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 5 of 14 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 136

Thread: Is Human Miscegenation Unnatural?

  1. #41
    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: AW: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

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

  2. #42
    Senior Member Todesritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Last Online
    Friday, August 3rd, 2012 @ 12:14 PM
    Ethnicity
    celto-germanic
    Gender
    Posts
    803
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Re: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    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....

  3. #43
    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 Jäger View Post
    An asteroid targeting earth is natural too
    Quote Originally Posted by Theudiskaz
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Theudiskaz
    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.

  4. #44
    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 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...

  5. #45
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Siegfried View Post
    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?
    "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)

  6. #46
    Senior Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, March 29th, 2012 @ 11:51 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo - Saxon.
    Ancestry
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    England England
    State
    Wessex Wessex
    Location
    south
    Gender
    Occupation
    [Psychologist]
    Politics
    Patriotic
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    1,939
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Re: AW: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agrippa View Post
    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.

  7. #47
    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

    Smile Re: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    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...

  8. #48
    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?

    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 ).

    Quote Originally Posted by Bridie View Post
    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? 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?? 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).

  9. #49
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 10:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Re: Is human miscegenation unnatural?

    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.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  10. #50
    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?

    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...wers-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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody Lawless View Post
    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".
    Last edited by Agrippa; Wednesday, November 22nd, 2006 at 12:16 AM.
    Magna Europa est patria nostra
    STOP GATS! STOP LIBERALISM!

Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... 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
  •