John Derbyshire's new column at Takimag.com is up. John is his usual genial self. He advises readers to give me money, which is always good advice. Unfortunately, my Paypal button isn't working at the moment (as usual), but I'll get it fixed and start my first panhandling drive since August pretty soon.
I would have added that you should consider age, sex, and class as well as race, but as he says:
On the other hand, the context here is advice to kids. Deciding which situation says, “Stay out of this!” and which says, “Help the guy” requires an act of judgment. Kids don’t have very good judgment; so a blanket “Stay out of this!” is not bad advice in context.
The other context is the huge amount of bilige from the prestige press over the preceding three weeks claiming that racial profiling was tantanount to child murder. Maybe John's piece went too far in the opposite direction, but certainly it left readers of the prestige press with a little bit better net understanding of how the world works compared to the unadulterated run of tosh they'd been getting.
Also, writing for a teenage daughter, I would have been especially emphatic about her staying away from black boys, no matter how smooth talking, until she's 21 at least.
Posts
169 comments:
Until's she's 21? How about until she's 45?
"...until she's 21 at least." ????????
How about staying away from black boys her entire life. Surely that's a small price to pay (you know, the benefits of diversity) for a life that will statistically include a lot less crime, less base and crass possessions, and one more parent for her offspring.
Your donate button is always broke! Fix it! I am fascinated by the outpouring of support Derbyshire got. It seems to have toughed a nerve. Do you think the "Respectable Conservatives" were shocked at how much anger there was over this?
Got some typos.
Also, writing for a teenage daughter, I would have been especially emphatic about her staying away from black boys, no matter how smooth talking, until she's 21 at least
Just show her this:
http://i.imgur.com/rpIcR.jpg
...no matter how smooth talking, until she's 21 at least.
Forever, if you care about her.
Always enjoyable to read Derbyshire, no?
Let me add my voice to these. STAY AWAY FROM BLACK MEN, PERIOD.
Sailer, you are getting soft in your old age. Are you auditioning for Derb's old spot on NR? Forget about it.
I would have been especially emphatic about her staying away from black boys, no matter how smooth talking, until she's 21 at least.
That might have the exact opposite effect.
"Also, writing for a teenage daughter, I would have been especially emphatic about her staying away from black boys, no matter how smooth talking, until she's 21 at least."
Why the age limit?
someone said dramady
http://youtu.be/EkW4gCGfusI
He sounds chipper. And he didn't apologize at all. Good stuff, maybe we'll see more of this going forward.
http://youtu.be/yEL6069W16E
the face of british culture
21? How about 121!!
Actually, dating black boys is a tough subject. Obviously, I don't want my two daughters to date black guys - ever. But how do you make that case to kids who have spent almost all of their life being told how wonderful these people are and how they should feel terrible about how whites have treated them.
If a father tells them the truth about blacks, he'd likely get the same indignation as Derb received from his daughter. Now, you're a terrible person and black guys become just that much more desirable because the girl has been told to stay away, creating a bizarre mixed-race Romeo and Juliet situation.
Luckily, my daughters are quite young, so I have some time to try and wake them up to reality. But I feel that I'll need to show them how blacks live, not tell them, but I'm not sure how to do that other than forcing them to watch "Cops" once a week.
Naturally, I moved my family to a nearly all-white area, which is good in almost every respect. However, the one big downside is that the white kids grow up with no real world examples of black behavior and, instead, only know what the schools teach them. It's like teaching Bambie that wolves are their friends.
Any suggestions on how I can teach my daughters the truth?
It's a tricky job because you're literally fighting/contradicting every other institution in our culture - schools, media, government, etc. Our one advantage is the truth: Blacks are on average incredibly dangerous and should be avoided, especially by white women.
http://youtu.be/0UZZk-15nQo
liberal leapfrogging in action.
fighting indian infanticide is a good thing but what about western democide?
democide is when the demographic character of a nation is destroyed even if the original majority is not killrd.
palestinians were not victims of genocide as they were not wiped out but they were democided since palestine became a jewish majority state.
Well, the age cutoff for wariness about black men should be 22, i.e. the college years - you ought to be able to enjoy college without being raped. But after that, women are hard and sophisticated, so we needn't feel sorry for them if they have a drink with the wrong black guy.
Do you want your grandkids to look anything like you, or not?
I confess to being baffled by the guy who sent me $1. Was it meant as sarcasm? Sheer bad typing? A genuine widower’s mite? He didn’t tell me.
Go with the widow's mite interpretation, Derb. We're stretching ourselves to make two major purchases quite soon, so I was tempted to only give such a sum. I wound up giving more because, while I do think the column went a little too far, I've long appreciated your courage and honesty.
It's too damn easy to let the race issue make you too pessimistic, and the result is writing that can seem a bit callous. You shouldn't let yourself feel that way and, if you want to win over the public, you certainly can't come off that way.
"I would have been especially emphatic about her staying away from black boys, no matter how smooth talking, until she's 21 at least."
At that point, you advise her to stay away from black men.
I dated (as in one time each) two black women. I was way too scared of getting an STD to ever try to get serious about it, though. Loose women in general weren't attractive to me, and even when black women aren't loose, the men they've dated often are.
I see that several other commenters have nailed my immediate thought -- the correct age for a white woman (or Asian, Hispanic or mixed like my daughters) is ... never.
There was a case up here last fall with a 50-something woman originally from New Zealand murdered by her boyfriend. (It particularly struck me cause the newspaper pic is them posing at Diablo Lake in the North Cascades ... one of the most beautiful and one of my very favorite places in the world. Now with some annoying neuron in my brain tying it to this.) There's just no age at which white women--who are ignorant and steeped in PC platitudes--should be involved with black men.
It's beyond this little topic but the biggest problem we have beyond these ethnic ones--growing worse daily from mass immigration--is that modern liberalism has unloosened women's hypergamous sexuality. When i was a kid, there were rules and social sanction and serious advice to young women. Now there is almost nothing.
But young women are attracted to "maleness". And those that crave the rawer, more direct, kind will find it in black men, especially since the PC orthodoxy constantly pussy whips white men. Even when the girl comes through these without serious incidence--usually the case--these relationships are bad for her, bad for her future as a wife and mother, bad white middle class culture. Just bad.
And then ... there's a whole lot of "mixed" children running around of the Barak Obama stripe. My immediate neighborhood has two--two!--college educated single moms raising mixed race kids. (One of the dads is a really good guy, fine human being ... but i'm talking about results however they came about.)
There is no place for this and no age limit. Don't let your daughter be a victim.
Steve's not soft, he's subtle. BTW, Steve, you just got one HELL of a big plug over at Ex-Army. Hope you like the photo.
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2012/04/steve-sailer-on-zimmerman-etc.html
Let me add my voice to the "until she's 21?!?!" chorus. If you care about her, no age is an appropriate age for that.
I admit it was amusing watching "point and sputter" play out like it was a law of physics at Taki's.
I mean, you'd think one of the 3,000 assertions that Derb was falsifying statistics would've included the a real statistic by way of evidence.
That's what people do, when an argument they don't like uses false data: they dredge up the real data.
"Point and sputter" is what the faithful do.
Staying away from blacks period is good advice. Live and let live, of course, but just avoid them. Personally if I never saw or spoke to a black person in my life that would be just fine with me. That doesn't mean I hate or even dislike balcks, just that I would just as soon avoid them as anything else. I don't need their "enriching" diversity. Thanks, but no thanks. Just please stay away from me.
I agreed with most of Derbyshire's Talk and have been telling my own children the same things, appropriate to age.
When it comes to love, I will tell both my sons and daughters to immediately exclude any stranger they've never seen before who approaches them and reveals romantic interest soon after, talking smoothly, etc. This was so obvious and natural to me, but I'm unusual and could only imagine "dating" someone who I "knew" I'd marry. And I did, just like so many of my cousins on my father's side. My wilder, mother's side, however, couldn't relate (How do you know... just like that!?) and only knew "dating around"... like the vast majority of people. One of them did fall to a smooth talking black thug.
Anyway, this will kill so many birds with one stone. For those for whom this isn't natural, most people, a courtship tradition involving parents is the way to go.
Out of interest, how do Americans typically pronounce JD's surname?
"Out of interest, how do Americans typically pronounce JD's surname?"
This Canadian pronounces it DARBA-shur.
How about until FOREVER?
"Out of interest, how do Americans typically pronounce JD's surname?"
Typically, they don't.
Same goes for "Featherstonehaugh".
"modern liberalism has unloosened women's hypergamous sexuality"
Maybe a coincidence, but it was sometime after the appearance of Playboy that women started hearing that they were too "repressed," "undersexed," "frigid" and needed to loosen up. No man would love you if you weren't good at sex! This was in the women's magazines and novels of the time.
Biggest alpha con job of all time.
Steve my respect for you has jumped another notch into the stratosphere with your wise-non-latina observation that you'd tell your daughter to stay away from blax til she's at least 21. Agreed that 50 would be a better freedom age. Ha ha ha. (BTW is the black male some kind of prize? I truly dont get it.) Its time to acknowledge that George Z is a political prizoner in the USA. That lady persecutor is in fact trying to do the exact same thing George tried to do,avoid the blows of the Black FIST. She is trying to do it with LOVE. (Awwwwwwwwwww) Giving the black male a "present"--on a platter!George had to resort to a more immediate method. But its still the same:pacify the black ***** (dont want Komment Kontrol on me),ward off black violence. How I hope and pray he can win this thing! C'mon all you "maverick" lawyers in your cowboy boots and long hair and whatever bullsh*t regalia you promote,to show how tough and anti-estab you rae,always ready to stand up for Justice & Truth! Come forth and lend a hand! Or do you fear the black fist?
Re europeasant and the high rate of disease among blacks: Blacks do not HAVE disease and for Gods sake they surely do not SPREAD disease...blacks are HIT by disease. They're HIT the HARDEST by disease,as in the usual headlines:"Blacks Hit Hardest By AIDS" et al.
Anonymous at 8:09 AM - we've been telling our two sons the truth about race, crime, intelligence, and dysfunction for years now. We've encountered only limited resistance, partially because they went to private school and had less exposure to blacks and PC than your daughters in public school would have. It's not a one-time "talk," it's inserting relevant facts and comments whenever the opportunity arises. For an excellent summation of statistics on White women who date blacks, see this flyer from Unamusement Park: http://unamusementpark.com/2011/07/why-white-women-shouldnt-date-black-men-a-flyer/
Also, for rather graphic photos/stories of black men and their murder of White women, check out both Laurence Auster's website (http://amnation.com/vfr/) and http://blackracismandracehatred.blogspot.com/.
f a father tells them the truth about blacks, he'd likely get the same indignation as Derb received from his daughter. Now, you're a terrible person and black guys become just that much more desirable because the girl has been told to stay away, creating a bizarre mixed-race Romeo and Juliet situation.
This guy gets it. Do you guys understand anything about young females?
If you as a parent/authority figure expressly tell a girl to stay away from a boy, you may as well drive her up to his house and drop her off on the doorstep. Don't forget to hand her the condoms. She's gonna need them.
Sheila, what works for young males doesn't work for young women. Telling teen girls that black men are dangerous bad boys with no regard for the law would be a big mistake, believe me.
'...until she's 21 at least.'
You're a fucking coward Sailer.
I notice Steve is approving comments a lot quicker than usual. He seems to quite interested in this topic for some reason.
"If a father tells them the truth about blacks, he'd likely get the same indignation as Derb received from his daughter. Now, you're a terrible person and black guys become just that much more desirable because the girl has been told to stay away, creating a bizarre mixed-race Romeo and Juliet situation."
The best way is to scare them straight. Raise the kids in a white community up to high school junior year and then in the final yr, move to the city and enroll the kids in a public school with lots of blacks. Kids will learn.
"Also, writing for a teenage daughter, I would have been especially emphatic about her staying away from black boys, no matter how smooth talking, until she's 21 at least."
This is not the way to do it. Never tell a kid directly to do this or that or not to do this or that.
Just gradually fill her or his head with what reality is really like with a lot of anecdotes. They'll get the point.
For instance, don't say "don't take drugs". Mention many instances of friends and other people who know who took this or that drug and something bad happened.
For example, never say "don't live in a black neighborhood." Say "I read or heard blah blah, that in such a black community, this horrible thing happened..."
the listener over time will get the point. Look at liberals. They weren't told "don't live in black areas" but most of them just know not to from all the stuff they heard from friends and saw on news.
The best way is to scare them straight. Raise the kids in a white community up to high school junior year and then in the final yr, move to the city and enroll the kids in a public school with lots of blacks. Kids will learn.
...or that may just result in your sons being stomped and starring on 'world star hiphop' and your daughter ending up as a single mother after the deadbeat black father takes off.
Putting sheltered suburban kids in an inner city public school strikes me as an extremely stupid idea.
"Let me add my voice to these. STAY AWAY FROM BLACK MEN, PERIOD."
Here's the problem. You can't FORCE adults to do what they wanna do in a free country like ours.
It's like a liberal parent can't force a kid to marry someone outside the race.
Just as liberal parents have to face kids who adopt conservative values, conservative parents have to accept kids who take on liberal attitudes.
But the thing is never say 'don't do this or that'. Just NUDGE them, as Cass the Ass Sunstein says, toward the right thing.
Take Jews for instance. Jews don't say, "Worship us as a special people" or "fight and die for our wars" directly. They say, "Holocaust was horrible, so please watch out for antisemitism to save us from hate" or "them Muslims are sure making a lot of trouble, so maybe America has to do something.."
They nudge nudge nudge us, and we fall for it.
"Also, writing for a teenage daughter, I would have been especially emphatic about her staying away from black boys, no matter how smooth talking, until she's 21 at least."
The reason why white girls fall for smooth black talk--sexually or socially(from either negro stud or Oprah)--is because they're raised as heathers with cutesy dolls, huggy-wuggy smileyness, and such.
So, they never develop tough, skeptical, hardnosed minds.
White girls gotta be raised more like Pauline Kael. No, I don't mean she was conservative--she was politically liberal--, but she could see through the bull in anything. If you want your girl to see through the bulljive of some negro, raise her to be tough, skeptical, and stuff. Like Lauren Bacall or Barbara Stanwyck than like Ashley Judd. Ashley was raised to be goody goody girl and fell for the whole Hollywood scam.
If you wanna minimize the chance of your girl going for some Negro, don't watch certain sports in the home and don't turn her to stuff like pop culture. Most American sports is Triumph of Negro Muscle and much of pop culture is Triumph of Negro funk.
So, raise her with more interest in high culture, intellectual stuff, and such.
Now, such stuff, being more liberal, may make her more 'progressive' perhaps, but educated liberal white women are less likely to go with negroes than white trash women whose big dream is to be highschool cheerleader and shake her skanky booty to rap music.
Jesse Jackson says black fathers should teach their kids how to fight. Hmmm...
1. But what black fathers? Are any of them around?
2. It seems the problem of Trashcan Martin wasn't he didn't know how to fight. In fact, he was whupping an older man. The problem was he chose to fight instead of choosing to talk.
3. Since when do black guys not know how to fight? In fact, most fights are among black guys.
I mean this REALLY JUMPS THE SHARK.
"Putting sheltered suburban kids in an inner city public school strikes me as an extremely stupid idea."
Dangerous maybe but it was the best school of my life. If not for personal contact, I might be one of them progos due to my cultural tastes.
Any suggestions on how I can teach my daughters the truth?
I believe a way that works is to immerse your children in their culture. Now for most white Americans this might be difficult since; A, they are a mixture of various European ethnicities, and B, most have lost all contact with their old culture and only speak English.
However, I have seen some whites maintain their ethnic identity through several generations. For example, some Greeks I know still speak Greek at home even though they are 2nd and 3rd generation. Additionally, their religion, Greek Orthodoxy, supports this identity building since it attracts other Greeks and they get a chance to speak Greek to one another. Unlike other churches, their church is pretty much an ethnic enclave. It is probably similar to what Jews experience with their place of worship.
Anyways, it seems like these folks grow up seeking to marry others that have the same background. And then the cycle repeats itself with the next generation of kids.
I don't think they tell their kids to stay away from blacks. They don't have to. I just think they raise their kids with enough appreciation for their ethnic heritage that the kids choose to meet others who share their background.
Outside of Jews, Greeks and a few others, I would think most whites might have a hard time doing this. I find it ironic that the assimilation of one hundred years ago, which melded us into one united people, is now serving to deracinate European Americans.
Out of interest, how do Americans typically pronounce JD's surname?
I dunno. I pronounce it "Derby-sure."
Actually, dating [blacks] is a tough subject.
Everybody makes it a tough subject by waiting until their kids are grown to broach the subject.
Make it clear to them when the indoctrination starts. Not ten years later, after it's complete.
If you start your counter-indoctrination when the state begins its indoctrination, you will win every time, if you're a decent parent. Children revere their parents.
They'll probably go through a minor rebellion as they come of age, because peer pressure is hitting its peak and the desire to conform is extremely strong at this time. But they'll snap back to reality eventually.
But the thing is never say 'don't do this or that'. Just NUDGE them, as Cass the Ass Sunstein says, toward the right thing.
I agree with this. Orders are a bad idea. Facts, logic, consequences, opinions, all good. Orders, not so much.
Sheila, what works for young males doesn't work for young women. Telling teen girls that black men are dangerous bad boys with no regard for the law would be a big mistake, believe me.
Stats on violence, rape, SES, STDs and IQ would be a good start.
Svigor, women and statistics don't go together.
If you start bringing up numbers, percentages etc. to a female, you can see the light going out of their eyes as they tune out.
They'll probably go through a minor rebellion as they come of age, because peer pressure is hitting its peak and the desire to conform is extremely strong at this time. But they'll snap back to reality eventually.
A 'minor rebellion' is all it takes to change your world.
Again, information is the key. Black and White guys have their pluses and minuses. Every group, person, culture, and human achievement in history does. Girls and women just need the straight dope, no pretty lies and obfuscation. So they can choose, and choose well. Of their own accord.
Outside of Jews, Greeks and a few others, I would think most whites might have a hard time doing this. I find it ironic that the assimilation of one hundred years ago, which melded us into one united people, is now serving to deracinate European Americans.
I think largely a result of the Anglo-American (WW1) and Jewish (1930's) Kulturkampfen against German-American identity. No one sane thinks the Wilson-era repression was justified, but the "Fifth Column" anti-German hysteria of the 1930's was also (viewed in retrospect) WMD against white America.
As to dating blacks....
Guys, certainly you know enough of HBD to know that whether or not a child, male or female, is cautious (in this case of this discussion about non-black girls demonstrating an interest or disinterest in dating blacks), or is wary depends greatly on inherited personality traits.
If the young girl is adventurous, rebellious, head-strong ,extraverted you may have trouble on your hands. No amount of guidance or "helping her along" will do much good.
If she's by nature cautious, people-pleasing, etc. you probably don't have to worry about it.
In short, dads, the only thing you can do if your child falls into the first category is raise her in an area in which her dating choices are severely limited racially by virtue of the demographics.
Kylie asked...
Why the age limit?
Because men care most about females in the prime reproductive ages of 15-25.
I dated (as in one time each) two black women. I was way too scared of getting an STD to ever try to get serious about it, though.
If you were so worried about the STDs, why did you start dating the second one?
If you start bringing up numbers, percentages etc. to a female, you can see the light going out of their eyes as they tune out.
Not if done in a way that paints a narrative of low status.
And as Whiskey points out, tearing down The Narrative is bound to be productive. I.e, get them used to questioning it, and thinking for themselves. Critical thinking really is contagious.
For those who are concerned that most airhead little girls can't handle statistics (unfortunate, but true), there are other tacks to take. As someone else mentioned, teach your children the glory and richness of Western culture. It's easy enough to mention, as an aside, that blacks never had a written language or the wheel. Also push the idea that when you date/marry, you are getting the other party's family along with them - the Asian mother-in-law, the black half siblings, etc. Discuss family traditions and differences; this can be in a very informal and noncritical fashion, but your point will be made. Discuss, merely as a matter of interest, genetics and environmental influences on children. For many girls, photos of someone like Heidi Klum with her fuzzy-wuzzies will be eye-opening.
The main point is not to just assume they'll know or understand, or to merely capitulate to public schools and the media. These are your children. If you love and value them, it is incumbent upon you to teach them what to love and value and preserve - particularly their racial heritage.
"Kylie asked...
Why the age limit?
Because men care most about females in the prime reproductive ages of 15-25."
Oh. Thanks for the explanation. I was under the mistaken impression that paternal concern lasted a lifetime, not just for the span of a daughter's "hotness".
"If you start bringing up numbers, percentages etc. to a female, you can see the light going out of their eyes as they tune out."
"Not if done in a way that paints a narrative of low status."
Dead right on that. There's just something so tired, formulaic, low-class (I don't mean working class, I mean low class), so something with failure written all over it. I mean WHY? Certainly there are some people who for whatever reasons just dig each other and live happily after ever despite race differences. We must admit that happens. Just not that often, and not often enough to make the experiment or adventure (that's how the young look at it) worth while. The genetic relationship of a white grandparent to a mostly black grandchild (that is, less than to a random white child) makes you think.
""Also, writing for a teenage daughter, I would have been especially emphatic about her staying away from black boys, no matter how smooth talking, until she's 21 at least."
Why the age limit?"
Now, now. Some black people are of good, respectable variety. It's hard to find a loving, like minded partner with whom there is chemistry to boot. If one happens upon such a person and that person happens to be black, it would be foolish to pass. I think Mr. Derbyshire wishes to advise young women to wait until they are just a little older and wiser before they risk potentially great harm while deciding who is the good sort.
Random example: My next door neighbor is a young black biologist, and based on what I've seen in the past few years he prefers white women exclusively. Well, the last one has been hanging around for almost a year now, and she just told me that they are engaged. I genuinely wish them luck. The young man's father visits often. It seems the parents were married until the father became widowed. The neighbor likes animals, always offers to help out with my fosters and takes them on walks. He told me a year ago that he doesn't have a dog of his own because he feels it would be irresponsible in a studio apartment and working as much as he does. The couple can be often seen playing catch with big baseball gloves or frisbee at dusk or just sitting on the veranda steps with cups of tea, talking quietly. So why shouldn't this girl marry my neighbor? Sounds like a good thing with a good family history.
"Because men care most about females in the prime reproductive ages of 15-25."
Not middle class, marriage oriented men. Look, I read all those articles on the HBD blogs about women's value going down after 25, and it seems logical and makes sense... Except it directly contradicts everything i see around me. Men of the only type that I've ever seriously considered are marrying women roughly around their age and roughly around their own level of education and career success. Most of my older brother's friends got married in their late twenties/early thirties, and now my friends are beginning to get married. I seriously never seen any of these IT managers, software developers, teachers, almost doctors, nurse anesthesiologists, lawyers and chemical engineers show up with a much younger girl or someone who'd seem sweet but a bit dim. Those who are good looking paired of with pretty women. The less attractive ones are married/engaged to women who wouldn't be considered anywhere near hot. But I've never seen professional, educated men of my generation go for more youth (and therefore more beauty) at the expense of having a more or less even matched partner. And since most of them wouldn't even consider marriage before their late 20s, they most often tie the not with a woman over the magic age of 25 (not to say that some of these couples weren't together for several years before marriage). So the 16-25 theory has a lot of merit and logical thought behind it, but it just doesn't seem to play out in the real world, at least not in my reasonably wide circle.
What would be better for the future of America, what would be more dysgenic?
A smart white woman marrying a smart black man, or a smart white woman marrying a stupid white man?
The answer is obvious.
People are forgetting that the facts about blacks are just group averages. There are many exceptions. It is MUCH better for the health of our nation and the quality of our population that smart whites marry smart blacks than stupid whites. (I am not suggesting those are the only two options)
It is funny how Derbyshire was so careful to explain that he was merely talking of statistical averages, yet so many of his defenders seem unable to grasp what that really means.
It is almost as if most people really can only think in crude binary terms - either marry blacks indiscriminately, or dont marry blacks at all!
The appropriate use of statistical averages in ones intellectual repertoire of tools seems to be genuinely beyond the ken of most human.
Maybe the liberals are right when they say that knowing group averages is actually dangerous, considering the limitations the average human mind labors under.
John has written the most intelligent post in this thread.
Btw, John, the birth stats show that New York is far from the epicenter of interracial relationships. That honor falls to Maryland, Florida and Georgia.
Congrats Steve, your comment section has morphed, over the past couple years into the biggest collection of cranky racists on the web. I'm not sure if that's what you intended, but the company you keep is a reflection of your intellectual habits. May your daughters and sons marry our black brothers and sisters! Guaranteed, your Derb-like advice will be mostly opposed by your children.
For instance, don't say "don't take drugs". Mention many instances of friends and other people who know who took this or that drug and something bad happened.
My sister-in-law, who lived nearby with my in-laws, was a wretched, depressing drug addict all her adult life. She died when my daughter was twelve, but that didn't stop my daughter from getting involved with heroin three years later. Don't count on common sense.
It's one thing to use stats about groups, quite another to use them about individuals. Telling your daughter or son to stay away from dating blacks falls into the latter category.
And useless to advise kids about mates anyway. But go ahead and delude yourselves.
"Now, now. Some black people are of good, respectable variety. It's hard to find a loving, like minded partner with whom there is chemistry to boot. If one happens upon such a person and that person happens to be black, it would be foolish to pass."
No, it wouldn't. It's called "the thin end of the wedge" and/or "unintended consequences".
Nice try, though.
"If the young girl is adventurous, rebellious, head-strong ,extraverted you may have trouble on your hands. No amount of guidance or "helping her along" will do much good.
If she's by nature cautious, people-pleasing, etc. you probably don't have to worry about it."
Wrong. It's all a matter of raising your child with strong fundamental values and certain standards tied in with her(his) sense of self-respect.
I was adventurous and rebellious. At some point in junior high, I decided that my mother was always wrong, all advise coming from her was stupid, and I would itch to do the exact opposite as soon as an advise was given.
But some things were so fundamental and self-evident by the age of 12 that the fact that mother held the same opinion about them as I didn't make us alike because EVERYONE of any worth held these same opinions. It didn't even have to be discussed by that point.
For example: eating sh*t isn't an option because it's repugnant. If someone eats sh*t, they aren't rebellious and free thinking, but mentally ill. Or- drinking to the point of blackout, slurring or vomiting is pathetic behavior reserved for trash. If mother found out that i got drunk and threw up, she wouldn't be shocked, amazed, angered and defeated. She'd just conclude that I'm terminally stupid destined to do terminally stupid things. Perhaps, she'd even feel sorry for me.
Dating an animal of any race is one such behavior. Some males can't be considered as potential men in anyone's life unless something is very, very wrong with the woman agreeing to date the. Like, nobody rebels by going out with a boy with Down's syndrome. It's not cool, adventurous, open-minded or riske. it's just...off. I feel exactly the same about semi literate creatures with saggy pants and a weird limp who are so stupid and short sighted that they engage in violent behavior. It's not that they are improper and not what mother wants for me. It's that they are severely defective specimen that only a defective woman could see as men, the kind of a woman who could see sh*t as an edible good. There is a difference between a black sheep and a circus freak.
But my parents were instilling standards into us since before I can remember. They were never rude or outright mean, but very judgmental, and they always discreetly commented on everything around them for our benefit. Parents are God-like before puberty sets in. Just make sure your kids don't share your commentary with others.
Kylie said...
"Kylie asked...
Why the age limit?
Because men care most about females in the prime reproductive ages of 15-25."
Oh. Thanks for the explanation. I was under the mistaken impression that paternal concern lasted a lifetime, not just for the span of a daughter's "hotness".
Yeah, for real. This solicitousness results from the proximity of the young woman to childhood and the associated vulnerabilities, not to her "hotness." A woman's reproductive years are limited, but they do extend well past 21 or even 25. You do get a sense though, that a woman of 30 or so has made more of a deliberate choice than a kid in her teens. I don't get why Ms. Klum decided to negate her great genes (physical anyway, she doesn't seem very bright.) But she was old enough to make her decision and if she wants to drop more little sub-Saharan Africans instead of Aryan super-dudes, that was a deliberate decision.
Teenagers OTOH, look like adults, feel like adults, but think like children. It's truly scary scary. I remember reading the "Children of Sanchez" a book chronicaling an actual Mexican family in the 1950s. There was a saying among them that until a girl was 17 she had to be watched carefully because she didn't know what she was doing when it came to sex. Boys needed watching too, but that feat was beyond anyone's powers. Something like that might be what Derbysire means except that he more realistically raises the age to 21.
She died when my daughter was twelve, but that didn't stop my daughter from getting involved with heroin three years later.
Welcome to the world of nature and nurture. Where the former usually trumps the latter.
Signed: third generation alcoholic.
A New DNA Test Can ID a Suspect's Race, But Police Won't Touch It
Well, well.
Is it a big deal if Jewish parents tell their kids to marry Jewish? Is it a problem is black parents tell their kids to marry black? Is it a problem if Hindu parents tell their kids to stick to Hindus?
I see nothing wrong with white parents saying we should preserve our race, especially since it's heading for demographic downfall.
Think about it. Homosexuality, especially male kind, is gross, but liberals say it's wonderful for gays to create their own separate communities and do their own thing.
A white man and white woman having kids is wonderful and it's a great ideal--indeed the fundamental basis--of western civilization, but when we say whites should ideally go with other whites, liberals freak out.
So, gay men getting together--and rejecting women--to screw eachother's butt is GREAT!! But the idea of whites sticking with whites to continue to have whites who define Western civilization is eeeeevil. Liberals are libevil.
Reply to JOHN SAID....
"...I personally would have zero problem with my daughter dating an intelligent black man ..."
I certainly would. For the very simple reason that I would want my grandchildren to look like me (as I looked like my grandfather) and not like Barack Obama. This doesn't mean that I hate blacks, or even wish them ill. It just means I have my preferences, that's all. I am a white person and would prefer white grandchildren over black ones. Just as I prefer living in a white area instead of a black one, (or a brown one, or Oriental one). We fail to realize, or are unwilling to acknowledge, that preferences extend to ethnicity and race, just like tastes in food, music, entertainment (and a million other things too). Preference isn't "prejudice".
"There are many exceptions. It is MUCH better for the health of our nation and the quality of our population that smart whites marry smart blacks than stupid whites. (I am not suggesting those are the only two options)"
A very smart white who cares about having very smart kids is better off marrying another very smart white (or Asian as they say here) if he/she wants to maximize the chance for higher IQ. It has to do with lineage. No individual exists in a genetic vaccum.
Most here see your point about averages being "dangerous." Actually, on the average, it would be safer to be aware of them and act accordingly, but there is an everlasting desire in this country to believe that none of us are "average." Lake Wobegone where every child is above average struck a chord in so many. That said, of course there are successful black/white marriages, but it's just a fact you don't see many older such couples and the younger ones are prone to violence partly because so many -- both man & woman -- are of low IQ. Low IQ is always a prime feature of violent criminals and the people who hang out with them on a regular basis.
Smart people are sometimes violent, but not as often.
Sorry, there just won't ever be a lot of "smart" whites with IQs over 110, who marry blacks.
First of all, most couples are within FIVE IQ points of each other--an extraordinary stat considering nobody asks about IQ in a relationship. It just happens--with close friends also. The percentage of blacks with IQs over 100 is about 10%. Among really "smart" people (over 120), you're down to 2% among blacks. Among whites, about 10%. By IQ 132, whites about 2%, blacks, infinitesimal--they number only in the thousands in the whole country. Genetically, even a white of average IQ carries a stronger genetic component for higher IQ than a black with a superior IQ of 120, because you must take into account a lineage going back generations, and counting dozens of ancestors.
Unless the 'blacks' you are talking about are mostly white, the bulk of their ancestors will average 75-80 IQ, just like the bulk of white ancestors will average 100. Certain lineages who picked their mates well will have smarter ancestors, but the blacks will still be a standard to two standard deviations to the left of the Bell curve.
For blacks bent on producing higher IQ kids, they still get to call their kids "black" and even if that "black" offpsring marries a white and has kids, those kids will still be "black." Yeah, I can see it as a win win for blacks. If they really care that much about smart kids. But do they? Is that a priority fo them? They seem to get through college, sometimes top tier, on IQs that would barely get a white through high school. Affirmative Action is so embedded that they can get into Harved med school with a 2.8 GPA.
Anyway.
Yeah, I now it's all very tiresome and I used to scoff too; but as time goes on, it all just explains so much.
"There are many exceptions. It is MUCH better for the health of our nation and the quality of our population that smart whites marry smart blacks than stupid whites. (I am not suggesting those are the only two options)"
Most here see your point about averages being "dangerous." Actually, on the average, it would be safer to be aware of them and act accordingly, but there is an everlasting desire in this country to believe that none of us are "average." Lake Wobegone where every child is above average struck a chord in so many. That said, of course there are successful black/white marriages, but it's just a fact you don't see many older such couples and the younger ones are prone to violence partly because so many are (both) of low IQ, always a prime trait of violent criminals (and people who hang out with them.) Sorry, there just won't ever be a lot of "smart" (IQ over 110 much less 130) who marry blacks.
First of all, most couples are within FIVE IQ points--an extraordinary stat considering nobody asks about IQ in a relationship. It just happens--with close friends also. The percentage of blacks with IQs over 100 is about 10%. Among really "smart" people (over 120), you're down to 2% among blacks. Among whites, about 10%. By 132, whites about 2%, blacks, infintesimal--only a few thousand in the whole country. Genetically, even a white of average IQ carries a stronger genetic component for higher IQ than a black with an IQ of 120, because you are taking into account a lineage going back generations, and counting dozens of ancestors.
Unless the 'blacks' you are talking about are mostly white, the bulk of their ancestors will average 70 IQ, just like the bulk of white ancestors will average 100.
A very smart white is better off marrying another very smart white (or Asian as they say here) if he/she wants to maximize the chance for higher IQ. Now a black person would increase his/her chances of a very intelligent child by an interracial marriage, and if that child marries a white (or Asian), well the odds go up and that descendant can still get to be called "blacks." So for blacks, it's certainly a win win.
Yeah, I now it's all very tiresome and I used to scoff too; but as time goes on, it all just explains so much.
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/magazine/16-01/ps_dna
Vell, vell, I thought race was a just a social construct/myth without any basis in genetics.
Hey Steve, one line of your post will live in infamy
(the rest was relegated to the virtual round file rather quickly).
"I agree with this. Orders are a bad idea. Facts, logic, consequences, opinions, all good. Orders, not so much."
Listen up, Sviggy has a wealth of knowledge raising children!
" Again, information is the key. Black and White guys have their pluses and minuses. Every group, person, culture, and human achievement in history does. Girls and women just need the straight dope, no pretty lies and obfuscation. So they can choose, and choose well. Of their own accord."
Was this really you Whiskey?
typo: bilige > bilge
May your daughters and sons marry our black brothers and sisters! Guaranteed, your Derb-like advice will be mostly opposed by your children.
This is a fascinating statement for it appears that you want your black brothers and sisters to marry people of European descent. This seems to be at odds with most people in the world. For example, I doubt a Japanese couple would want their kid to marry anyone other than a Japanese. I imagine most Jews deep down hope their kids marry other Jews. The same could be said for countless others.
So is your statement about your black brothers and sisters marrying whites sarcasm, or is it a genuine desire to marry outside your ethnic group? And if it is such a desire, what is the motivation? Is it a belief that it will lead to a betterment for your group, or do you wish this to bring down another group? Either way, the reasons don't appear to be based upon a healthy emotion.
""...I personally would have zero problem with my daughter dating an intelligent black man ..."
I certainly would. For the very simple reason that I would want my grandchildren to look like me (as I looked like my grandfather) and not like Barack Obama. This doesn't mean that I hate blacks, or even wish them ill. It just means I have my preferences, that's all. I am a white person and would prefer white grandchildren over black ones. Just as I prefer living in a white area instead of a black one, (or a brown one, or Oriental one). We fail to realize, or are unwilling to acknowledge, that preferences extend to ethnicity and race, just like tastes in food, music, entertainment (and a million other things too). Preference isn't "prejudice"."
This is all fine and good, except that your preferences don't count when your adult child chooses how to build her (or his) life, hers (or his) do. There is absolutely nothing wrong with you preferring to date and marry your own race. There is absolutely nothing wrong with making creating kids who look as much as you as possible your top priority. You are free to choose what you like and what's important to you.
However, the same goes for your adult children. They should be free to choose their own preferences and priorities.
"Wrong. It's all a matter of raising your child with strong fundamental values and certain standards tied in with her(his) sense of self-respect."
First of all, surely you know the research that says over and over again that a kid's peer group has more influence over him or her than his parents/family.
Secondly, genes mean a whole lot--H_E_L_L_O???????? This is an HDB blog.
Of course, the kid has mom's and dad's genes so a look at mom and dad tell us a great deal, but it's hard to know early what the combo of parents have rendered and what traits will be expressed, but look tothe behavior of mom and dad in their youth and to that of grandparents for a little peek!
@ Anonymous 4/12/12 8:16 PM
I find your preference, if it is a strongly held one, hard to understand. I can understand wanting my grand kids to have personal traits I value, and even physical traits I value, like good looks and refinement, but to want them to look very much like me, that seems like an odd preference if it is strongly held.
Tell me, if you are blond, must your grand kids be too? If you are blue eyed, must your grand kids be? If you are Scandinavian, would it bother you a lot if your kids looked Italian?
How much like you must they look?
I suppose I can understand some slight desire for your grand kids to resemble you, but it seems odd that it should be a very big deal to anyone. The resemblances that really matter are not these, but deeper ones.
I would want my grand kids to have traits that I admire, both physical and mental. In many ways I would want my grand kids to look nothing like me at all - much better than me, if possible.
To have grand kids that are good looking in a refined, intellectual way, but have some obvious black ancestry, would be fine with me.
But I suppose not with you. I dont think that means you must hate blacks, but it is something that seems odd and frivolous to me. Not prejudiced, no, but perhaps very sentimental, and not very sophisticated.
I suppose I can understand some slight desire for your grand kids to resemble you, but it seems odd that it should be a very big deal to anyone. The resemblances that really matter are not these, but deeper ones.
I don't know about grandkids, but I imagine the urge for parents, especially men, to have their kids resemble them is rooted in not wanting to become a cuckhold. I don't know how this would play out with grandparents. But I would imagine the strong attachment to appearances might emanate from this.
To have grand kids that are good looking in a refined, intellectual way, but have some obvious black ancestry, would be fine with me.
But I suppose not with you. I don't think that means you must hate blacks, but it is something that seems odd and frivolous to me. Not prejudiced, no, but perhaps very sentimental, and not very sophisticated.
John, I'd be willing to bet that a MAJORITY of the world's population feels the same as Anon. In fact it is probably you that is in the minority on this issue.
Advice to your kids is intended, ideally, for their benefit, not yours. So your preference for grandkids that look like the family portrait on the wall seems little more meaningful than some other guy's preference to have a black guy in the family to prove what a swell, colorblind SWPL he is.
There are some fine potential partners out there who are different races, from different social classes, from different religions, from different countries. And there is nothing at all wrong with ending up with them--ideally, you marry once and have kids, and you'll want to find the best match you can for that. I broadly agree with John and Maya, above.
But one useful thing to keep in mind, which isn't so obvious to someone young and inexperienced, is that the more alike your backgrounds and values and starting assumptions, the easier it will be to make a good life together. Shared religion and culture matter--they make many important decisions easier, like how you raise your kids, how you handle your finances, and how you balance demands of your careers and home life. Even differences in social class growing up can leave you with some startling differences in what each of you assumes is the right way to, say, feed the family or plan vacations or whatever. That's advice my mom gave me as a teenager, which I assumed was bullshit when I heard it, and which, as a long-married guy with kids and a mortgage, makes a huge amount of sense to me. I'm fortunate that I followed her advice more or less by accident. Making a life together involves plenty of conflicts and misunderstandings even when you're both from the same culture and upbringing.
I know a fair number of couples that are mixed race and/or mixed culture, and who sure seem to be happy and functional. But it sure does look like it must be harder to do that, the more difference there is in yourbackground assumptions starting out.
Talk about a "two minute hate". Derb's original column generated 5,000 comments. The new column will be lucky to hit 200. People's attention span really is short.
Beecher, to satisfy suspicions of cuckoldry, the offspring would only have to have some obvious features from the father. A mixed race kid can have many features from the father. Besides, your reasoning should apply to blond men marrying dark haired women - they should be reluctant to do so, because their kids might be dark haired.
You say that the majority of the world feels like you and I am in the minority - history does not seem to bear this out. When one race conquers another, they intermarry, and soon disappear into each other. History provides literally hundreds of examples.
It seems that when left to themselves, people who look very, very different seem to turn to each other quite naturally.
In other countries today, people try very hard to marry members of the *dominant race*, who look nothing like them, for the prestige of it, or because the women of that race are considered more beautiful. That is quite common, too.
100 years ago, a blond Scandinavian would have been quite reluctant to marry an olive skinned Italian, yet today, nobody would mind one bit.
As you can see, the situation is far more complex than you seem to think.
Lower class whites are simply hideous specimens of humanity....
Well, you certainly qualify as such.
...it is absurd that an intelligent white person should feel more affinity with them than with a refined Asian or black, for instance.
And it's absurd for a mother to feel more affinity for her child, despite its imperfections, than for a stranger.
"Lower-class" Whites are part of the stock from which "refined" Whites come. You can't have one without the other. And I get the distinct impression that you don't like the "refined" Whites much more than you like the "lower-class" ones.
I find your preference, if it is a strongly held one, hard to understand. I can understand wanting my grand kids to have personal traits I value, and even physical traits I value, like good looks and refinement, but to want them to look very much like me, that seems like an odd preference if it is strongly held.
So, John, you're cool with your wife having my children if I have the personal and physical traits that you value?
Also, writing for a teenage daughter, I would have been especially emphatic about her staying away from black boys, no matter how smooth talking, until she's 21 at least.
Yeah, there's already a half blood prince from a teen mom.
With teen daughters myself though, I do have to say that some of these commenters sound silly. I agree with John.
I expected my kids to look Asian, and prepared myself for it, which wasn't really that hard.
A funny thing happened though.
Even with an Asian mother they look really haole.
You say that the majority of the world feels like you and I am in the minority - history does not seem to bear this out. When one race conquers another, they intermarry, and soon disappear into each other. History provides literally hundreds of examples.
Note, you wrote when one group conquers another. This implies the event is not welcomed, and thus is feared by any group that thinks some other group might conquer them, lest they disappear from the Earth.
When one race conquers another, the men of the conquering race will be encouraged to impregnate as many of the conquered females as possible. That is a weapon of war used by the conquering group to water down and subdue the conquered.
There are ethnic groups that have gone to great pains to maintain their ethnic identity no matter where they live, because they know that intermarriage and assimilation will lead to them becoming the next Vandals or Goths.
Bottom line if you want your ethnicity to be present in the future, which most people throughout time have, you tend to marry within your ethnicity.
As for modern Europeans, they are an historical anomaly. Wealthy and under no military threat, they have allowed the largest mass migration of alien peoples in history effectively starting the process to replace their own stock. That they no longer feel the need to have their kids or grandkids resemble them is no surprise.
But the last time I checked, China, Japan, Korea and pretty much the rest of the world is not doing this, and thus I'd not be surprised to find those folks care about whom their kids marry.
Do the "intelligent and refined" blacks and Asians whose praises you sing communicate to you their loathing of the great mass of blacks and Asians? To ask the question is to answer it - only white liberals display your unique brand of racial self-hate.
I'm not whoever said that, but I do hear plenty of that from the few "refined" blacks and Asians I know. Asians seem to be talking about Asians in Asia though, and blacks are talking about blacks in America.
It seems to work on various levels. When Nordics say Nordics should go with other Nordics, non-Nordic whites freak out
Lol, poor Meds.
If you've read this far down the thread, you're too obsessed with this topic.
LOL-quotes from NYT's gushing 1996 feature (1300+ words) about Derb's debut novel:
"Mr. Derbyshire is an advocate for America as a melting pot, and says he doesn't believe in paying too much attention to ethnicity or race."
"Mr. Derbyshire also admits to having become rather anti-politics. 'The last time I was politically active was for Margaret Thatcher. I may possess the only Thatcher commemorative mug on the Eastern Seaboard. I don't really understand American politics...'"
Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/28/nyregion/briton-scores-with-a-multi-cultural-novel.html?pagewanted=all
Or- drinking to the point of blackout, slurring or vomiting is pathetic behavior reserved for trash.
Uhh...
Uhhh...
Uhhhh...
And useless to advise kids about mates anyway. But go ahead and delude yourselves.
There are no guarantees in life but I'm well aware of some examples of it working very well.
A girl in my extended family married a black guy. I was very upset about their engagement and encouraged her brother (who is, yawn, "a racist") to say something first and I would back him up. But he decided to treat her "like an adult" so she went ahead with it. On the few occasions I met him before they married I wasn't rude, but generally distant and uncommunicative (which I certainly wouldn't have been if he was a racial familiar). I knew the family, despite pretenses to the contrary wouldn't like him, but I shut my mouth and observed. I snubbed them and didn't attend the wedding, making sure to tell third parties why not.
A year later I heard the entire family except her mother had a falling out with the black-marrying daughter. Her brother deeply regrets not confronting her earlier. But the teen kids from all the associated families saw what happened and, to my knowledge, agree that she acted foolishly and selfishly and are willing to state that they would not make her mistake themselves.
As for "John," that's just your average A-grade delusional white American fruitloop burbling racial nonsense. Race-mixing is the mechanism by which races go extinct, so obviously if you care about the future of your kind you would have to oppose mixing. For now that can only be done informally, but there's no obvious reason to me why there could or should not be an official society-wide effort made to prevent it. That's not going to happen listening to the "sage advice" of the fools on this thread, like John, though.
As for modern Europeans, they are an historical anomaly. Wealthy and under no military threat, they have allowed the largest mass migration of alien peoples in history effectively starting the process to replace their own stock.
Is it really accurate to say they're under no military threat when there are US troops on the Continent?
General Wesley Clark (then Supreme Commander of NATO) during the bombing of Serbia:
There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th century idea and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multiethnic states.
"If you've read this far down the thread, you're too obsessed with this topic."
well, you know how it is. Most of us have friends or family about whom we are very concerned. In a large metropolis it's an even more salient concern than the price of gasoline.
There are ethnic groups that have gone to great pains to maintain their ethnic identity no matter where they live, because they know that intermarriage and assimilation will lead to them becoming the next Vandals or Goths.
That is the exception, though. There is a reason that the Jews and the Parsis are such remarkable survivals - few others have really managed to do it. These people did it at the cost of an incredibly rigid social system designed to thwart the apparently basic urges of human nature - to intermarry with those around you, even if they look very different.
When one race conquers another, the men of the conquering race will be encouraged to impregnate as many of the conquered females as possible. That is a weapon of war used by the conquering group to water down and subdue the conquered.
But why would these men wish to do that if it is not common to want to have offspring from women of another race? There is a contradiction there.
Besides, there are many cases, like in India, where the conquering race made superhuman efforts to not assimilate - to no avail. Another good example is Ancient Greece - most of the invading northerners intermarried with the native stock, with the exception of Sparta, which was forced to maintain the most incredibly rigid cultural barriers in order to maintain that state of affairs. Incidentally, the Spartans never produced anything of intellectual or cultural distinction.
And there are many cases where vastly different tribes lived side by side, and intermarried, without conquest.
Intermarriage seems the human norm, with only strict cultural barriers preventing it.
Bottom line if you want your ethnicity to be present in the future, which most people throughout time have, you tend to marry within your ethnicity.
This is true, but history seems to show that most people did not really care one way or another. It seems more a modern preoccupation.
Do the "intelligent and refined" blacks and Asians whose praises you sing communicate to you their loathing of the great mass of blacks and Asians?
Of course, probably more so even than whites.
And who is singing the praises of intelligent Asians and blacks? Not I.
00 years ago, a blond "Scandinavian would have been quite reluctant to marry an olive skinned Italian, yet today, nobody would mind one bit.
As you can see, the situation is far more complex than you seem to think."
Ridiculous. Hdenry VIII was red-head and so was Katherine of Aragon of Spain. Anne Boleyn of old English lineage was an olive skinned brunette. Italian painters had no lack of blonde and Titian haired women to paint. Blondes and brunettes exist in all European countries.
You just don't seem to get it. Races are extended families and whether they consciously realize it or not, there is an affinity among those of similar genetic background, the more similar the more affinity. Black, brown and yellow people seem to accr[t this. Black Africans are the most genetically distant from white Europeans. Do they mix at times? Of course, but given a choice, not all THAT much. And believe me, there is no effective opprobrium from most whites anymore. If people don't "mix" more it's because they don't want jto. It's the goofy white race-deniers (of whom I have been a part at one time) who are in denial. Is there mixing as people get to used to each other? Of course. But when there are choices, people are predictable. It's not just looks, but a whole set of characteristics.
Yeah, there's already a half blood prince from a teen mom.
ewww. I am an Independent as far as politics (in fact, I won't be voting at all this year) but Obama looked icky and evil to me at a visceral level the first time he came out of nowhere and appeared in a major Time Mag story. Time, observation and research has only confirmed my initial reaction. Even for those who actually like him, he pretty much confirms the trepidations held by most on this thread.
I wouldn't want him for a son or grandson.
ewww again. Sorry for the outburst.
"Any suggestions on how I can teach my daughters the truth?
You can start by figuring out what the relevant truth is, and it's not that Blacks behave badly.
It's that Blacks aren't you, and if your daughters have children with Blacks they're committing adultery every bit as much as your wife would have if she'd cuckolded you. In fact, from a genetic/evolutionary standpoint it's worse."
Where did you find this "truth" again?
"Teach them Cavalli-Sforza and Salter. Teach them about wolves and foxes and coyotes -- separate species that are interfertile."
Well hey, Ace, if blacks and whites were infertile, you wouldn't need to give your daughters a speech.
"So, John, you're cool with your wife having my children if I have the personal and physical traits that you value?"
Please, no cigarettes around that "man" Ben created...he's liable to go up in flames.
If you can read this, you don't need glasses.
Congrats Steve, your comment section has morphed, over the past couple years into the biggest collection of cranky racists on the web. I'm not sure if that's what you intended, but the company you keep is a reflection of your intellectual habits. May your daughters and sons marry our black brothers and sisters! Guaranteed, your Derb-like advice will be mostly opposed by your children.
We're all cranky racists. On the other hand, libtards are all about the love. That's why they always say, "I hope your children marry Blacks," instead of "I hope my children marry Blacks." Such selfless souls...
On how to keep girls away from black men: from an early age emphasize the glory of Western Civilization. Girls especially like the romanticism of medieval Europe, so history and literature books concerning that era are a good place to start. Compare the art, architecture, and scientific advancements of Western countries with those of other countries, and emphasize that those things can only be created with certain demographics.
Also make sure your girls are skeptics, as someone else pointed out. At this point it isn't really a rebellious thing to date black guys, it's more the domain of gullible women who take silly pop culture morality to heart. Girls need common sense, not coddling and fluff.
"It seems to work on various levels. When Nordics say Nordics should go with other Nordics, non-Nordic whites freak out."
That's only because the standards of what is "Nordic" is pretty arbitrary, and typically seems to revolve around hair/eye color despite the fact that there are LOTS of darker-featured Northern Europeans. If people want to stay within their specific ethnic group I don't think anyone freaks out though.
"On how to keep girls away from black men: from an early age emphasize the glory of Western Civilization."
Yes, a couple of lectures on William Wallace should override biology.
"If people want to stay within their specific ethnic group I don't think anyone freaks out though."
Not anymore...that's the point.
If people want to stay within their specific ethnic group I don't think anyone freaks out though.
I think some people do "freak out" about this and a major undercurrent to it is sexual competition.
Nordic women are prized, so attempts by Nordic males to preserve their groups by restricting access to Nordic females by non-Nordic males, including non-Nordic white males, are viewed negatively.
De-emphasizing ethnic groupings is more palatable because it allows access to Nordic females by non-Nordic white males.
John said....
"100 years ago, a blond Scandinavian would have been quite reluctant to marry an olive skinned Italian, yet today, nobody would mind one bit."
"Tell me, if you are blond, must your grand kids be too? If you are blue eyed, must your grand kids be? If you are Scandinavian, would it bother you a lot if your kids looked Italian?"
Why are your examples always about blonds? And why are they about how blonds should worry less about losing their place in the global gene pool?
The recent global gene pool has clearly and steadily shifted towards less 'dumb' blonds and towards the 'tall, dark, and handsome' darker genes. Look at Africa's population:
1900: 1/3 to white population
2000: 1/1 to white population
2100 (rpojected): 3/1 to white population
This isn't taking into account Indian and Arab colonization - I mean immigration of Euro territories.
Don't worry John - your side is winning!! It really is!! Just don't tell the blonds!!
The reason John's arguments about interracial relations don't work is because he isn't looking at the overall picture. Of course whites are going to be more worried about interracial relationships because it is happening on their territory. The gene flow is clearly one sided. So it doesn't matter what IQ-to-IQ or what high-culture to high-culture bond happens. The group that has interracial pairings happen on their territory cleary loses at the global gene level.
Look at black territories. They make it virtually impossible for whites or others to live there - due to low level violence and racism which in the West we generally refer to as crime (because blacks are incapable of para-military action it seems according to mainstream media). Whites are now clearly conditioned to avoid these territories. This not only holds true in Africa, but also in the Caribbean, South America, and also in inner cities of the West - or whereever you want to look.
The one way gene flow rule also applies to other groups outside of the West. It's not like Mumbai or Seoul are becoming Meccas of white-Indian or White-Korean gene mixtures. It's only happening in the West.
You can surely make the philosophical argument that it doesn't matter what genes and in what proportions they exist on Earth. It's all the same - right?? Like the song says Nothing really matters... But if you look at it purely from a gene perspective there are clear winners and clear losers.
So if we are going to have the system we currently have in the West we should at least acknolewdge that some genes are winning and some are losing. We can at least do that much - right John?
" That's why they always say, "I hope your children marry Blacks," instead of "I hope my children marry Blacks." Such selfless souls..."
Smackdown!
Regarding the statement that the males of a conquering tribe impregnate the conquered females, John asked,"But why would these men wish to do that if it is not common to want to have offspring from women of another race? There is a contradiction there."
It is a weapon of war used to water down the opposing population. Men can have near infinite amounts of offspring while women are highly limited. Impregnating a conquered female reduces her chances of carrying a child of her coethnics while it does nothing to prevent the male from impregnating a female of his tribe.
I guess if the conquering tribe really hates, hates the conquered, they could just kill them which has occurred in the past. But assuming they want some worker bees for the farm, impregnating the females dilutes the opposing population.
John also wrote that most people don't care if their ethnicity survices into the future. He wrote, "This is true, but history seems to show that most people did not really care one way or another. It seems more a modern preoccupation.
I have a hard time believing this because history is full of folks who fought to the death rather than surrender to the conquering tribe. If they did not care about their future, they'd just welcome in the aliens, breed and share. I guess modern Europeans do this. But that is really the exception.
As I wrote earlier, it is you and other modern Europeans that are the exception. For it is the Europeans of the world that are inviting others into their domain to compete with and replace their own stock. Thus, it is not surprising that these people do not care whether or not their ehtnicity will survive.
But this view is certainly not shared by the non-European world. Nor was it shared by Europeans in the past.
"Races are extended families"
All of humanity is an extended family, that's why procreation is possible, any further distinction is a choice, strictly made by YOU.
Silver:
It seems to me you're assuming that everyone shares your values with respect to wanting kids of the same race, or caring about the continued existence of pure races. Many people do care about that stuff, and despite the massive propaganda deployed against that belief when expressed by Gentile whites, there's nothing evil about caring about it. But there's also no obvious reason why I should, either. I'm white, Catholic, and American. If my daughter decides to marry a Frenchman and move to France, and my grandchildren are raised as Frenchmen, I don't think this would upset me in the least. Similarly, if my son decides to marry a Chinese girl and stay in the US, I don't find that idea upsetting in the least--it's very important to me that I have grandchildren eventually, but much less important that they be white or American. (It's more important to me that they be Catholic than white or American, though mainly I want them to be smart and healthy and mentally stable.).
It's a common mistake to assume that everyone feels like you do, especially when dealing with stuff that violates some taboo. There is a taboo on racial consciousness among Gentile whites, and that taboo is stupid, but that doesn't imply that everyone secretly shares your values, even here. My hope is that my kids eventually find appropriate mates (they're far too young now) and can settle down and be happy making me grandchildren. Statistics suggest that their odds of managing that with blacks are worse than their odds of dong so with whites or Asians, but nobody picks a mate based on group statistics--you pick a mate based on knowing them very well, sharing values, compatibility on many levels. You don't marry a statistical abstraction of a black girl or a French girl or a Catholic girl, you marry one particular girl. Her background and genetics and culture matter, but the main thing is whether you and she can make a good life together and make good babies together.
One other piece of useful advice that I didn't understand all that well till later, but which has some impact on marrying outside your race/culture/class: When you marry someone, you marry their family, too. Their drunk father, their crazy cousin, their bitchy sister, their mother with big depression problems, their creepy uncle you would never even consider leaving your kids alone with, all of them become your family.
Another piece of advice comes from genetics and statistics: Beware regression to the mean. In college, I dated a very smart girl whose parents and other family were complete dirtbags--one of her sisters was a prostitute, another was on welfare with N children by N+1 fathers, her parents were long-term recipients of various kinds of aid, her dad was a drunk, etc. She was an extreme outlier given her background. If we'd been dating later and gotten more serious, that might have been a real concern--kids with her were probably more likely to end up less intelligent and successful than you'd have guessed, based only on looking at her.
"All of humanity is an extended family, that's why procreation is possible, any further distinction is a choice, strictly made by YOU."
Yep, but some family members be crazy.
What white kids need is a sense/vision/feeling/passion/appreciation for their culture and where they came from, like what Jews feel toward Jewish heritage.
Without such vision, whites just become 'individuals' but individuals don't make an organic/sacred community.
If I lacked a sense of heritage/vision/etc, my view of blacks would be 'danger to me' but not much else. My real anger has less to do with their threat to me personally but all of this thing called Western heritage, history, culture, beauty, etc. that I care about, all the things that I want to last forever.
All people have their own culture, history, beauty, etc, but Western qualities are unique and must be saved.
So, this emphasis on individualism isn't good for white interests. Individualism has value but shouldn't be an absolute or highest value. Rather, it is a value WITHIN the sacred unity of Western culture and history.
I mean James Levine.
We're all cranky racists. On the other hand, libtards are all about the love. That's why they always say, "I hope your children marry Blacks," instead of "I hope my children marry Blacks." Such selfless souls...
Like Mort Kondracke recommending race-mixing with blacks so that everyone has a black relative, which would allegedly* help defuse racial tension. Funnily enough, not only did lifelong "liberal activist" Kondracke not put his principles to practise with his first wife, he didn't do when he remarried after his first wife's death (ie at a point in time in which race-mixing had gained much greater acceptance).
*Of course, it doesn't even defuse racial tension. Racial tension results from blacks hating whites more than it does whites hating blacks. White/black mixing produces kids that look far more black than they do white, which only adds fuel to the fire of white-hatred. What a deal for whites. Pure evil to notice it, of course. That makes you a "cranky racist." Despicable behavior. Why can't these damn racists just sit back, relax and take it up the *** without complaining like every good white should. Sheesh, it's almost as though these racists think whites are people, too -- total crazy talk.
All of humanity is an extended family, that's why procreation is possible, any further distinction is a choice, strictly made by YOU.
Yes, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. If there were, it would have been done by now. The fact is everyone recognizes and reacts to "racial distance." People react more positively to relatively short racial distance and relatively more negatively to great racial distance. Racial reality 101. (Of course, you already knew this. That's why you reflexively take the black side of every issue discussed on this blog.)
"Races are extended families"
"All of humanity is an extended family, that's why procreation is possible, any further distinction is a choice, strictly made by YOU."
You credit me with enormous powers--I genetically modified the hominids eaons ago into various races, differences easily identified on sight and falling into easily identified categories of people, and more precisely identified by DNA testing.
On a blog dealing with "HBD", we assume that readers familiar with Sailer understand the "extended family" analogy as DEGREE of relatedness. Nobody who has looked at a genetic distance graph of the worlds' races and ethnicities could miss that point. Even if they yell, as you do, that it doesn't exist.
Now, if you want to make a point against this you could say it doesn't matter and we should overcome it with free will and deal with it by mutual understanding of each others' weak and strong points (as Sailer does quite well.) But you cannot shout it away.
All of humanity is an extended family, that's why procreation is possible, any further distinction is a choice, strictly made by YOU.
What are Alsatians and Great Danes and spaniels? An extended family, or different breeds? Or both?
"Do the "intelligent and refined" blacks and Asians whose praises you sing communicate to you their loathing of the great mass of blacks and Asians?"
Of course, probably more so even than whites.
I don't believe a word you say.
Trying to control who your children date or fuck is the most boneheaded thing you can do, and will backfire.
The most you can hope for is to raise them well in general and give them the right tastes, and hope that they don't have a nature that will indulge in gross things or conform to social pressures.
Trying to explicitly "advise" a daughter not to go with black guys is one of the best ways to make sure that she'll be curious and want to.
The best solution, however, is to move from the US.
That's only because the standards of what is "Nordic" is pretty arbitrary, and typically seems to revolve around hair/eye color despite the fact that there are LOTS of darker-featured Northern Europeans.
They're not arbitrary. They're genetically and phenotypically based. And the technology to detect and appreciate them are getting better all the time.
Darker featured Northern Europeans do look distinct. They're not just carbon copies of Southern Europeans or Middle Easterners.
If people want to stay within their specific ethnic group I don't think anyone freaks out though.
Plenty of people don't care, but plenty do, especially when considering the things necessary for preserving ethnies, such as assortive migration and border controls.
All of humanity is an extended family, that's why procreation is possible
"Family" and "extended family" are vague and arbitrary terms. All of organic life can be viewed as or labeled a "family". A nuclear family can also be described with the same term "family". Obviously these two groupings have differences despite the fact that the same word can be used to describe them. Ultimately "family" is too emotive a term for scientific purposes, and you can see it here as it's used by "Truth" to try to manipulate people's perception of biology.
The fact that "procreation is possible" by itself doesn't mean anything. There are many examples of different species that can reproduce with each other, but nonetheless, remain different species.
All of humanity is an extended family
Next time some stranger barges into your family's house, don't kick him out. He's part of your family and just as entitled to be there as anyone else in your family.
procreation is possible
Lots of things are not only possible, but are actual states of the world. Things like war, borders, territoriality, etc.
Trying to control who your children date or fuck is the most boneheaded thing you can do, and will backfire.
???
What's with all the defeatist talk here about child-rearing?
Y'all are homeschooling your children, right?
I mean, seriously, WTF?!?
You think you can't raise a girl to have substantially more common sense than some poor marxist-nihilist kook, like Stanley Ann Dunham?
???
Anonymous:
Telling my kids what to like and dislike doesn't seem to work too well. Exposing them to good things, making sure they have a pretty good picture of how the world works, seeing to their formal and informal education, all those seem to work passably well. I can read Kipling and Tolkien to my kids to get them used to what really good writing is, I can talk with them about things I find interesting that they do, too (like how robots or cells or computer games or medicines work). I can even influence some stuff by making it easy to see that I think some or their interests are interesting and some aren't. But I can't see how to tell them what to want.
They're their own people. They will rebel at the preprogrammed time, as most kids do. They will like stuff I hate, and hate stuff I like.
My job is to get them ready to make their own decisions. If they rebel in good English, know what they're rebelling against, and have decent values and a well-formed model of the world iin their heads, I've done my job. Eventually, outside of rebellion, there is making your own decisions about your own life. I hope my kids' upbringing helps them avoid bad decisions early in life that close off later good decisions--like getting pregnant or married very young, dropping out of school, majoring in Marginally Employable Studies, or getting HIV.
"If my daughter decides to marry a Frenchman and move to France, and my grandchildren are raised as Frenchmen, I don't think this would upset me in the least. Similarly, if my son decides to marry a Chinese girl and stay in the US, I don't find that idea upsetting in the least--"
It's quite interesting here that you chose a "negligible" genetic difference for your son, and a larger one for your daughter, coincidence, maybe, maybe not; OK, Eric Holder time now:
Tell me, kind Sir, how would you feel if Quan Li impregnated your daughter, let's be honest?
"What white kids need is a sense/vision/feeling/passion/appreciation for their culture and where they came from, like what Jews feel toward Jewish heritage."
That's illogical because white kids are going to grow up to compete with EACH OTHER. Other groups have racial solidarity because they will grow up to compete with whites.
"Next time some stranger barges into your family's house, don't kick him out. He's part of your family and just as entitled to be there as anyone else in your family."
So you're saying you wouldn't kick out a white stranger?
"You think you can't raise a girl to have substantially more common sense than some poor marxist-nihilist kook, like Stanley Ann Dunham?"
She gave birth to the POTUS; what exactly do your kids do, again?
Like Mort Kondracke ..
Gosh, I'd forgotten all about him. Was his implicit position that intermarriage with blacks would be little different from that with asians? He was good friends with Jack Germond who, if I recall, was the classical liberal who bought a house in a black D.C. neighborhood to prove blacks weren't dangerous, but found out he was wrong and sold.
"He was good friends with Jack Germond who, if I recall, was the classical liberal who bought a house in a black D.C. neighborhood to prove blacks weren't dangerous, but found out he was wrong and sold."
Is this true? What's the source on this?
"You think you can't raise a girl to have substantially more common sense than some poor marxist-nihilist kook, like Stanley Ann Dunham?"
She gave birth to the POTUS; what exactly do your kids do, again?
"
I'll be honest here. "Giving birth to a POTUS" is something more often to be ashamed of than anything. They are slimy pols and put into power by other slimy pols and corporate handlers with their own agendas. There is nothing of merit, worthiness or nobility in their persons. To be perfectly honest, that goes for most of the POTUSes, with a few exceptions, not just B.O.
To make interracial breeding worthwhile (it such a lose-lose for whites, though I supposed their descendants would experience less sun damage) you'll have to come up with more worthwhile people than politicians; Malcolm Gladwell, and sundry entertainers who all seem to eventually start squawking about how they are so discriminated against because they are 'black' don't do it for me either. Neither the celebs nor the ones personally known to me, inspire confidence in mixed-kids equals good-for-me. There was a lot of brain washing and lib pressure at one time that might have put some of my near & dear on that road. Thank god they dodged that bullet.
Truth said:
""You think you can't raise a girl to have substantially more common sense than some poor marxist-nihilist kook, like Stanley Ann Dunham?"
She gave birth to the POTUS; what exactly do your kids do, again?"
Quit acting dense, Truth. Just because a person manages to succeed in some way after a horrible thing has been done to him/her, it doesn't mean that he/she hasn't been affected, and it sure as hell doesn't mean that the person succeeds BECAUSE of the perpetrator's actions.
A girl I know from college had been repeatedly raped by her step-father, as a prepubescent child. She was on a merit based scholarship, majoring in microbiology. Last I heard, she was accepted to an elite grad program, with a fellowship, to study bioengineering. Should her step-father point to her success and say, "See? And you told me raping kids was a bad thing! How are your step children doing, academically?" Should the mother consider her marriage to the perp a good decision that turned out well for everyone?
Obama becoming president doesn't make his father any less of an ignoble piece of sh*t. Stanley Ann made a bad decision when she picked Obama Sr. as a husband and a father of her child. That's unarguable. I wouldn't want my daughter to make a similar mistake. Would you?
We're all slimy at times, I've never met anyone who wasn't, but we're not all POTUS.
"To make interracial breeding worthwhile (it such a lose-lose for whites, though I supposed their descendants would experience less sun damage) you'll have to come up with more worthwhile people than politicians; Malcolm Gladwell, and sundry entertainers who all seem to eventually start squawking about how they are so discriminated against because they are 'black' don't do it for me either. Neither the celebs nor the ones personally known to me, inspire confidence in mixed-kids equals good-for-me. "
Zadie Smith, Jimi Hendrix, Alexander Dumas and my Hispanic, but obviously mixed black/white/native best friend equals plenty of good for me!
"Quit acting dense, Truth. Just because a person manages to succeed in some way after a horrible thing has been done to him/her, it doesn't mean that he/she hasn't been affected, and it sure as hell doesn't mean that the person succeeds BECAUSE of the perpetrator's actions."
I am dense. What horrible thing happened?
"Obama becoming president doesn't make his father any less of an ignoble piece of sh*t."
Why so judgemental? He donated some good DNA, that's all some guys are good for, and for some, it's enough.
"Stanley Ann made a bad decision when she picked Obama Sr. as a husband and a father of her child. That's unarguable."
Everything is arguable. Ted Bundy had "great parents, Barry didn't
I wouldn't want my daughter to make a similar mistake. Would you?
I would prefer my sister married Mike Brady...no, wait...he was gay. Maybe not.
This is not snark. This is meant to imply that, as Elanor Roosevelt once said, "Life is 5% what happens to you, and 95% how you react to it.
As you get older Maya, you really do appreciate the holistic nature of life.
"To make interracial breeding worthwhile (it such a lose-lose for whites, though I supposed their descendants would experience less sun damage) you'll have to come up with more worthwhile people than politicians;"
Nothing that you've written inspires my confidence in white-white breeding.
Did everyone in media forget that one point Derbyshire was a ferver supporter of Herman Cain?
"Nothing that you've written inspires my confidence in white-white breeding."
Your assertion might be a weeeee bit more believable but for the fact that you choose to live in, not East St. Louis or Newark, but New Mexico, with demographics of Whites (aka White-White breeding) of 68%, Hispanics of any race 46% (of which a sizable fraction is Spaniard ancestry, aka White-White breeding) and only 3.7% mixed and only 2.1% black.
Zadie Smith, Jimi Hendrix, Alexander Dumas and my Hispanic, but obviously mixed black/white/native best friend equals plenty of good for me!
yeah, true. Praticularly Dumas Pere et Fils. But still, not enough to make me want me or mine involved personally. For everyone of these there appear to be dozens of Obama types (without the "success")
It has always seemed profoundly weird to me that when he was inaugurated there were no white family members of any significance basking in the glow. None. Of course they were dead, one quite recently, but it seemed such a strange, inauspicious harbinger for somebody designated as the glorious manifestation of blended races and families, and acknowlegement of all who "made" him what he is. Whatever that is.
"It's hard to find a loving, like minded partner with whom there is chemistry to boot. If one happens upon such a person and that person happens to be black, it would be foolish to pass."
While I would not argue against this, in the case of adults, there may also be other considerations here than just "chemistry".
Perhaps, say, 20% of all people, mated at random, would discover they had "chemistry" with each other. (I think I once heard something to the effect that "20% of people are un-marriable, 60% can marry if they are lucky to find a partner that can put up with them, and the other 20% can all happily marry one another".)
Suppose this is roughly true. Then, if modern technology makes distance irrelevant, and people are essentially exposed to one another at random, and "chemistry" is roughly just random, then every generation a considerable percentage will "marry out". Given not that many generations, a small population acting this way will disappear.
It also pays to consider that there are some 7 billion people in the world today. Only 12% to 13% are of white descent. Given that whites tend to have more older folk then the rapidly growing non-white populations, the relevant white percentage is probably below 10%. So whites are a small minority and it is rational for them to consider demographic effects.
As mentioned in this thread, small groups have historically developed a number of strategies to survive. There is the possibility that much of the Jewish woe-is-pitiful-me-that-they-all-hate schtick is more (perhaps unthinkingly) designed to keep young Jews in the fold, than for outside consumption.
Ironically, while "chemistry" must be universal and no doubt is well understood by field mice, modern notions of romantic love and mating based on it, over parental/family interest, (and all that other courtly chivalry stuff) may considerably be a Western invention, perhaps tied to medieval romance literature. I think in England it appears associated with the politics of the Hundred Years war and the need for women to run castles, etc., when men were on crusade, that sort of thing. Not sure how it all ties together, but all that "Order of the Garter" and similar stuff.
"Nothing that you've written inspires my confidence in white-white breeding."
No surprise there. Not really putting any effort into inspiring confidence in you--indeed, I'm relieved I'm not.
You sound like a 10 year old who just learned a new cliche.
Truth,
I didn't say you were dense, but acting dense- as in trolling to get a rise out of the crowd. If you are actually serious... then, I guess our values are so different that it's pointless to argue, like if we were of different religious faiths. Here are my fundamental beliefs in response to your... responses:
If by "judgmental" you mean sharing my honest opinion of Obama Sr., as I hold him to the same standards as everyone else, then sure. But, then, if discuss these cases as examples of what we would or wouldn't our children and little siblings to follow, it's good to be judgmental.
BO Sr. is a disgrace to himself because he abandoned his own child. I'm not sure that DNA from a man who rejects his young is a desirable contribution (judging by his history of domestic abuse and drunk driving, BO Sr.' treatment of his son is but one example of his lack of empathy and disregard for others and there is also that alcoholism thing), but even if his sperm was the holy grail of all sperm, if that's all he's goof for, he should have donated at a clinic. Instead, he got married, had a child, and then changed his mind as soon as the whole thing became slightly inconvenient. I think that people who shrug off the responsibility to their children are deficient and disgusting. Parents are important. Fathers are important.
" "Life is 5% what happens to you, and 95% how you react to it."
I understand the above phrase as a warning against using victim status to excuse away one's own wrong doing. Fore example, if you were abused as a child, it doesn't excuse your abuse of your own children. And if your great great great grand parents were slaves, it doesn't make it okay to drink throughout pregnancy or smoke crack in front of your child. The above phrase is NOT meant as an excuse for the perpetrator. Like if tomorrow I go postal and bite some child's leg off, it won't make for a good defense to tell the judge that, "Hey, it's 95% up to that kid whether or not she'll still have a good life. Maybe this will be good for her character. She can be positive, buy a bunch of prosthetic legs, study hard, be open minded towards men who aren't, er, physically perfect either, and TA-DA, she'll be fine. So, you see, no real harm done".
Appreciating the holistic nature of life is the ability to step back and see the big picture, right? Or wrong? Because you seem to have suggested that by picking a man capable of feeling real fatherly love, your sister would run a huge risk of being married to a homosexual... Now you are trolling for sure, with that ghetto nonsense.
"I can understand wanting my grand kids to have personal traits I value, and even physical traits I value, like good looks and refinement, but to want them to look very much like me, that seems like an odd preference if it is strongly held."
"But why would these men wish to do that if it is not common to want to have offspring from women of another race?"
"It seems more a modern preoccupation."
Bizarre, either libretarian/callow or deliberately duplicitous. The biological nature of social organism's breeding groups (in humans, the large extended families, as discussed by Steve) are a form of immortality. Destroy the extended family, kill the immortality. (Save the whales! But...)
Men that conquer rape the women probably for the same reason that chimps do or... come to think of it stallions make it all pretty explicit. To kill the other social group by exterminating the genetic influence of the other extended family's males. If all the males from that point on are from the conquering group, over time what happens? (I'd hardly call chimp behavior "modern".)
"For everyone of these there appear to be dozens of Obama types (without the "success")"
There are probably dozens of Harvard lawyers for each of the persons she mentioned.
"Incidentally, the Spartans never produced anything of intellectual or cultural distinction."
Points of fact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta
* Spartans were literate. Lots of places still aren't today... What is the literacy rate of India?
* Spartan women were famously more equal in society than women elsewhere in the classical world, Aristotle really didn't like the power Spartan women had. Spartan women were the only Ancient Greek women to hold property on their own. Unusual for a time when women were often married by 13, women could not marry until their late teens and thus had longer average lifespans. Spartan women were literate.
* The Spartan constitution lasted longer than any other in history (roughly 600 years?). It was illegal to write it down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartan_Constitution
* It is apparently historically significant that the Spartans achieved the cultural distinction of being able to launch a phalanx charge that went where it was aimed and did not drift right. Apparently this required immense practice and trust.
* Modern cryptography books typically mention the Spartan scytale as the earliest known standard crypto device. It is often used to introduce the subject (plenty of links abound).
ACDC,
1. Dumas Pere is good for me, not Fils. Alexander Dumas Fils sucks. Growing up in a country that didn't bother to specify one or the other in published books, i suffered often and greatly when that impostor the Fils weaseled his way into my hands and forced his shit onto me.
2. Most people of any breed are nothing to write home about, not just the mulattoes.
3. Our president, clearly, has issues regarding his ethnic identity. Obvious daddy issues too (can't blame him) and the two are probably connected. I think it's unfair to use a person with an obvious screwed up thing about them to represent any group. For example, Dworkin is an academically successful woman. She is published, famous and all that. But it wouldn't be fair to hold her as an example of what women are generally like because, well, something obviously happened there, you know? She was either raped as an infant, or not raped when she wanted to be raped or something extremely traumatic and damaging because she was clearly OFF. People with dark pasts who are OFF (their rocker, in some way)= not fair to use when judging a group.
"BO Sr. is a disgrace to himself because he abandoned his own child."
"Disgrace" is strong. He was an alcoholic who was not able to properly raise a family, but "judge not lest ye be judged."
Barry has done well, his brother Mark has done well, and his brother David died young in a motorcycle crash. Without their father, they've done better than most people from stable homes, from this, one can conclude that Barry Sr. was a good sperm donor.
Was he "a good father"? Nope, but neither are most American fathers in my opinion.
"Because you seem to have suggested that by picking a man capable of feeling real fatherly love, your sister would run a huge risk of being married to a homosexual... Now you are trolling for sure, with that ghetto nonsense."
It's been a long weekend, Maya; please get some rest.
Salon has a low-information piece on the Derb kerfliffle here.
Parene seems to be reading from the script, without doing any of that yucky thinking or reading stuff that would be required to engage with the subject intelligently. One entertaining aside is that he links to Steve's old article on interracial marriage claiming it's an attack on interracial marriage, when Steve says nothing like that in the article. My guess is that Parene knew what he was going to write and argue before he started, and didn't bother reading his linked articles since he already knew that Steve was a dirty racist.
On the other hand, the web media convention of linking to source materials makes it very easy to catch this sort of sloppiness.
Truth:
I'd offer the same advice and have the same hopes either way. I want happy successful kids who give me healthy smart happy grandkids; their race, nationality, and language is not important.
"You think you can't raise a girl to have substantially more common sense than some poor marxist-nihilist kook, like Stanley Ann Dunham?"
"She gave birth to the POTUS; what exactly do your kids do, again?"
Giving birth to this POTUS - or his predeccesor - is nothing to be proud of.
Sure, in general, I'd rather have a child who went on to be a millionaire rather than a santitation worker. But if the choice is between a santitation worker and the men who are actively destroying this country, I'd prefer my child or grandchild to be the former.
"Everything is arguable. Ted Bundy had "great parents, Barry didn't."
Yah, Ted Bundy had terrific parents. His father was so terrific that he also doubled as Ted's grandfather.
And for the record, Dumas was only somewhere between 1/8th and 1/4th black.
"And for the record, Dumas was only somewhere between 1/8th and 1/4th black."
Yes. That's why they came up in a discussion on the benefits to whites, or not, of dedicating their reproductive endeavors to producing more part-black people. Dumas was a mulatto (repsectable term in that day), probably, 50% black. His son was no more than 1/4, and born in France. The Dumas example, however, occurred in a time and place where clamoring about being "black" would have brought no glory. They just concentrated on their European background, to good effect and with remarkably little neurotic backdraft.
"
And for the record, Dumas was only somewhere between 1/8th and 1/4th black."
So you'd be happy if he married your daughter?
"So you'd be happy if he married your daughter?"
If my daughter grows up to be a necrophiliac I'll be realy pissed.
I'm not against interracial marriage. When I was single I dated a couple of black girls (one was actually half black). I'd set the bar a little higher, however, to compensate for all the unknowns.
So you'd be happy if he married your daughter?
I'd be 1/8th to 1/4 as upset as I'd be in certain other scenarios...
Truth...
I think I was right in my last reply to you that our fundamental values differ so significantly that we won't be able to come to an agreement on this.
To me, what you say is kind of like... watching that website where people post videos of themselves mutilating their own genitals permanently and severely. It's horrific, imagining myself involved in that situation makes me nauseous, and i just don't get it. Actually, I never watched any of those videos, just read about them, but I have to see children every day whose fathers have them so low on their list of priorities that they don't participate in their lives. You know, I've been to a lot of places and met a lot of people, for my age, and I've never known anyone whose father was absent because he didn't love his kid enough. Divorce is very common nowadays, but fathers without parental instincts aren't. It's one thing to hope for a used condom instead of a child, but it's quite another to treat a child, one's own child, like a used condom.
You're telling me it's best to not judge, but I think the whole "not judging" thing should be reserved for minor things that don't cause suffering. After all, would you say that we shouldn't judge those lynch mobs of the post Civil War era? How about those businessmen who packed human beings on boats like sardines knowing that half of them would die before they'd reach the New World slave market, should we refrain from judging them?
Sadly, judging by your prior responses, you probably think that abandoning one's own child IS that very minor transgression which good people shouldn't judge, like wearing vulgar clothes or having an emotional meltdown in public, once in a blue moon. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. I hope i just misunderstood you. Otherwise, I just don't get it.
You can make a joke, and laugh me off, but that won't change the fact that neglecting and rejecting a child is damaging. Sure, one can still succeed, but it doesn't meant that one isn't suffering. Have you read B.O.'s first book? He's suffered. Many people have good careers while constantly dealing with a heavy burden like diabetes I, stuttering, PTSD and nightmares from rape. Missing out on a parent while knowing that this is happening because the parents doesn't want to be around enough to make it happen is one such a thing. Why a parent would do this to a child is beyond my comprehension.
As for Mark, he might be doing well academically/career-wise, but he's suffered too, and he has a very low opinion of his biological father, according to the president.
The fact that BO Sr, was also a violent, abusive alcoholic doesn't excuse his treating his son like unwanted garbage. It makes him even more of an asshole.
Post a Comment