserve and improve, not destroy through racial negligence.

So the white children of the future learn that their ancestors actually cared about the society they would inherit.

We see that the outstanding creativity and inventiveness of people of European descent is beneficial to the overall survival and advancement of humanity on the planet. An example of this is the movement to protect endangered animal life, which is almost exclusively spearheaded by whites.

The reasons listed above are not the only reasons to preserve the white race. Some nationalists have cited European intelligence and technological achievements as a justification for whites to remain a distinct group. But we should not have to justify our existence by what we create as a whole. That is purely a functional, utilitarian reason for existence. No human group should have to justify its right to prevail on that basis. Above all whites must survive to satisfy the moral imperative to survive and prosper. It is moral to care about your own extended family and respect the struggles of your forefathers. And it is moral to care about humanity as a whole provided the preceding condition is firmly adhered to.

Ignorance of racial responsibility and self-hatred of your own race is a perverse spiritual and mental aberration, a sin against nature. Miscegenation is a form of white self hatred, and one that is unnecessary and ruinous. It is totally understandable that sensitive, patriotic white men are upset when they see their women fawning over men of other races. An honourable man has a natural instinct to be protective of his female kinswomen, and to want his women to admire the characteristics of the race to which they both belong. I mean, tell me why a white man should want or approve of his own women to prefer black men or other non-white races?! The most beautiful and morally decent white women should be held in high esteem. White women in particular are the flowers of joy and delight that enhance the aesthetic experience of life. And likewise, women should love and respect handsome, intelligent moral men. It would be an unmitigated loss in the world to wake up one day and find you didn't see an attractive white woman anywhere. Having said this, we should always treat people according to their character, but at the same time try to uphold mating practices that preserve the treasures of our collective identity.

I want to belong to a nation that loves its own kind and recognises the duties and shared experience of being part of that nation. The first precept of the nation is that it should love its core identity - it's people. Moreover, white men should not be compelled to compete with black men or other ethnic minorities for white women. Everyone needs to realise that pretty white women are a precious finite resource. In order for them to prevail in the future then the current doves and swans must marry a white man of similar extraction and have children. As a believer in natural order and mild compassionate eugenics I resolutely believe that every handsome and intelligent white man deserves the love a pretty white woman of similar physical and intellectual disposition. Ideally, a perfect match that perpetuates the character and innate qualities of the race. This stance is not 'Nazism'. It is natural common sense. In fact most normal people are gratified and comforted when they see an attractive well matched couple together with children who look like them. It creates an image of order, self respect, and visible sign that the nation loves itself to maintain what really defines it. Think of the advantages that children have descended from parents of the same race from a similar background. The children will not suffer from identity conflicts and they will likely show an interest in the history of their genetic lineage. And while the advocates of interracial relationships don't care about the jilted pride of white men and their rightful entitlement to their own women, neither do they care about the downtrodden black women snubbed by their own men. To them, black men are tools to dismantle white racial and social cohesion, as such relationships inevitably produce mixed race children who usually bear little physical resemblance to their mother other than a lighter skin than their father. Black men who do poach white women very often cherry pick the whitest prettiest women. That is a double blow for white survival, as not only does it deprive a white man of a prospective ideal partner, it cruelly removes the most desirable white genes from re-entering the reproductive white gene pool if the couple decide to bear children. And even if the couple don't have children, it is still a potential loss because the white woman won't have children as if she would likely have done if she married a white man. The net result in either case is that fewer white children are born.

The children of interracial parents have a variety of feelings about their inheritance. In general the children usually identify more strongly with their black side than their white one. They are predisposed to the speech patterns and mannerisms of blacks, along with an affinity for ebonic culture. In other words, the whiteness of the mothers genes is obliterated and dissolved. A racial liberal may say 'what's wrong if part of child's genetic inheritance is different, if they are a darker shade than white? Well firstly, the differences are more than skin deep. Genes are now known to control many aspects of behaviour.

The answer to the liberals question is to counter ask 'why is it wrong to want to preserve whiteness'. Whites do not need to be replaced by another genotype, and they should not be conditioned to tolerate their replacement. I am not saying that every mixed race child will be a bad child. The essential objection to miscegenation is that the key traits of whiteness are not apparent, or they are markedly subdued. Ever since a boy I've always adored the cheerful gregariousness of white girls, which they derive directly from their genetic inheritance. A mixed race child doesn't exhibit the same vitality, freshness, and spark about them. Above all, race is about character even more so than skin colour. The character of a race cannot be preserved if miscegenation takes root. Ultimately, rampant miscegenation contravenes the core principles of a healthy nation: of a people bound together by a common ancestral and cultural heritage who recognise themselves as being distinct from other peoples. Any nation that wants to prevail very long must consist of citizens that remain loyal to their own ethnic group when it comes to sex and marriage. True patriotism is shown in the bedroom! Sadly, in modern England, the USA and other parts of the west, far too many indigenous whites are oblivious to racial loyalty and extended kinship, and are susceptible to fashionable interracial escapades irrespective of their ruinous consequences. This is one reason why England is pitifully sick and getting sicker with each passing year. This brings ups the overriding theme of Western Critique - to uplift society as a whole we need to discard our collective self hate and begin healing ourselves.

So to conclude, miscegenation is a scourge. We must abstain from it and recognise the divisions it inflicts on white solidarity. If you are a white woman reading this, my message to you is simple: love your own race, love your own men! Don't selfishly take your own beauty for granted. Never forget that you hold the key to ensuring your lineage is faithfully and rightfully passed down from your forefathers. Don't deceive yourself that you are just a mere individual that can leave the duty of creating the next white generation to somebody else. If you are attractive, view your silky hair, soft fair skin and fine features as a gift of nature to be cherished and preserved for future generations, rather than an arbitrary personal benefit that can be irresponsibly mixed away through miscegenation. If you are beautiful then you have a moral obligation to repay nature and your ancestors by selecting a handsome man who will give you a child in your image. By doing so you truly are helping to improve society both in the short and long term. Don't view your genes as disposable. Ignore anyone who tries to infer it is supremacist or racist to want to preserve a human form that is unique and not the rule in the world. And while it is sometimes true that aesthetic beauty is skin deep, remember that more than outward physical traits are passed down in the genes. Racial character, intelligence, and a whole range of other traits are encoded in our DNA. This message is for white men and women everywhere in the world, not just those in England, though it is in England above all which must pay serious attention.

DanseMacabre
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 06:02 AM
Excellent essay. Due to the bombardment of many young whites by entertainment portraying miscegenation as harmless; I don't believe many young whites realize they are destroying something that cannot be replaced. Practically all other non-white races are increasing in numbers while whites are decreasing. And most whites see no reason to change this trend. We as a race have lost our soul.

Soldier of Wodann
Wednesday, November 28th, 2007, 10:14 PM
Some scholars have suggested the Roman Empire dissipated for this reason.

I never quite understood this argument. Is it being implied that Romans mixed with those they conquered? If so, why would this have led to a significant downfall? Most of the people they conquered were White, and all of them were at the very least Caucasian (with VERY little exception). I don't know of any non-White Roman emperors or anything of the sort. Would people who advocate this argument even go so far as to say that the Romans as a whole are racially mixed? With whom are they mixed? Etruscans? Gauls? Iberians? Arabs? Such a strange argument, and yet I hear it all the time. I don't even think the conquered communities of the time were integrated enough to mix anyway. Nations within the Empire, IMO.

Great article though, sorry if it seemed like I was trying to take away from it. :P

The Lawspeaker
Wednesday, November 28th, 2007, 10:22 PM
@ Soldier of Wodann.

There have been two :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elagabalus (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http&#37;3A%2F%2Fen.wikip edia.org%2Fwiki%2FElagabalus)

Emperor Elagabalus (a Syrian)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_the_Arab (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikip edia.org%2Fwiki%2FPhilip_the_Arab)
and Emperor Philippus I Arabs ( an Arab/Syrian)

Both have been reported to be horrible rulers. Elagabalus was only 14 years old when crowned and his rule was one that was marred with controversy. According to a book I just read his hobby was yo"release snakes when having dinner so he could scare his guests", he was also reported to have "married the head of the Vestal Virgins" and he has "declared himself a God".

And no.. I am not speaking of Nero here.

Soldier of Wodann
Wednesday, November 28th, 2007, 11:17 PM
@ Soldier of Wodann.

There have been two :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elagabalus (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikip edia.org%2Fwiki%2FElagabalus)

Emperor Elagabalus (a Syrian)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_the_Arab (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikip edia.org%2Fwiki%2FPhilip_the_Arab)
and Emperor Philippus I Arabs ( an Arab/Syrian)

Both have been reported to be horrible rulers. Elagabalus was only 14 years old when crowned and his rule was one that was marred with controversy. According to a book I just read his hobby was yo"release snakes when having dinner so he could scare his guests", he was also reported to have "married the head of the Vestal Virgins" and he has "declared himself a God".

And no.. I am not speaking of Nero here.

Well thats 2, neither of which are SURELY semitic anyway. Still don't see how 2 shitty non-Latin leaders who both ruled 5 years destroyed the Empire.

Eiríkr
Thursday, November 29th, 2007, 01:33 AM
I disliked the writer’s choice of words and style, and much of it was rather redundant.


Whites are a relative minority group on the planet, constituting no more than 15% of the human population.I’m not sure what the essayist considers to be white, but 15% is too high I believe.


It is no coincidence that in the last 10 years (since 1997) Britain has progressively degenerated into an uglier, nastier and less civilised place as miscegenation has increased. Both immigration and miscegenation have weakened collective British identity. When I think of racial mixing, I often visualize this:
If we were still capable of producing offspring with chimpanzees, would the results be favorable? Obviously the results would be degenerative as is racial mixing with primitive specimens.


Their stance is one of the mindless liberal 'do what you want and to hell with everyone else' variety.This is exactly what comes to my mind when I think of Liberals.


Even in Microsoft Windows XP the white female icons are placed next to a darkened male icon. Microsoft somehow thinks its 'immoral' to show white men and women together!I was aware of most things in this essay, but this is downright ridiculous!
http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/8892/31607835lm9.jpg


To honour the struggles of our ancestors who worked hard so their efforts to build and maintain a civilisation could be passed down honourably to their descendants for posterity.Let’s all live the wealth that our ancestors endowed us with no respect.

Miscegenation shows the selfishness and ignorance of individuals. The lack of respect for their culture and nation are fairly evident. Children should learn the importance to love their culture at an early age. Patriotism is diminishing.

Another major problem is people are often afraid of speaking their mind in public which differs from the norm.

Rassenpapst
Thursday, November 29th, 2007, 01:39 AM
I never quite understood this argument. Is it being implied that Romans mixed with those they conquered? If so, why would this have led to a significant downfall? Most of the people they conquered were White, and all of them were at the very least Caucasian (with VERY little exception). I don't know of any non-White Roman emperors or anything of the sort. Would people who advocate this argument even go so far as to say that the Romans as a whole are racially mixed? With whom are they mixed? Etruscans? Gauls? Iberians? Arabs? Such a strange argument, and yet I hear it all the time. I don't even think the conquered communities of the time were integrated enough to mix anyway. Nations within the Empire, IMO.

Great article though, sorry if it seemed like I was trying to take away from it. :P
The theory is that Ancient Romans were originally Nordic and their civilization declined as they became more mixed with other (white) races.

http://www.faem.com/western/fallrome.htm

I don't think that is true, though.

rainman
Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 12:55 AM
It is too complex to answer with a simple answer.

I think generally it is not natural for people to mix with those who are extremely different from them. Race can be a relative concept, but it is obvious on an individual level when a person is very much different from another.

Secondly I think it is even more so unnatural to mix with a someone that you observe to be inferior in some way. Though I think if you view a race as superior you might in some way be inclined to mate with them.

I think media, education etc. have worked very hard to over come these natural tendencies in humans.

Though on a more large scale note, there must be at least a small amount of outside gene flow into any population to keep it from stagnating. This is because of the reality of genetic drift. A "superior" race will be made inferior if it inbreeds for long enough given enough time i.e. it won't evolve with the rest of humanity. But this requires such a tiny fraction of a percent of the population that for all practical purposes for the average joe it can be ignored. (for example Europeans have historically had this tiny amount of non-European geneflow without it affecting their character as a race).

Regarding Polygamy: I think it is irrational to desire a failure of a man who will love you completely than to share a wealthy, smart successful man. The wealthy man can provide for you (even if you must share) far more than the poor one. Throughout human history polygamy seems normal whereas our current monogamy is the exeption. Though I do agree that generally for most normal people monogamy is best. Though for the race and folk those people who are well above average should have more mates.

Oswiu
Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 01:32 AM
Though on a more large scale note, there must be at least a small amount of outside gene flow into any population to keep it from stagnating. This is because of the reality of genetic drift. A "superior" race will be made inferior if it inbreeds for long enough given enough time i.e. it won't evolve with the rest of humanity.

Why do I keep reading this sort of thing on the net lately? It sounds like the worst pseudoscience babble to me. Even the English alone are a huge enough group to carry on to infinity with absolute endogamy without any disadvantage! What on Earth could happen to us if we didn't do what you recommend here? Are we all going to become sickly and fade out of existence? Of course not! We are MILLIONS! There is more than enough variety and potential even in one town to suffice. I repeat; what is the actual nature of this amorphous danger facing us if we ignore this argument you make?

BeornWulfWer
Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 01:47 AM
Regarding Polygamy: I think it is irrational to desire a failure of a man who will love you completely than to share a wealthy, smart successful man. The wealthy man can provide for you (even if you must share) far more than the poor one.


I would take the love of my good women over any amount of money.

I may be poor, and I may be uneducated compared to most on this site, but I sure as hell will, and do, provide for my family.

I pity other parents when I see their children go spastic over not being given something they have asked for.
They are spoilt and should be given more love and attention rather than toys and distracting presents.

My daughter is wonderful. She asks for something and I have to say "no", god bless her, she replies, "we get it next time, then? When you have money?" -- "Of course I will baby. :)"

Love is greater than any material wealth. Perhaps we wouldn't be in this state if the majority woke up and shook off their evil materialistic values and concentrated on their most precious of possessions. Family!

Hauke Haien
Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 02:02 AM
Genetic drift is desirable, especially if we can drive it all the way to speciation. The processes that generate genetic variety and destroy disadvantageous genotypes will continue to function. We just have to make sure that the latter process aligns with our goals by defining what is advantageous and what is not.

rainman
Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 03:40 AM
Why do I keep reading this sort of thing on the net lately? It sounds like the worst pseudoscience babble to me. Even the English alone are a huge enough group to carry on to infinity with absolute endogamy without any disadvantage! What on Earth could happen to us if we didn't do what you recommend here? Are we all going to become sickly and fade out of existence? Of course not! We are MILLIONS! There is more than enough variety and potential even in one town to suffice. I repeat; what is the actual nature of this amorphous danger facing us if we ignore this argument you make?

Firstly we are talking about a necessary trickle. Many generations could go by with absolutely no outside blood. When outside blood comes in it would be less than %1 of the population. On such a small scale it wouldn't be noticable to the typical person. Though the smaller the population you are dealing with the greater the need for outside input. You wouldn't be "safe" until your population was the majority of the people in the world, then maybe you could almost turn the spicket off and remain competitive.

Well this has happened historically. The aboriginees of Australia were roughly the same as all other humans when they arrived. They were a small isolated group. They never evolved with the rest of humanity. It wasn't that they had retarded children because of inbreeding, it's that they never got any influx of new mutations in the larger population that was beneficial. This has been shown with every isolated group of human beings in the world. Have we ever gone to some remote isolated tribe on top of a mountain and been amazed at how advanced their civilization was? No they are usually living in the stone ages. Maybe some of this has to do with things outside of genetics, but there certainly does seem to be a genetic factor as well.

This also relates to immunity to disease. Native Americans. Why were they nearly destroyed by the "white man's" disease? Because they were a mostly isolated genetic population and never recieved the inflow of beneficial immunity mutations.

Or we can take royalty. Europe- Many families in the middle ages and such who started out "superior" eventually died out. The inbreeding weakened them. Similar with the Egyptian pharos. It can hold out for a long time. Maybe thousands of years but at some point it will lead to failure if the population is too isolated genetically.

A folks blood- a people, a species will filter out undesirable traits and retain what is desirable if there is only a small amount of mixing. If you think about it a racially mixed person can have children that conform to the community and do not appear foreign but may have a few desirable traits. Though you could not have a culture of blind tolerance, but need a natural human culture of standards and necessary conformity. This is basically elementary genetics but most people I talk to don't understand it even if I explain it.

Geneticists are actually doing such with American Chest-Nut trees. In case you need an example. There are two different races of chest-nut, well actually several. The American tree is very large and tall. Different leaves, different chest-nuts etc. The Chinese is very short and bushy and different leaves and chestnut. The Chinese chestnut when brought to America had a disease that has destroyed the American chestnut tree, nearly bringing it to extinction. Geneticists have cross the American and the Chinese Chestnut. Then they expose the babies to the virus. The survivors are then crossed with an American, again every generation exposed to the chestnut virus. After a few generations they start taking out the trees that have chinese characteristics. By the time they have a 1/16 Chinese and 15/16 American tree they have created a tree that indistinguishable from the American Chestnut, but also has the immunity to the disease and thus may survive.

A culture; a folks community would similarly mold people towards a certain ideal racial character, but certain genes would need to flow in. You can't have any race without a community that encourages a certain "ideal" therefore I don't think anyone on these forums that I know of really have a stable race. I think these fundamental concepts should be understood by everyone with an interest in race.

You should know that the next generation of English will not be exactly the same as this generation. If there is no culture or no collective will of the people to prefer one type of person more than another (or some outside selective force) then there will be no race. Race is created more by the culture and people than by simply "pure" breeding. For example a community that took in small amounts of outsiders but selectively bred for highlly "Aryan" or "Nordic" features would appear more Nordic in 1,000 years than a group of people who already look highly Nordic but simply inbreed with each other. Mutations would mean variation would increase for the inbred group and they would start to look more different. The smaller the population the more exagurated this becomes. So again if you were a forward thinking racialist you would form a community and agree on a common culture and a set standard (or range) of appearances etc. If you really want to become an expert on such read up on dog pedigrees. Essentially to maintain a "breed" of human would be exactly the same as with dogs.



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1229_051229_chestnut.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosis

Hauke Haien
Monday, October 6th, 2008, 12:51 AM
This has been shown with every isolated group of human beings in the world. Have we ever gone to some remote isolated tribe on top of a mountain and been amazed at how advanced their civilization was? No they are usually living in the stone ages. Maybe some of this has to do with things outside of genetics, but there certainly does seem to be a genetic factor as well.
What isolated groups lack is not just foreign gene input, but also foreign competition. Even if we achieve genetic isolation, we would still have to compete and be molded by this pressure.


This also relates to immunity to disease. Native Americans. Why were they nearly destroyed by the "white man's" disease? Because they were a mostly isolated genetic population and never recieved the inflow of beneficial immunity mutations.
Europeans were continuously exposed to diseases from all over the Eurasian land mass and had ample opportunity to build up resistances themselves. I believe this is another misattribution.


Or we can take royalty. Europe- Many families in the middle ages and such who started out "superior" eventually died out. The inbreeding weakened them. Similar with the Egyptian pharos. It can hold out for a long time. Maybe thousands of years but at some point it will lead to failure if the population is too isolated genetically.
This is a problem with small populations and does not really apply, unless you intend to form a small community and breed like dogs. You would still end up being overwhelmed by the political structure around you, though.


A folks blood- a people, a species will filter out undesirable traits and retain what is desirable if there is only a small amount of mixing. If you think about it a racially mixed person can have children that conform to the community and do not appear foreign but may have a few desirable traits. Though you could not have a culture of blind tolerance, but need a natural human culture of standards and necessary conformity. This is basically elementary genetics but most people I talk to don't understand it even if I explain it.
Sure, but sifting through billions of outsiders in search of valuable traits is not practical and there are things like cultural identities, not just in the superficial and procedural sense, that impede such designs.

TheGreatest
Monday, October 6th, 2008, 01:32 AM
Who said mixing will make us more intelligent?
How do we know the Phalid Germanic of the old had an IQ of 180? Society is built on the accomplishments of the past.


Did Einstein invent the theory of relatively? Yes. But who made it possible? Without the lightbulb, Einstein would not had been able to work in the night. Without society and order, Einstein probably would had died as a young adult in a war or something. And without the farmer, Einstein would be too concerned about finding food to work on some "nonsenical" theory.



I tend to look at non-Europeans in a very black and white fashion. I see the IQ tests of African Males returning results between 60 and 80, numbers that would get a White Male declared mentally retarded, as hopeless and detrimental to mixing.


How low is too low? The Spanish went into South America as pure European men, then many abandoned the racial system and some of them such as Boliviar wanted to "create a new race".

That has worked perfectly, as last I check South America is a continent full of Banana Republics, with the only shreds of civilization resembling Western Europe are located in Southern Brazil and Argentina. Good going Boliviar.

Hauke Haien
Monday, October 6th, 2008, 02:00 AM
IQ also regresses towards the mean:


To = T + h2(T*-T) where

To = predicted offspring phenotype
T = population mean
h2 = narrow sense heritability
T* = midparent value [(Tf + Tm)/2]

Source: Estimating the offspring phenotype (http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/mcclean/plsc431/quantgen/qgen6.htm)

I value race mostly as a component in cultural ethnogenesis and I would therefore prefer an approach to eugenics that uses an organic ethnic mass to work with instead of all humanity. A pan-Germanic approach would already be quite a stretch in an European context, but the point of cultural divergence is fairly recent when compared to all of whitehood or all of humanity and the common roots are more readily identifiable and can be appealed to in mutual assimilation processes, both on an individual and collective level, if desired.

Wodens Day
Tuesday, June 9th, 2009, 07:27 PM
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/2372/heidisbaby8jf.jpg

Bye Klum, you could have passed on your genes to the afterlife but you committed gene suicide, treachery and adultery (which originally meant interracial sex (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/adulterate) but has been redefined by communists to mean extra marital sex) and your punishment under natural law has been to be trapped in the body of a hideous mongrel freak in the next life. Germania will remember you only as a bad example to shock others.

Sigurd
Tuesday, June 9th, 2009, 08:11 PM
and adultery (which originally meant interracial sex (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/adulterate) but has been redefined by communists to mean extra marital sex)

If the Communists perverted the "original meaning" of this word, how do you then explain that the use of the word Adultery was used to term extra-marital sexual relations already in times when Communism was not yet formulated?

It is correct that the term "adultery" comes from Latin adulterare, and it is indeed correct that this means to corrupt, to alter, and essentially "to make other" if translated part by part.

Since adultery does not necessarily have to include an addition to the bloodline, and it was always capable of being charged even if no child was involved, the corruption cannot be considered one of any addition to the genepool/bloodline.

As such, it is probably a morally-derived term, perhaps dating back to Canon Law: The "corruption" could be seen as a "Corruption by the devil", basically giving in to the sinful temptation of infidelity.

Bold attempt, but alas incorrect in terms of legal and socio-cultural history. ;)

rainman
Tuesday, June 9th, 2009, 08:28 PM
Europeans interbred with each other. Therefore being part of a huge population that has only recently branched off from the Eurasian human branch of course they had genetic resistance. Though still the black plague killed at least one fourth of Europe if not half. There were only vague notions of race throughout European history. Mainly the differences we see between Europeans and non-Europeans arose from physical isolation and distance between populations. This barrier is broke down. A modern race, say like Jews is created by the will of the community itself to remain distinct. This entails two seperate things.

Yes the rules would be different if we were dealing with entire nations that willingly racially isolated themselves (racial states) but they don't exist. Yeah sure the entire nation of britain could be self sustaining if it wanted to, but it isn't. Though even here if there is a desirable mutation that advances humanity the smaller group will usually suffer if it 100% isolates itself. What if there is a new gene that creates better intelligence, physical fitness etc.? It would be beneficial to bring it into a population. This is why typically for a long term sustaining population you want to bring in a trickle of outside blood on occasion if it is fit enough.

Though race is a relative concept created by the individual and the community based on differences. Therefore one persons concept of mixing is different from anothers. The only way to keep a group "pure" is to have a racial community. In this context, in the modern context yes miscegenation is natural. As even Adolph Hitler said "putting negros into the rhine valley neccessarily leadsd to miscegenation". People typically mate with their neighbors, friends, fellow community members etc. If those people are from a different group, there might be some resistance to it but it wont last long. Though I think there is a certain instinctual will to preserve your own group somewhere within humanity. So yeah there is a balance in the answer yes and no.

I think it all has to do with community. If I was raised in a community of Alpinish people and they were similar enough to me and that was what I was a part of it then that would be what I seek. If I was raised in a Nordic community similar. There are gradients of traits that exist in people and different groups may be defined by different combinations or sets of traits. So if you think of race in the terms that god put four distinct groups of people on earth or whatever I just dont buy that. It goes against a belief in evolution and variation. I believe humans are inherently tribal and racial but their suroundings define those things. The only reason I have racial beliefs is that through the course of my life the differences between myself and the people around me are so glaringly obvious that I've determined to set myself apart from them and preserve what I am. Most average people are not influenced by this factor and thus will do what they feel is natural among their community. The group influences their decisions. I'd say 98% of racists today are rebels. They are people who defy the group and form their own decisions (unless they were raised in a racist environment or some place it is acceptable and normal). But most average people are not rebels or trend setters or leaders. They go along with the group and that can mean exclusion or inclusion. Though studies show most people are going to mate with people similar to themselves in appearance, attractiveness, intelligence, social statusm, race etc.

Definition of race: this goes back to a confusion people often have as to what "race" means. They confuse race with ancestory. A race is a living community. Heritage or ancestory involve genes you are born with.

If you live next door to a black person and you are white, but you both speak the same language, have the same cultural values, are part of the same population, same groups, same everything you are not racially different unless you both make a concious decision to set yourself apart racially into different communities. You both are the same race but from different ancestry. When people say black or white today they really mean physical attributes that come from ancestory not race. Because 1,000 years from now your traits will blend with your neighbors because you are part of the exact same community. There is no race without a racial community. Now if you lived next door to a black person but you are a racialists who attends your own racial church, shops at your own racial stores and doesn't believe in mixing with that person and you also have some of your own cultural values and customs then you truly are a different race.

This is why the schools were integrated racially. This is why we have multiculturalism etc. and its why people fought so hard against it. Once you mix people together and give them the same culture then their race is pretty much dead. If the blood remains untainted it can be rebuilt from the ashes but inevitably the blood will be mixed as well. This is why we see white youth (and soon to be adults) that talk, dress, walk, and act like non-whites. Even if their blood is 100% pure they are no longer white. Their race is different from their parents.

An example: if we destroyed France and disbursed all French people and they no longer could gather into exclusive french communities and start to loose their language and such then the french race is dead. Without a french community there are no french people. Only people with french ancestory. People who want to destroy our race want us to be confused about what race really is. It isnt ancestory alone. In this context most white people (and even non-whites) have no race. We have no home. We have been stripped of a part of our humanity and turned into internationalists/multiculturalists. When that white person marries a black person from across the street who goes to the same church as them who was raised with the same values and the same heros, who speaks the same language etc. they are not marrying another race. They are simply marrying someone with more distance genetic relation.

Freigeistige
Tuesday, June 9th, 2009, 08:35 PM
Considering language is subjective (being man made and ever-changing), "natural" has many different meanings. In my personal understanding of the word "natural", everything that happens is natural, since it is all a product of natural processes and the actions of natural organisms.

However, I do not think that miscegenation is beneficial, as every subspecies is a branch on a hypothetical tree, and life continuously splits into smaller and more exclusive groups in an attempt to spawn a better and better organism. If the branches were continuously mixing, then all of the work will be undone.

However, I suppose even mixing could have its benefits, if by chance the child ends up with only the beneficial traits of both parents, but that is quite a gamble.

flemish
Wednesday, June 10th, 2009, 05:43 AM
I believe the races evolved for a reason; to help their members survive in their respective environments. Once races mix, they're gone and that's not a good thing. Someone on the forum compared race mixing to crossing dog breeds. Well, I know you can improve a breed by doing a small amount of crossing with other breeds that are very similar to it, but you wouldn't cross two very different ones since you'd end up with a mutt(no offense to mixed breed dogs; they can be wonderful).
Has anyone heard of Richard McCullough? He's a racialist who came up with something called the "Racial Compact". He refers to some subracial types as assimilable. According to him, so-called "gracile Mediterraneans" shouldn't be off limits as potential breeding partners for Nordish peoples. I guess if the race mixing is between two very similar types it's okay, but never between distinct races. If the races are here, then nature made them for a reason and they need to be preserved as they are.

einherjarNZ
Wednesday, June 10th, 2009, 09:33 AM
Miscegenation often calls the cry of "race traitor".
I would go further than that and call the cry "race treasonist".
It is more than just betraying your race, is is participating in an active genocidal act to destroy your race.
I am an asatruaan. Asatruaans belive first your kin, then your family, finally yourself. In other words the welfare of your tribe or race is your paramount concern, then the welfare of your family, and finally you concern yourself with your individual welfare.
Miscegenists only concern themselves with themself, and their own perverted degenerate sexuality.
They lack any of the noble virtues expected of our race.
Unless I'm not mistaken, the sentence for treason is death is it not? ;)

rainman
Wednesday, June 10th, 2009, 06:06 PM
I don't think the answers here are coming from an understanding of basic genetics. Maybe I'm wrong though. If you put a wall in the middle of Europe and came back 500 years later one side may be different than the other side. Neither group is more adapted for their environment. Likely neither group is superior. It's just simple genetic drift. Each new generation is not like the last one. "purity" doesn't insure a race's genetic stability. All things change. In its most basic evolution means "change" it generally is implied for the better but this isn't always so. Most evolution just involves arbitrary differences (often genetic that have little visible impact on the phenotype) that neither create an advantage or disadvantage.

Study of human populations: primitive human populations were relatively inbred by today's standards. Cousin marriage was not uncommon. However all tribal societies exept a few also went through some trouble to exchange tribe members with other groups on occasion through intermarriage. Those few tribes that did not ended up becoming basically what we would call "inbred" suffering from decreased intelligence, vitality etc.

Today there may be no benefit to interbreeding. The possible benefit would be thousands of years from now hypothetically. Evolution occurs when a new superior trait randomly is created through mutation and then spreads in a population. If every population is isolated and inbred this hinders evolution from occurring. This has been witnessed historically. Native people on the isolated continent/island of Australia are basically primitive humans who never evolved. Groups of people who seemed to be most successful were ones that had a balance of isolation and interbreeding. Especially island nations with small gene input like England and Japan. Africa is the other end of the extreme with lots of genetic diversity but seemingly not advanced very far although their people have historically been highly tribal as well.
The argument was if a mutation were to happen in the future which they will, those beneficial mutations would be kept out of the group through the "pure" racial laws.

The only way to create a dog breed or a human race would be to set a standard and maintain it through breeding in every generation. It wouldn't involve just finding a breed and not ever letting them mix with the outside. Genetic drift would then change the species. You would have to actively only select pups with desirable traits that conform to the standard of the species. No group does this today. Therefore there is no real human race in that sense. Old human races existed from geographical isolation which means there just wasn't much exchange of genes or they varied like a gradient over huge areas. Now those barriers are gone. Race doesn't exist anymore unless some groups actively try to preserve those unique traits.

Stygian Cellarius
Friday, June 12th, 2009, 12:41 AM
First of all, "natural" must be defined.

These definitions I took from Dictionary dot com:
1) proper to the circumstances of the case.
In a few cases, miscegenation within our race may be according to particular, uninfluenced circumstance, but for our rate as a whole, it is not proper to circumstance. Pro-multicultural propaganda adds a variable to our condition that would not be there otherwise. So according to this definition, it is unnatural.

2) consonant with the nature or character of.
Again, the multicultural agenda would not have to engage in their propaganda if miscegenation were constant with our nature or character and thus it is unnatural by definition.

3) happening in the ordinary or usual course of things, without the intervention of accident, violence, etc.
Since there is intervention by Multicultural indoctrination, miscegenation is not the usual course.

The above can be applied to the following definitions as well.

4) true to or closely imitating nature.
5) existing in or formed by nature.
6) based on the state of things in nature.
7) in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land.

Some might say: "If it can happen, then it is natural. We are technically the same species (species = those who can successfully reproduce fertile offspring). If Nature didn't want us to reproduce then we wouldn't be able to reproduce, therefore its natural."

The races were well on their way to becoming different species. Unfortunately, we developed technology that dramatically reduced the time distance between locales on Earth, bringing us back together again. A re-merging that would have never happened without our technology. Left to nature, the proximity required to engage in significant levels of miscegenation, would not exist.

Also, lets pretend it is natural. Even if it was, it does not make it a good thing. This is a new trend in the world, "If it's natural then its a-ok". There are many things in the world that are natural, but negative; tornado's, poison mushrooms, snake bites, feces, etc. Should we eat feces, run towards a tornado, entice a snakes bite and eat poison mushrooms because they are natural? Obviously not.

The "natural" claim is one used by the proponents of homosexuality as well. Although, I'm not sure where that argument goes, due to the above. However, it works on many people.

To absorb negative genetic elements into ones gene pool has never been an endeavor of any species on Earth. Left to our own devices, we had the cultural defenses to avoid this. That was the natural state.

But what about this point of view: on the individual level, when opposite genders, not of the same race, encounter one another, the possibility of a bio-chemical reaction resulting in attraction can and does exist. Eventually this situation will result in the successful reproduction of fertile offspring, but is this in accordance with the definitions I posted from the dictionary? In this case miscegenation does seem to be a natural process. So perhaps on the individual level, it can be. On the group level, in my opinion, it is clearly not. I suppose the argument can be raised that an individual not acting in accordance with his groups taboos and social defenses is an unnatural act in itself, since humans are social organisms.

If humans are to be defined as individuals, then maybe miscegenation is natural, but if we are to be defined as a collective, as parts of a whole, then it is unnatural. Hmm, I'm going to have to think on this particular argument some more. I am just thinking out loud.

Anyways, my conclusion stands as miscegenation being unnatural.

Note: I accidentally clicked "No, of course not" in the poll. I said the question in my head as "is miscegenation natural" just before I clicked. :|

Kiel
Wednesday, June 17th, 2009, 04:23 AM
Race doesn't exist anymore unless some groups actively try to preserve those unique traits.

Race doesn't exist anymore — it's just a social construct?

It exists when you need a bone marrow transplant! Check it out.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hPGoDRbVXmWjqNHsSOCV-qzk-aGwD98EPEBG0

Race also exists when the cops have your DNA.
http://www.wired.com/print/politics/law/magazine/16-01/ps_dna


Some say: "All races are created equal."
We say: "Racial equality is not supported by science."

Spjabork
Thursday, February 9th, 2017, 08:50 PM
When the Vandals settled in the region, they were already a mixed bunch and had absorbed much blood of the non-Nordish areas they went through.
This is the view of Oswald Spengler, who claimed: "Goth was, who was allowed to join the battle line." ("Gote war, wer mitkämpfen durfte.")

Carlton Coon however, who, other than Spengler, did anthropological field research, held an entirely different view. I cannot quote it exactly, I quote it from memory, Coon stated: "As long as the Goths remained to be an independent, identifiable political entity, they also retained their racial composition."

And I am absolutely sure, what holds for Goths, also is true for the Wandals.

The stress here is on 'as long as'. That means: if you are looking for blondes in North Africa who are of Gothic or Wandalic descent, you can find them in the graves.

Juthunge
Thursday, February 9th, 2017, 09:13 PM
Carlton Coon however, who, other than Spengler, did hard anthropological research, held an entirely different view. I cannot quote it exactly, I quote it from memory, Coon stated: "As long as the Goths were an independent, identifiable political entity, they also preserved their racial composition."

And I am absolutely sure, what holds for Goths, also is true for the Wandals.

You mean this, I think: (http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-VI6.htm)


The Visigoths pushed westward, occupied southern France shortly after 400 A.D., and moved down into Spain where they were gradually absorbed into the population of the northern provinces. The eastern Goths who fell under the rule of the Huns met a similar fate. Of a once numerous and mobile Gothic nation no trace remains. The same is true of the Gepidae, and of the Vandals, who went from eastern Europe to France, Spain, and North Africa, whence they were subsequently deported to Byzantium.
No doubt, Gothic and Vandal blood flows in the veins of some modern Spaniards as well as of the peoples in other countries through which they passed. But this eastern branch of the Germans failed to make any lasting impression upon the racial map of Europe.
Although there is not much data concerning the physical type of these eastern Germans, there is enough to enable us to come to some definite conclusions. A series of Goths from the Chersonese north of the Black Sea, dated between 100 B.C. and 100 A.D., includes three male and eight female skeletons.76 All of these are long headed, and they belong to a large, powerful Nordic type which reflects their Swedish origin, for they are no different from the Swedish Iron Age crania which we have already studied.

A later group of Gepidae dated from the fifth or sixth centuries in Hungary shows the persistence of this same type; despite historical blending with the Huns, of eight skulls at our disposal, all but three fail to show definite traces of mongoloid mixture, and in these three the non-Nordic traits are not manifested metrically. One is forced to the conclusion from this series, as from that of the Goths in the Chersonese, that the East Germanic peoples who took part in these wanderings preserved their original racial characteristics so long as they retained their political and linguistic identity.

The same conclusion results when one examines the Visigothic skulls from northern Spain which date from the sixth century A.D.77 Here a series combined from several cemeteries shows us exactly the same Nordic type, with tall stature and with a high-vaulted skull, a long face, and a broad law; in this respect resembling, in a sense, the earlier Hallstatt crania, but more particularly those of the western Germanic group, especially the Hannover Germans and the Anglo-Saxons.

I'd take Coon's conclusions always with a grain of salt. He sometimes built wide and all encompassing theories upon a very few skeletons from even fewer places. Sometimes his arguments are even quite unlogical, as 3 partly mongoloid out of 8 skeletons, don't exactly speak for racial preservation. So mixture already happened in Hungary and with the most extreme cases of foreigners.
In the case of the Visigoths for example, we don't even know on how many skeletons he bases his conclusions on.

But I didn't mean they were all entirely mixed, anyway, though. There was probably still a mostly Nordish core among the upper classes of the wandering Germanics. But overall, the wandering tribes were not too numerous to begin with and constant warfare will have dwindled their numbers to a point, where they had to accept other peoples as auxiliaries. Like the Alans for example or local Romanics. Likewise, as such wanderings are always predominantly male, a lot of them will have acquired local wives.

Spjabork
Thursday, February 9th, 2017, 10:48 PM
You mean this, I think:
Yes exactly, this is the passage! :) And as you see, it is even more explicitly refering to ALL East Germanics, than I recalled it in my memory. ;)


I'd take Coon's conclusions always with a grain of salt.
While it is wise not to buy everything that Coon offers, I do trust him in this case 100%. The reasons would be somewhat lengthy to explain. ;)

He sometimes built wide and all encompassing theories upon a very few skeletons from even fewer places.
But you do know what is a random sample (Stichprobe)? If there had been only few, i.e. almost NO, such examples, it would nowadays be impossible to find them. What we find today, is always a scarce remainder of what has been once much more.

Sometimes his arguments are even quite unlogical, This is the logic of his own, Coon's, race. ;) You must immerse into his thinking, then you will understand him. :)

Likewise, as such wanderings are always predominantly male, a lot of them will have acquired local wives.
Why you do not tell this our lovely Guðrún? :) Here: https://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=1203997&postcount=11

Juthunge
Thursday, February 9th, 2017, 11:20 PM
But you do know what is a random sample (Stichprobe)? If there had been only few, i.e. almost NO, such examples, it would nowadays be impossible to find them. What we find today, is always a scarce remainder of what has been once much more.

Of course I know what a random sample is. But the smaller the sample, the higher the standard error.
By freak chance of finding an aberrant example, we could come to entirely false conclusions about entire populations. I'm not saying this is necessarily the case here and lastly we have to go with what we have at hand and not be overly critical of sources either.
But caution is always necessary when dealing with population history.


While it is wise not to buy everything that Coon offers, I do trust him in this case 100%. The reasons would be somewhat lengthy to explain. ;)
Please go on and try to explain it.


Why you do not tell this our lovely Guðrún? :) Here: https://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=1203997&postcount=11

Well, it's a totally different case because the member she replied to postulated, that modern Germanics are mixed because Vikings brought home non-Europeans, which is completely ridiculous. Vikings took Anglo-Saxon and Celtic British wives and settled mostly locally in Britain and Iceland. It's evident in genetic testing of these areas but that also shows a strong female Scandinavian contribution.
Some of these Celts probably found their way into Scandinavia as thralls, as did some Balts. But that's about as "exotic" as it gets.

What I said was, that wandering, predominantly male Germanic tribes leaving the Germanic sphere, faced the option between extinction and mixing with not altogether too exotic, because overwhelmingly still European, people. At least before they got to Northern Africa. They chose to mix, to drag on for a bit longer.
In the end, of course, this mixture was their downfall, however.

Catterick
Thursday, February 9th, 2017, 11:26 PM
Yes Coon demoted Nordics to a stock of Mediterraneans removing one of Ripley and Grant's three Caucasian races. Howells followed him in dividing Caucasoids into "lateral" and "linear" types.

Angel however correctly noticed certain Neanderthaloid type traits of Nordid and related skulls and pointed out the "Nordic-Iranian" was different to, though also similar to, his "Basic Whites" even in robust Nordic-likes.

Though it is at least true that the Mediterranean and Nordic hail from one eastern branch of the white race, and the Alpine and heart-faced Cromagnoid strains are indigenous further west.

Howells used statistics to infer clusters of crania. He discovered Mechtoid skulls are close to Berg, Austria (Alpine of Ripley etc) while Coon describes Maghrebi Nordics as close to the robust Nordics of W Norway and Ireland (Bruenn in his typology). Bruenn would be considered part of Howell's "Linear Caucasoid" cluster and Coon's Brunn is essentially a rugged Nordic. So Coon is surely right the Mechtoid element is substratal but the "Mediterranean" must be of Metal Age origins somehow. Coon of course reckoned Corded and Iranoafghan as long faced Mediterranean's.

Spjabork
Thursday, February 9th, 2017, 11:42 PM
Please go on and try to explain it.
Wait! ;)

Well, it's a totally different case because the member she replied to postulated, that modern Germanics are mixed because Vikings brought home non-Europeans, which is completely ridiculous. Vikings took Anglo-Saxon and Celtic British wives and settled mostly locally in Britain and Iceland.
Yes, this is because they FOUND only these 'white' booty-wives in the places they raided. But this is NO proof that they would have spurned any negro, or indian, or eskimo wives, HAD THEY FOUND THEM.

It is absolutely sure that such 'mongrels' (as they are called here on Skadi, inspite of you warning me of defaming other races) once EXISTED, just their number is so scarce, that they are hard to dig out.

YOU yourself just told me, Coon is overlooking mongolid skeletons. So, there WAS intercourse between Goths and 'Mongos'. And you really believe, you really do, that no 'Viking' ever has taken a negro girl?

Catterick
Thursday, February 9th, 2017, 11:50 PM
Its hard to believe Vikings had subsaharan blood but Mongoloids were part of the Migration Age of Europe. Northeast Italy even was settled heavily by the Avars.

Juthunge
Friday, February 10th, 2017, 12:06 AM
It is absolutely sure that such 'mongrels' (as they are called here on Skadi, inspite of you warning me of defaming other races) once EXISTED, just their number is so scarce, that they are hard to did out.
I wouldn't use it personally but "mongrels" is at most a borderline term, even by PC standards of today. I edited an obvious racial slur of yours in another post and we have rules for that.


Yes, this is because they FOUND only these 'white' booty-wives in the places they raided. But this is NO proof that they would have spurned any negro, or indian, or eskimo wives, HAD THEY FOUND THEM.
[...]
YOU yourself just told me, Coon is overlooking mongolid skeletons. So, there WAS intercourse between Goths and 'Mongos'. And you really believe, you really do, that no 'Viking' ever has taken a negro girl?

Yes, he was overlooking it in the 8(!) skeletons he had at hand and drew a false conclusion that no mixture whatsoever happened. But the notion that overall, 3 out of 8 - or ~40% of - Goths in the whole population were mixed, is certainly equally wrong. If perhaps only for the fact, that not even the Huns were predominantly Mongoloid anymore by the time they got to Hungary.
But I'm quite sure his examples are from high status graves anyway, as they usually are, and these Mongoloid traits, are probably a sign of nobility marriage for status in a Hunnish ruled Empire and not of personal taste.

As for Blacks, you said yourself, Vikings already pretty much lacked the opportunity to encounter any. They got as far as the coasts of North Africa at times but the chances of encountering Blacks back then were slim even there. Even if they had, it was certainly out of the question of taking any back for other reasons than to sell them as slaves.
Taking them back as wives would've went against any, well documented, beauty ideal they harboured and certainly would've meant dishonor by their family and at least social death.

In any case it would show up in genetic studies of Scandinavians had it been even slightly important. But it doesn't.
So, even if I would concede it would have happened in a single instance, what is your point even?

Spjabork
Friday, February 10th, 2017, 12:43 AM
Yes, he was overlooking it in the 8(!) skeletons he had at hand and drew a false conclusion that no mixture whatsoever happened. But the notion that overall, 3 out of 8 - or ~40% of - Goths in the whole population were mixed, is certainly equally wrong. If perhaps only for the fact, that not even the Huns were predominantly Mongoloid anymore by the time they got to Hungary.
About the Huns, as you know, we do not know anything. But the best, most conclusive guessing I ever encountered, again was made by Coon, who simply identified the Huns with the Tungus. Coon simply and curtly distinguishes Mongols from Huns (alias Tungus) by postulating that the heads of the former are more round, of the latter more oval. ;)

But I'm quite sure his examples are from high status graves anyway, as they usually are, and these Mongoloid traits, are probably a sign of nobility marriage for status in a Hunnish ruled Empire and not of personal taste.
When peoples (plural) live together, it always leads to intermarriage ('connubium'). And when peoples (plural) clash, it always leads to bride kidnapping.

As for Blacks, you said yourself, Vikings already pretty much lacked the opportunity to encounter any. They got as far as the coasts of North Africa at times but the chances of encountering Blacks back then were slim even there. Even if they had, it was certainly out of the question of taking any back for other reasons than to sell them as slaves. There is at least one account of an Arab, who met with 'Varangians' in the lower Volga region. They sold slave girls to the Arabs. But before the girls were handed over to the customer, who had already paid them, they were raped a last time. But they hadn't been raped before, sure. The race of the girls the Arab did not specify.

Taking them back as wives would've went against any, well documented, beauty ideal they harboured and certainly would've meant dishonor by their family and at least social death.
Have you ever heard of Wulfila? His father raped a random girl he found on the way of his gang's raid. Certainly the girl first was his maidservant. But later she became his ordinary wife, and she gave birth to a highly respected 'mongrel', who wrote the first book in any Germanic language, so that we can read it today. Imagine it would not have happened. You would believe no such thing as 'Gothic' ever existed. Thus, also no Goths would have ever existed, for you.

In any case it would show up in genetic studies of Scandinavians had it been even slightly important. But it doesn't.
So, even if I would concede it would have happened in a single instance, what is your point even?
My point is, the 'Viking' men, as all other Germanic men, did race mixing on a very low scale, just because they lived practically in the stone age.

Catterick
Saturday, February 11th, 2017, 02:21 PM
On these sites the same people will make arguments based upon kinnishness then lower the standards of inclusion in classification threads - for attractive females. If you think of mating preferences as evolved to manage genetic quality there isn't a contradiction.

Wulfaz
Saturday, February 11th, 2017, 04:43 PM
Under the thousand years always was natural that everybody chose from own kind. The end of this era was the black slave import by the Muslims what has started make coloured Arabia. The second was the era of colonisation where in the Caribbean colonies mixed the natives, the european conquerors and the blacks. However these locations were special places of the Earth. Till the late 20th century it was not a tendency in the Western World. The Western Media propagates this and the insane politicians have flooded the European lands with other races, but it stays just a disguisting tendency of the Post-Modern Era and with decades or with a century it will end.

Juthunge
Saturday, February 11th, 2017, 07:16 PM
About the Huns, as you know, we do not know anything. But the best, most conclusive guessing I ever encountered, again was made by Coon, who simply identified the Huns with the Tungus. Coon simply and curtly distinguishes Mongols from Huns (alias Tungus) by postulating that the heads of the former are more round, of the latter more oval. ;)
We know that there are Mongoloid, Euro-Mongoloid und Europid skeletons buried with Hunnish cultural artefacts from the Hungarian Plain.
Since the Huns were the first steppe people(s) to come into Europe from a region which was by then mostly Mongoloid, that race must have come with them, whether mixed or unmixed. But chances are, since they traversed Central Asia, formerly being almost entirely Europid, as evidenced by the findings of Russian anthropologists, that they were already mixed and/or took Europid people as auxiliaries.


There is at least one account of an Arab, who met with 'Varangians' in the lower Volga region. They sold slave girls to the Arabs. But before the girls were handed over to the customer, who had already paid them, they got a last good fuck. But they hadn't been fucked before, sure. The race of the girls the Arab did not specify.
You’re probably confusing two different account by ibn Rustah and ibn Fadlan. The former describing Rus as selling Slavic slaves, the latter describing a Rus burial, where slave/servant women were “raped” or volunteered to sleep with some of the burial guests in some sort of ritual.

It doesn’t really matter in any case because, as you said, they were selling slaves, not buying them. Why would they, if they had a “source” of slaves readily at hand and might as well just capture them themselves? Besides the fact, that these slaves weren’t non-European.


Have you ever heard of Wulfila? His father raped a random girl he found on the way of his gang's raid. Certainly the girl first was his maidservant. But later she became his ordinary wife, and she gave birth to a highly respected 'mongrel', who wrote the first book in any Germanic language, so that we can read it today. Imagine it would not have happened. You would believe no such thing as 'Gothic' ever existed. Thus, also no Goths would have ever existed, for you.

Wulfila was a “Goth” whose parents were Greek slaves captured by the Goths. I don’t know, where you got that other information from. He was also merely living amongst an aberrant splinter group of romanised and christianised Goths, who were displaced into the Roman empire by the proper Goths for his proselytising.

If he hadn’t translated the Bible into Gothic, we’d know as much about the Goths as we know about any of the other mostly illiterate Germanic tribes. The language from names and spells inscribed on weapons or preserved by the Romans in text fragments in their histories, through archaeology we know their living conditions.
All his Bible gave us, was a finer understanding of their language but it’s not like he recorded any of their behavior or circumstances. A people doesn’t stop to exist merely because its language isn’t attested anyway.


My point is, the 'Viking' men, as all other Germanic men, did race mixing on a very low scale, just because they lived practically in the stone age.
I never doubted that for wandering peoples and was actually the one who said that the Vandals were probably mixed at the end of their route. But these are cases that don’t have concern us, as they didn’t affect populations ancestral to modern Germanics.
It’s quite irrelevant, from a genetic point of view, if a few Vikings raped Arab women in Spain or North Africa on one of their raids, as they stayed there.
Somehow we’re turning around in circles.

Spjabork
Saturday, February 11th, 2017, 07:27 PM
Under the thousand years always was natural that everybody chose from own kind.
I do not know whether you really abode in 'Budapest'. Yet if you do, then you must certainly know that there are many many, in fact millions, of blond Hungarian girls, whose ancestors in no way could have belonged to the Hungarians, who conquered the land today called 'Hungary' 1100 years ago.

All these girls are genentically mixed. That means you can not be sure how their offspring with anybody would look like. Even if you are blond and you mate such a blond Hungarian girl, who outwardly, seemingly matches you, there is no guarantee the offspring of you both must be blond.

Catterick
Saturday, February 11th, 2017, 08:05 PM
I do not know whether you really abode in 'Budapest'. Yet if you do, then you must certainly know that there are many many, in fact millions, of blond Hungarian girls, whose ancestors in no way could have belonged to the Hungarians, who conquered the land today called 'Hungary' 1100 years ago.

All these girls are genentically mixted. That means you can not be sure how their offspring with anybody would look like. Even if you are blond and you mate such a blond Hunagrian girl, who outwardly, seemingly matches you, there is no guarantee the offspring of you both must be blond.

There were Germanics in Pannonia before the coming of the Magyars. And Magyars themselves were Uralids, not Mongoloids.

Spjabork
Saturday, February 11th, 2017, 08:21 PM
There were Germanics in Pannonia before the coming of the Magyars.
At the time the Magyars arrived, the area was settled by Slavs. The Germanics had already left from there 300 years earlier.

So, the blond Hungarian girls today to not reflect partially Germanic, but partially Slavic ancestry.

And Magyars themselves were Uralids, not Mongoloids.
I did not say the Magyars had been Mongolid. I only said, implicitly, they were racially different from the Germanics, and this they were certainly.

Wulfaz
Sunday, February 12th, 2017, 06:49 AM
The average Hungarian company use to be stand from three type, the Reihengräber Nordid (Goths, Gepidas, Skirs, Rugians, Langobards, Bavarians, Saxons, Swabians, Rhinelanders, Hessians, Franks), the Baltid (Slovaks, Rutenians, pre-Hungarians Slavonians, Polish), the Mediterranids (Romanians, Croatians, Serbs, Bosniaks, Albanians, Bulgarians, Italians). The Uralid Proto-Hungarians have mostly extincted. In some part of Hungary where the Cumans have settled there are slightly Mongolid influence, however it is not typical among the Hungarians.

LillyCaterina
Tuesday, January 23rd, 2018, 02:04 AM
I just can't understand how members of different races find each other sexually appealing. But obviously, this aberrent behavior is becoming more common.

fjaran
Tuesday, January 23rd, 2018, 03:30 AM
I just can't understand how members of different races find each other sexually appealing. But obviously, this aberrent behavior is becoming more common.

It is unnatural and due to psychological issues which they have developed over time due to their environment. It was either their society, family, or peers that led them down that path of developing those issues. Some also may have mental issues that they were born with. All of them are of lesser intelligence from my view.

Racemixers are the same as prostitutes, those involved in pornography, those who work at stripclubs, and so on. No one is born that way, rather they became what they are. They are tainted and ruined for the rest of their lives, both physically and mentally.

Þoreiðar
Tuesday, January 23rd, 2018, 07:58 PM
It is a core principle in nature that any living organism first and foremost seeks to procreate with a mate whom share a high level of their own genetic material, so as to maximize the level of their DNA in their common offspring. If one mates with a person with 99,99% the same DNA as oneself, then obviously more of one's DNA will be present in one's child, than if one mated with a person whom share 99,70% of one's DNA. Might not sound like much of a difference, unless one is aware than humans share about 60% of their DNA with bananas.

Even so, nature is not a fine-tuned and perfect machine, and deviances are what brings species both upwards and downwards. The first apes that started to walk on two feet were probably deemed as odd-balls by their contemporary peers. But their predilection managed to an gain evolutionary hold, and through the test of time and nature, it persisted, and today most humans would judge it ridiculous to go back to our roots and walk on all fours.

Miscegenation is just another deviance from the established order, and is in a way just as natural as its opposite. Only time will tell what fruits it will bear, but I fail to see any great evolutionary benefits it may potentially bring.

Theunissen
Tuesday, January 23rd, 2018, 09:10 PM
I just can't understand how members of different races find each other sexually appealing. But obviously, this aberrent behavior is becoming more common.
My goat ram jumps on goats of any race, but then he isn't human.

I think to answer the question one needs to be clear what natural means here.

I'd throw two meanings onto the table:
1.) Natural in the ontological sense: If it exists or is possible then it's somehow natural.
2. Natural in the teleological sense: Meaning that it's there with a purpose. Or asking the question: Does it serve the purpose or intended function? I think the purpose of sex and reproduction is to make a copy of yourself. In that sense reproducing with someone too different from you (like from another race), won't be natural.

Jäger
Wednesday, January 24th, 2018, 06:38 AM
I'd throw two meanings onto the table:
1.) Natural in the ontological sense: If it exists or is possible then it's somehow natural.
2. Natural in the teleological sense: Meaning that it's there with a purpose. Or asking the question: Does it serve the purpose or intended function? I think the purpose of sex and reproduction is to make a copy of yourself. In that sense reproducing with someone too different from you (like from another race), won't be natural.
In the way we came to understand nature, any offspring is always better than no offspring at all. That is why creatures without reason hump anything.

The teleological meaning is presumptuous.

What we have is culture (the humanly opposite of nature), i.e. reason, we can try to shape our future and cultivate what is great and extinguish what is not. This is a conscious act, this is breed selection. There is no nature involved, because nature knows no order nor direction of life, just random variables and their composition.