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 4 of 14 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 136

Thread: Is Human Miscegenation Unnatural?

  1. #31
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 11th, 2016 @ 01:27 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    CM-Atlantidish
    Country
    England England
    State
    Lancashire Lancashire
    Location
    Mamvcivm
    Gender
    Age
    39
    Politics
    Nationalist
    Religion
    British
    Posts
    3,586
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    13
    Thanked in
    13 Posts

    Re: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Theudiskaz View Post
    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?

  2. #32
    Freethinker "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Thorburn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Last Online
    Saturday, November 2nd, 2019 @ 03:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    Europid
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Location
    Midgård
    Gender
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Politics
    Reason, Freedom, Justice
    Religion
    Truth, Greatness, Beauty
    Posts
    1,381
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    89
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    224
    Thanked in
    65 Posts

    Re: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Madoc View Post
    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.
    This is a placeholder for a signature.

  3. #33
    Senior Member Waarnemer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, June 11th, 2009 @ 08:42 PM
    Subrace
    keltic nordid - trønder
    Gender
    Politics
    fascism
    Posts
    571
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Re: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    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

  4. #34
    Sees all, knows all Chlodovech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    29 Minutes Ago @ 08:31 PM
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Ancestry
    Frankish
    Country
    Holy Roman Empire Holy Roman Empire
    Gender
    Politics
    Völkisch traditionalist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    3,171
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,479
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,558
    Thanked in
    1,112 Posts

    Re: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    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.

    PS: Don't pitty me, I'm a racial fundamentalist.
    "If we were going to stand in darkness, best we stand in a darkness we had made ourselves.” ― Douglas Coupland, Shampoo Planet

  5. #35
    Senior Member HowlingOskorei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, March 21st, 2010 @ 08:05 AM
    Ethnicity
    Acadian
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Canada Canada
    Gender
    Family
    Single
    Posts
    49
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    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.
    Some people are like a Slinky; not good for anything, but you can't help but smile when you shove them down the stairs.

  6. #36
    Moderator "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Sigurd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Online
    2 Days Ago @ 08:36 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Bavarii, Saxones, Suebi, Alamanni
    Subrace
    Borreby + Atlantonordoid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Location
    Einöde in den Alpen
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Zodiac Sign
    Libra
    Family
    Engaged
    Politics
    Tradition & Homeland
    Religion
    Odinist
    Posts
    9,109
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    73
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    218
    Thanked in
    127 Posts

    Re: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    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.

  7. #37
    Progressive Collectivist
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Agrippa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 31st, 2011 @ 10:22 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Asgard
    Gender
    Politics
    Progressive Collectivist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    6,968
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    11 Posts

    AW: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Solar Wolff View Post
    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/showpost.php...3&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/showpost.php...24&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...9&postcount=27
    Last edited by Agrippa; Tuesday, November 21st, 2006 at 04:25 AM.
    Magna Europa est patria nostra
    STOP GATS! STOP LIBERALISM!

  8. #38
    Senior Member HowlingOskorei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, March 21st, 2010 @ 08:05 AM
    Ethnicity
    Acadian
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Canada Canada
    Gender
    Family
    Single
    Posts
    49
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    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.
    Some people are like a Slinky; not good for anything, but you can't help but smile when you shove them down the stairs.

  9. #39
    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
    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?? 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Suut
    Otherwise (remember, SuuT loves you),



    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.

  10. #40
    Progressive Collectivist
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Agrippa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 31st, 2011 @ 10:22 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Asgard
    Gender
    Politics
    Progressive Collectivist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    6,968
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    11 Posts

    AW: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    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...
    Magna Europa est patria nostra
    STOP GATS! STOP LIBERALISM!

Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst 123456789 ... 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
  •