View Poll Results: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

Voters
138. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, naturally.

    75 54.35%
  • No, of course not.

    40 28.99%
  • Well, the complexity and facticity of everything that exists in reality is of such a nature that no true comprehension of the question and its answer can be gained, least one considers a few essential points which I, for the hoi polloi's convenience, shall briefly touch in the seventy-eight or so paragraphs below-mentioned, namely ...

    18 13.04%
  • No idea. | I'm not sure. | Who cares?

    5 3.62%
Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234567813 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 136

Thread: Is Human Miscegenation Unnatural?

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 13th, 2018 @ 10:14 AM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    Dutch
    Gender
    Posts
    2,673
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Re: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorburn
    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.

  2. #22
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    -
    Gender
    Posts
    2,858
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Re: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    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.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 13th, 2018 @ 10:14 AM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    Dutch
    Gender
    Posts
    2,673
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Re: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by psycho_pixie View Post
    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.

  4. #24
    Auf der Durchreise
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    Saturday, September 27th, 2008 @ 10:26 PM
    Subrace
    Nordocromagnosomething
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Gender
    Politics
    NS
    Posts
    1,303
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    AW: Re: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bridie View Post
    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:
    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?
    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.
    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.cg...NG3N4RAV41.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.

  5. #25
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Ęmeric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Britain, Ulster, Germany, America
    Subrace
    Dalofaelid+Baltid/Borreby
    Y-DNA
    R-Z19
    mtDNA
    U5a2c
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Indiana Indiana
    Gender
    Age
    57
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Anti-Obama
    Religion
    Conservative Protestantism
    Posts
    6,271
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    573
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    522
    Thanked in
    229 Posts

    Re: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    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?



    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.

  6. #26
    Keeps your Whites Whiter.
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    SuuT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    SkandoNordid/Nordicised Faelid
    Gender
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic MeritAristocracy
    Religion
    Heišinn
    Posts
    1,467
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Re: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bridie View Post
    ...

    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 ).
    Last edited by SuuT; Monday, November 20th, 2006 at 11:53 PM.
    "...The moral man is a lower species than the immoral, a weaker species; indeed - he is a type in regard to morality, but not a type in himself; a copy...the measure of his value lies outside him. ... I assess the power of a will by how much resistance, pain, torture it endures and knows how to turn to its advantage; I do not account the evil and painful character of existence a reproach to it, but hope rather that it will one day be more evil and painful than hitherto..." (Nietzsche)

  7. #27
    Bloodhound
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Jäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Atlantean
    Gender
    Posts
    4,379
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    19
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    66
    Thanked in
    37 Posts

    Re: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    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.
    "Nothing is more disgusting than the majority: because it consists of a few powerful predecessors, of rogues who adapt themselves, of weak who assimilate themselves, and the masses who imitate without knowing at all what they want." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

  8. #28
    Keeps your Whites Whiter.
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    SuuT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    SkandoNordid/Nordicised Faelid
    Gender
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic MeritAristocracy
    Religion
    Heišinn
    Posts
    1,467
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Re: AW: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by OdinThor View Post

    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.
    "...The moral man is a lower species than the immoral, a weaker species; indeed - he is a type in regard to morality, but not a type in himself; a copy...the measure of his value lies outside him. ... I assess the power of a will by how much resistance, pain, torture it endures and knows how to turn to its advantage; I do not account the evil and painful character of existence a reproach to it, but hope rather that it will one day be more evil and painful than hitherto..." (Nietzsche)

  9. #29
    Senior Member Theudiskaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 1st, 2007 @ 02:18 AM
    Subrace
    Eriliskaz
    Location
    Wīnalandom
    Gender
    Family
    Hermit
    Occupation
    Teutonologist
    Politics
    Pangermanicism
    Religion
    Ašelakhaišśs.
    Posts
    1,858
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Re: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    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 , 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!

    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??? )
    Last edited by Theudiskaz; Tuesday, November 21st, 2006 at 12:31 AM.
    -Hyge sceal še heardre, heorte še cénre, mód sceal še mįre, žż śre męgen lytlaž. -The Battle of Maldon
    -I love the great despisers, because they are the great adorers, and arrows of longing for the other shore. -Thus Spake Zarathustra

  10. #30
    Keeps your Whites Whiter.
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    SuuT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    SkandoNordid/Nordicised Faelid
    Gender
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic MeritAristocracy
    Religion
    Heišinn
    Posts
    1,467
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Re: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Theudiskaz View Post
    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 , 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!

    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...
    "...The moral man is a lower species than the immoral, a weaker species; indeed - he is a type in regard to morality, but not a type in himself; a copy...the measure of his value lies outside him. ... I assess the power of a will by how much resistance, pain, torture it endures and knows how to turn to its advantage; I do not account the evil and painful character of existence a reproach to it, but hope rather that it will one day be more evil and painful than hitherto..." (Nietzsche)

Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234567813 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What Should I Do when Confronted with Miscegenation?
    By karolvs in forum Immigration & Multiculturalism
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Sunday, December 18th, 2011, 09:49 PM
  2. Unnatural Selection: How Far Will Parents Go?
    By Dagna in forum Population Genetics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, February 9th, 2009, 05:08 AM
  3. I may have been wrong about miscegenation
    By Baldrson in forum Population Genetics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Saturday, October 22nd, 2005, 08:13 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •