Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Talking about race (part 2)

Previously on “Talking about race”: introduction, part 1.

The strength and power of despotism consists wholly in the fear of resistance.

Thomas Paine

Success is not measured by what a man accomplishes, but by the opposition he has encountered, and the courage with which he maintained the struggle against overwhelming odds.

Orison S. Marden

Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party.

Charles E. Weller

Are you fed up with anti-white discrimination at school, on television, and in the highest levels of government? Have you had your fill of unprovoked, racially motivated black-on-white mob violence? Do you support the right to be white? Well, now might be the perfect time to unleash some of those pent-up thought crimes on your unsuspecting friends and family.

Bear with me; it’s not as crazy as it sounds. After all, I did it. Now, do I seem craaaaaaazy to you?

DO I???

Don’t answer that.

Race matters

This post is for everyone out there who knows that the “bad” part of town is wherever the black and Hispanic people live; for everyone who instinctively recognizes the danger in a group of young black men, but not in a gang of elderly Korean women or a cluster of Swedish schoolgirls (well, not the same kind of danger, at least); for everyone who could never quite wrap their heads around the notion that slavery, colonialism, and Jim Crow are still, in this foul year of Our Lord, 2011, making certain races (and it’s always the same ones, isn’t it?) so much more likely to fail in school, lose their jobs, abandon their kids, abuse drugs, and commit staggering amounts of assault, robbery, rape, and murder — and in the case of black people, commit them more often against white people than against any other race; and for everyone who understands — as all people of all races understood until the latter half of the last century, and as all people except white people understand today — that race is real, race is important, and a person’s race is usually the single most important fact you can learn about them…

(deep breath)

… because there’s no test for criminality, is there? No observable trait that tells you with certainty, in advance, whether or not someone is going to mug you or just punch you in the head for no reason except that he hates the color of your skin and thinks that violence is fun. There’s certainly no test for the ability to build a civilization you’d want to live in, like Finland, Scotland, Ireland, Poland, Holland, or New Zealand; as opposed to, say, Zambia, Namibia, Algeria, Mauritania, Ethiopia, or Liberia.

There is, however, a test for race: just look. Are we still allowed to do that? Look at people, and see what race they are? We are? Oh good. Because it’s very accurate. From Neven Sesardic’s “Race: A Social Destruction of a Biological Concept” (p. 156):

a study that covered 17 populations over the world and that relied on 34 different measurements managed to assign 98% of the specimens to their correct major racial group [A.M. Brues (1990), “The once and future diagnosis of race,” in Skeletal attributions of race, Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, Albuquerque]. Another more recent study had a success rate of 80% in distinguishing between American Whites and Blacks, although it used just two variables. With seven variables, however, it reached the reliability of 95%, and with 19 variables the probability of correct classification rose to 97% [S. Ousley et al. (2009), “Understanding race and human variation: why forensic anthropologists are good at identifying race,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 139:68–76]. Also, estimating generally the reliability of attributing a given data point to one of the five racial categories, another team of experts calculated that under some realistic conditions it is sufficient to use as few as 13 characteristics to have the posterior probability of the correct classification attain the value of 99% [L.W. Konigsberg et al. (2009), “Estimation and evidence in forensic anthropology: sex and race,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 139:77–90].

This is a very important test (looking at people, that is), especially in the absence of the aforementioned test for criminality, because as we should all know by now, if you are a white person (for example), then a black person (for example) is much more likely than anyone else to mug you (to be precise, 5.2 times as likely as a white person, and in a group of others of like race, 15 times as likely) or just punch you in the head for no reason except that he hates the color of your skin and thinks that violence is fun. (Ah, the wonders of human biodiversity!) When left to their own devices, black people are also, according to the available evidence, incapable of building a nice society like Belgium; they are, however, very obviously capable of destroying it.

But you knew that, didn’t you? You just didn’t want to admit it. It’s okay, I won’t tell anyone — but you will.

Eventually.

Real life: still better than the Internet

Whoever and wherever you are, whatever your ultimate political/racial/ethnic goals, and whatever else you do with your life, if you agree with the essential message of the ‘Park (race realism, with an eye to positive white identity), then this post is for you, and one thing is certain: to achieve our goals, more of us need to have this conversation out in the real world.

Fortunately, the real world is a much nicer place than the Internet. Not only is it full of birds and bees and flowers and kitties and girls you can talk to (without even giving them your credit card number — although it couldn’t hurt…), but the people are much more open-minded and much less unbelievably asshole-ish. Unless you’re talking to a real SLAWB (a Stupid, Liberal, Anti-White Bigot) — and you shouldn’t waste your time on the likes of them — I think you’ll be surprised how little resistance, let alone hostility, you encounter on your pilgrimage of positive white identity. White people, by and large, are ready for a little race realism.

Let’s talk about how to give it to them.

Know your stuff

When and where you engage your audience is completely up to you, so there’s no reason not to come prepared. You don’t have to memorize how much more likely a lone black person is to attack a white person than vice versa (but I have). You won’t necessarily need to recapitulate the last 100,000 years of human evolution or sketch a tree diagram of the genetic distances between the major races (but I can). You should, however, know

  1. what topics to cover (e.g., black mob violence, or race differences in intelligence),
  2. what recent events to mention (e.g., a flash mob in a nearby city, or our continued failure to close the achievement gap),
  3. what sources to cite (e.g., American Thinker on “Knockout King,” or the New York Times on “No Child Left Behind”) and
  4. how to respond to likely questions and counters (e.g., knowing that most black violent crime is inter-racial, not against other blacks, or that socioeconomic factors don’t account for the IQ gap).

See how I cited my own flyers there? (Of course, the flyers themselves have thoroughly reputable sources.) Why not print out “Black People Are More Criminal Than White People” and “There Are Innate Race Differences in Intelligence” for future reference, or for that matter any of my posts. That’s why I write them, after all: to help spread race realism far and wide. The links in the sidebar are another excellent source of stuff to talk about.

Now, personally, I don’t prepare at all, basically because I am awesome, and know so many interesting things about race (and other reactionary favorites) that I really don’t need to cram for it. I can and do talk for hours at a time about human biodiversity and race relations. It truly is “Unamusement Park: the condensed, verbal edition, with snack breaks and fewer kitties.” Some of you, however, have personal lives, and therefore do not know the average IQ of the Congolese off the top of your head (it’s around 66). Half an hour of preparation will make a big difference.

Watch your mouth

For most of you, this goes without saying, but I’m going to say it anyway: do not disparage or threaten violence against anyone, except possibly violent criminals, and even then… watch it.

I do not care if you think violence is ultimately necessary to bring about positive changes in (historically) white majority nations. I do not care if you can justify calling some particularly horrible black people “subhuman animals” or the good ol’ N-word. I especially do not care if you are trying to prove a point about free speech or some other abstraction. If you do it, not only will you fail, but you will poison the white-rights well for anyone else.

Now, personally, I’ve referred to certain subsets of the black populations of Africa and America as “savages,” and gotten away with it. That too is basically because I am awesome, and plan ahead so that it comes at the end of a long list of savage things they do, in Africa and in America (and of course I draw clever parallels between the two, like how black Liberians and Chicagoans alike will defecate on the beach if left to their own devices), at which point my audience is already thinking the same thing, and I look really pained and sympathetic toward black people when I say it. So don’t try it unless you too are awesome, and plan ahead (and draw clever parallels between things), and you can look really pained and sympathetic toward black people on command.

It is one of my many highly specialized talents.

“That’s racist!”

Every time you cite a crime statistic, a scientific journal article on human genetic variation or race differences in intelligence, or an historical fact (e.g., white people didn’t invent slavery, they just abolished it), repeat this slogan:

“And that’s considered ‘racist’!”

Remember that in the best-case scenario, which I (and Kathy Shaidle) achieve on a fairly regular basis, your audience’s — no, your recruit’s response to your thought-criminality can be summarized as follows (note #4):

  1. “Is that really true?”
  2. “Wow. I didn’t know that.”
  3. “Yeah, I guess that makes sense. It explains a lot, doesn’t it?”
  4. “Wait, how is that ‘racist’? It’s just logical.”
  5. Repeat.

The slogan serves two purposes. First, it discredits your opponents, making them sound foolish, ignorant, fanatical, bigoted, biased, and dishonest, which they are. Second, it robs them of a powerful weapon against me, and you, and your new recruit too:

“ANTI-RACIST”: Your friend Unamused is just a racist!

YOUR NEW RECRUIT: Uh, okay, but you also said that about race being genetic, and I have this article from the American Journal of Human Genetics…

YOU (HIDING IN THE BUSHES): lol

Now your recruit is immune to charges of “racism” — you’ve inoculated her! Well done.

When you recite your slogan (“And that’s considered ‘racist’!”), your recruit may not believe you right away. Assure her that it is so. She may declare that it is ridiculous. Agree with her — enthusiastically. She may ask for specifics: who, exactly, is going around accusing you — sweet, innocent, kindhearted, charming you — of being a dreadful R-word?

This is ideal. She is demanding to know whom you’ve just utterly discredited, asking that you aim her new-found racial consciousness cannon (packed with explosive… uh… knowledge bombs, I guess) at something or someone. In a future post, I’ll cover what I think are the best targets.

62 responses to “Talking about race (part 2)”

  1. on September 12, 2011 at 1:37 am Robert in Arabia

    Deo gratias! You are back on track.

  2. What was it that Reagan said? Oh, yeah, “Facts are such stubborn things”. People, especially self deluded people, hate facts. A large number of people in this country hate the facts about race.

  3. Anti-Racist = Anti-White. I like to always use the term anti-WHITE when referring to our enemies. Because after all, if they were anti-racist they would talk about some Hispanic/Black race riot at a high school (this happens quite a lot apparently). Scores of blacks and Mexicans end up in the hospital with serious injuries due to racial violence but your local leftist professor is going on about ‘white skin privilege’. These people only talk about ‘racism’ when they can blame white people.

    Also, I heard one retort to the accusation of ‘racist!!!’ that I like:

    Anti-White: “You’re a racist!”
    You: You’re just saying that because I’m white; anti-racist is code for anti-white.”

    It gets the point across.

  4. I’m living in a foreign country, and whenever people find out that I’m an American, they often get starry-eyed and say, “I hope I can go to the United States one day…”

    It’s at this point that I suggest they skip America—too dangerous—and go to Australia instead. Next, they usually prod me for more reasons why, which I gladly give, easing in several thought crimes that make excellent sense along the way. The key is to present the facts with the same dispassionate confidence you’d employ when summarizing the day’s weather.

    It works magnificently.

  5. If we are going to be pointing out negative racial characteristics in non-whites we should also be willing to point out negative racial characteristics in whites.

  6. A good article to use is “When Whites Lie to Blacks.” It’s interesting and it’s written at about a tenth-grade level. Also, William Saletan’s series on Race, Genes and Intelligence is a good place to start; although there are some errors in how he writes about the data, he does a very good job of countering the emotional arguments of leftism. This can lead to Gene Expression’s excellent overview of Watsongate.

    Reluctant Apostate just made an excellent Darwin Fish-esque parody of the Human Rights Campaign logo. This logo, the Galton Inequality symbol, could be a powerful tool, both as a conversation starter and as identification out in the real world. (You could even include a bumper sticker, patch, pin, etc. with a flyer, if you’re distributing them in a free newspaper for example.) A bumper sticker is no substitute for face-to-face conversation though.

    I think if you’re assuming that people will get upset and hostile, you’re more likely to get a hostile response, or to get defensive and make someone hostile when they would otherwise not be. If you’re confident, you’ll have a better response.

  7. Excellent Unamused, back on form indeed (not that you are ever off-form, well sometimes, but never mind, I digress).

    I’m not American, but I am a very frequent visitor to the US and except for a few close friends, I am always astonished by the naivety of most Whites I encounter. Such is the level of naivety that I am half-convinced it has to be a protective act. But my friends assure me this is not so.

    Being foreign has its advantages: I can say things, get away with saying things that most Americans would not dream of saying, even “The Aware,” to be ponderous.

    Also being foreign, I’m Irish by the way, I can get away with saying: “Oppression? OPPRESSION? What the fuck would they know about oppression? We were oppressed for a thousand years. THAT’S fucking oppression!”

    Not that this is true of course but truth is the first casualty of war.

    Best of luck.

  8. Un, you are absolutely right about the increasing willingness of “regular” people to have a conversation about race. I never talk to DWLs as I have stopped a long time ago to try and argue with the dark side. It’s no use!

    But I have very encouraging results with your run-of-the-mill conservative or libertarian. These people are so concerned with economics that it is very easy to show them that the (not so fine) line between the productive part of the population and the looters is pretty much along the racial divide. Makes them perk up their ears and become REAL attentive.

  9. Addendum: Tell a conservative that the 30 million “uninsured” that our taxes have to provide coverage for under Obamacare are pretty much 30 million negroes. The effect is stunning! And causes INSTANT racial realism.

  10. on September 12, 2011 at 8:44 pm green mamba

    I think you’ll be surprised how little resistance, let alone hostility, you encounter on your pilgrimage of positive white identity. White people, by and large, are ready for a little race realism.

    This is true. The other day I met up with a female friend, a hippie-ish German yoga teacher — just the kind of person you might think would be strongly resistant to race realism. We got drunk and at some point I went into a right-wing HBD rant. She listened patiently and sympathetically, was not offended at all and by and large accepted my points.

    The highlight may have been when I looked her directly in the eye and said, “I don’t think white people are evil.”

  11. on September 12, 2011 at 11:29 pm Anonymous 1

    Put an “Anti-Racism is Anti-White” bumper sticker on your car and park it at your local college or university parking lot. Pick one with a majority white student body. Leave the car, wait one hour, and return. You’ll see just how tolerant your fellow whites really are. Hope your insurance is paid up.

    The problem isn’t blacks. Blacks are too few in number and limited in capability to be a real problem. The problem is that now they have FedGov on their side, complete with the courts, law enforcement agencies, and the military.

    We handled blacks just fine until white liberals in government took their side. The problem is white liberals in government who hate themselves and work to destroy their own kind.

  12. Don’t do that. Don’t stick some vague slogan in a public place where the SLAWBs (stupid, liberal, anti-white bigots) I specifically mentioned can and will destroy it, in secret, without fear of repercussions. (That wouldn’t even prove anything except that there’s at least one intolerant person around — not even necessarily white.)

    Instead, have a one-on-one conversation with an ordinary white person (or an especially open-minded non-white person). Look them in the eye and explain things. If you really need to say “anti-racism is anti-white,” make it the conclusion of your little lecture.

  13. on September 13, 2011 at 1:44 am Robert in Arabia

    O/T but very well done and sardonic:

    [Unamused: 9/11 conspiracy theories are way too off-topic here.]

  14. Unfortunately, the well was already poisoned in my family. My grandfather was an extreme racist and conspiracy theorist and he treated everyone around him horribly and was a jackass in general. No one wants to be associated with anything about him. My in-laws are still preoccupied with white guilt over their black “help”, who they insist were “part of the family”. Talking to friends has gone well though. Most people are pretty reasonable.

  15. on September 13, 2011 at 2:53 pm Awful Person

    I used to be a bona fide SLAWB, but then reality bit me in the ass (it’s actually remarkable how easy it is to be a SLAWB when you’re only around other white people and you can spit on “racists” from an ivory tower so high it freezes before it hits the ground). Come to think of it, the biggest SLAWBs I know all hail from white suburbia near one of the last Great White Cities in America (white people? concentrated in one place? man the harpoons!).

    But I digress. My point is sometimes even SLAWBs can see the light. Anonymous polls, most notably in European nations, often show substantial anti-immigration sentiments (thus making the country in question majority right-wing extremist). It makes me wonder how many people are true believers in the multi-cultocrazy and how many just play along to avoid rocking the boat.

    Unamused, your blog is one of the best, if not the best, HBD-white pride blogs I’ve seen. Please keep blogging ’til they throw us all in the padded room.

  16. Edwood-

    If your grandfather was such a jerk then it should be very easy for you to make a difference. Be polite, caring and generous to show a positive contrast to his negative example. Simply showing them that one can hold realistic views without being a jerk will work wonders on their perceptions without you having to do a thing. Above all, never argue. That’s a weakness most people have including me. But I’ve never known anyone who was persuaded by arguing. That’s not how people are persuaded.

    ==================

    I would also point out that I don’t think being pro white is about being anti black. I’m not anti black. I went to school in a housing project and I’ve known plenty of horrible blacks. But I’ve also known some great blacks. In fact, I generally get along better with blacks than I do with whites. Except for the angry ones.

    My goal is to simply stop the double standards, discrimination against whites, etc. The only reason I ever mention crime is because whites are being targeted. And the only reason I ever bring up IQ is to show that black under performance is a result of ability rather than discrimination. People need to be careful with that. No one wants to be told their dumb. Rather than just shouting at someone that they have a low IQ it’s better to explain that blaming whites for blacks’ problems isn’t going to help blacks if whites aren’t causing them. Not to mention, that its wrong to blame innocent people.

  17. Every time you cite a crime statistic, a scientific journal article on human genetic variation or race differences in intelligence, or an historical fact (e.g., white people didn’t invent slavery, they just abolished it), repeat this slogan:

    “And that’s considered ‘racist’!”

    brilliant!!! absolutely brilliant! (^_^)

  18. Thanks Robert. Sorry about your link, but after that last comment thread, I’d really like to move on. Certain topics are quarantined to “Oh, Stormfront.”

    Welcome Chris. Sounds like Bob’s Mantra to me. It’s popular — but if you’re going to use it, you’d better have a clear, concise explanation of why, exactly, “anti-racist” means anti-white. Of course, Unamusement Park is here to help…

    Nicely done, Bernanke.

    seedofjapheth: Sure, we could point out negative racial characteristics in whites compared to other racial groups, but how would that help us accomplish our goals? There are plenty of people bashing whites — literally and figuratively, and almost always unfairly. I choose to defend them. It’s only fair.

    eugenicist, w.d, Snow Walker, Green Mamba: Outstanding, keep up the good work.

    Edwood: I’ll refer you to destructure’s outstanding comment. It’s good that your friends are willing to listen, anyway.

    Awful Person: Thank you very much, I appreciate that. And that’s an encouraging take on SLAWBs and their SLAWBering.

    hbd chick: why thank you. now where mah swiss chicks?!

  19. Destructure, I think that might work with one or two of my siblings. The trouble is that at least two of them are so DWL that they are actually anti-white. They voted for Obama and are convinced that only “racists” aren’t supportive of him. The parents are so steeped in universalist doctrine that they just won’t go there.

  20. Edwood

    The trouble is that at least two of them are so DWL that they are actually anti-white.

    Well, you certainly don’t want to be pushy or start a war with them. Be reasonable. Don’t overdo it or preach. And keep the moral high ground. Half of persuasion is simply not pissing people off. The other half is reaching them with a point that resonates.

  21. on September 15, 2011 at 1:21 pm Aaronovitch

    Off topic (sort of) mea culpa

    Kelis slams UK after ‘race attack’

    Whether or not she was actually queue-jumping or not is lost, I suppose overshadowed by the MASSIVE HATECRIME of a few unkind words.

  22. on September 16, 2011 at 12:24 am Californian

    Nicely stated.

    You add a good tinge of humor to an otherwise grim topic.

    Keep up the good work.

  23. I’ve had mixed success in evangelizing.

    Success: I’ve maybe a half-dozen people to move from pc conservative/libertarian to race-aware. This was actually pretty easy. People on the right are already primed to understand that the media/gov/universities treat their worldview unfairly. Plus they already think in terms of productive people/useless people etc… Not very hard.

    With my friends who are nerds/NPR listeners/soft liberals etc… I have had some success, perhaps in large part because I am a published biologist and come across as authoritative on these issues. I’m also a very soft touch about it with them. I let it be known where I stand through little jokes or asides and let them bring it up later if they want to discuss it further. I’ve found that giving them a little nugget to think about and waiting for them to reach their own conclusions and come back to discuss them is very effective. Also make sure to seem laid-back, thoughtful and normal about it. I’m sure everyone’s noticed that Steve Sailer, for instance, is a very effective advocate because he seems so sane relative to many other internet commentators on these issues. Aim for that.

    However, I’ve found that you can introduce these ideas to the NPR set, but you aren’t likely to make them stick. For one thing, they are all ruled by their women and their women are not interested in thoughtful evopsych or whatever. All they know is that these thoughts are YUCKY and GROSS and just UGH. Also race-awareness, to my mind, isn’t just a set of ideas it also requires a certain level of behavioral change – greater self-sufficiency, willingness to ignore conventions, appreciation of traditional customs, generally higher-T stuff all around – that are difficult if not impossible for most yuppies to effect unless they are sufficiently self-motivated. I think you can lead a yuppie to water and even make him accept that it’s delicious and harmless, without ever getting him to drink it.

  24. By the time White people collectively get the nerve to defend their interest there will be very few (pure) White people, and very little interest, left.

  25. Sorry… off topic. Chimpout reported in Denver: http://denver.cbslocal.com/2011/09/15/motive-unclear-in-attack-by-group-of-teens-on-16th-street-mall/

  26. on September 16, 2011 at 5:13 pm Anonymous 2

    What is the “collective” interest of White people? To set up their own nation state? To keep their race alive?

    Hypothetically, if we were to be able to (through engineering or otherwise) make people of other races have similar genetic variables for Intelligence/behavior, and yet still have their same skin color, would it be acceptable to not be concerned about the “survival of the white race”?

    Personally, I am probably what you would consider a liberal, and while I sometimes cringe at some of the posts here, I find it perfectly acceptable that races are different (on average) in ways including intelligence, although I really despise painting people with a broad brush. I’ve always been against affirmative action and other race based programs for that reason.

    I’m not likely to become a white nationalist any time soon though, because I believe races can coexist, although to what point is up to debate. Does that make me your enemy?

  27. The collective interest of white people certainly includes the preservation of their race (i.e., their genetic makeup and the culture those genes have produced) and their nations (i.e., historically white-majority nations) through immigration control.

    If we could did make the other races genetically indistinguishable from whites where it counts — in the brain — then race would no longer really matter, and I would blog about kitties full-time.

    No, you’re not my enemy unless you’re a violent criminal or you promote hatred of white people (which leads to violence).

  28. on September 16, 2011 at 7:24 pm Laconophile

    anon:

    Hypothetically, if we were to be able to (through engineering or otherwise) make people of other races have similar genetic variables for Intelligence/behavior, and yet still have their same skin color, would it be acceptable to not be concerned about the “survival of the white race”?

    We can make prints of the Mona Lisa. Would it be acceptable if we exposed the original to the elements and let it rot?

  29. on September 16, 2011 at 9:02 pm White dude, bro.

    I love you Unamused. I would bear your white children if that was possible!

    [Unamused: Hug it out, fellow white dude.]

  30. Hypothetically… would it be acceptable to not be concerned about the “survival of the white race”?

    Do you plan to have children? If the answer is ‘yes’ then you already know my answer to your question. But if your answer is ‘no’ then there’s no answer I could give that would satisfy you.

    You seem reasonable enough so let me leave you with something dry and intensely boring. This essay on immigration is extremely well supported and it’s written by one of the smartest guys around. It’s worth bookmarking if for no other reason than it collects a mountain of research listing all the reasons diversity sucks.

    http://goo.gl/ru8cd

  31. on September 16, 2011 at 10:25 pm Anonymous 2

    Lancophile: Point taken, but I find comparing a painting to humans that make up a complex society with emotions and aspirations not really worth it.

    destructure: I notice you left out part of what I was saying. Well anyhow, I’m in favor of much more restricted immigration policies and more assimilation processes so I don’t think I need much convincing, but thanks for the link anyway, twas interesting. I’m more concerned with the people of other races/ethnic groups who are already here. I believe it’s possible for them and whites to co-exist peacefully in moderate amounts. I don’t think that makes me a dreamer.

    I think it’s okay for people to have pride in their ethnicity and it’s accompanying culture- But people can’t seem to help themselves by putting down other ones in the process, and seeing themselves being oppressed everywhere they look. (And yes, I would say the same for non-whites) Some of these types of blogs, while they can be informative, teeter on the edge at times-Especially when linking to cesspools like Chimpout.com which can hardly be characterized as “race realist”.

  32. on September 17, 2011 at 1:25 am Laconophile

    Anonymous 2:

    Point taken, but I find comparing a painting to humans that make up a complex society with emotions and aspirations not really worth it.

    Right. White people, unlike paintings, have emotions, aspirations, as well as their own set of interests (whether they admit it or not). The #1 interest of whites as well as every other people is their own survival, which requires having their own home to ensure their continuation.

    Considering this, it’s more important to protect whites than paintings.

  33. Anonymous2:

    I’m in favor of much more restricted immigration policies and more assimilation processes so I don’t think I need much convincing

    Assimilation is not on my itinerary.

  34. By assimilation, I believe Anonymous 2 means assimilating immigrants into the dominant (white) culture of the United States, not necessarily assimilating them into the gene pool (i.e., miscegenation).

  35. Unamused, I have much the same views as you on engaging whites in open conversation about race. You’d be surprised how far a subtle hint or a little “feeler” can get someone to open up.

    For example: two Tuesdays ago a group of guys and I were talking about scholarships and how expensive school is and I mentioned to one guy “… and you know as well as I do that your gender and the color of your skin preclude you from getting anything at all” (seriously, I’ve been engaging these guys for awhile now and we’re getting more and more open every Tu/Th.) He of course emphatically agreed. But you can see that that conversation started with more subtle feelers.

    Speaking of school, the SGA just granted the YWC affiliate status. Notice also how it’s our fault that they have low self-esteem and choose poor majors and don’t get their work done. In reality their Bucks run amok on campus after dark.

  36. on September 17, 2011 at 4:34 pm Anonymous 2

    Well, yeah, although I should mention that I have absolutely no problem with miscegenation (the horror?).

    Laconophile: “Right. White people, unlike paintings, have emotions, aspirations, as well as their own set of interests (whether they admit it or not). The #1 interest of whites as well as every other people is their own survival, which requires having their own home to ensure their continuation.”

    Whether they realize it or not, whites have a collective interest in their survival? Individuals have emotions and and aspirations, and a large majority of them are completely irrelevant to whatever biological taxonomic classification they may fit into. Is that a problem? I would much rather try and ensure the survival of intelligence and civility then of people who look similar to me. I’m sure you’ll counter that other races (Blacks and Hispanics) tend to not have these characteristics, but of the ones that do, why should they be barred from a an “all white” state?

  37. on September 17, 2011 at 4:52 pm dggfdfgddfg

    “most black violent crime is inter-racial, not against other blacks”

    This is literally the first time I’ve heard that in my entire life.

  38. on September 17, 2011 at 7:38 pm Anonymous 1

    “I would much rather try and ensure the survival of intelligence and civility than of people who look similar to me. ”

    First, the two tend to be correlated. Second, other groups tend to be quite ethnocentric on their own and are already looking out for their interests. They do not need your help, how would they evolve to need countersurvival behavior from someone else after all? Third we regress to our group means in pretty much every regards, which makes groups fairly important. Any attempt at creating for example an IQtopia will be doomed to failure because of this.

  39. Well, yeah, although I should mention that I have absolutely no problem with miscegenation (the horror?).

    Oh, yeah? Are you into black women?

  40. on September 17, 2011 at 8:38 pm Anonymous 2

    “Oh, yeah? Are you into black women?”

    Irrelevant. I wouldn’t try and stop others from doing so even if I wasn’t.

  41. Anonymous 2,

    What reason(s) do you have for not opposing it? From where do you derive this value judgement? Is it sound?

    I don’t see how you can be pro-white and support miscegenation.

  42. Irrelevant. I wouldn’t try and stop others from doing so even if I wasn’t.

    You said you didn’t object to miscegenation. I was wondering if your opinion was based on theory or practice.

  43. on September 17, 2011 at 10:13 pm Laconophile

    Anonymous 2 :

    Whether they realize it or not, whites have a collective interest in their survival?

    Yes. Just like birds and bees and trees. They don’t know why they only procreate with their own kind, but they still do.

    Individuals have emotions and and aspirations, and a large majority of them are completely irrelevant to whatever biological taxonomic classification they may fit into. Is that a problem?

    As you said, they are irrelevant, so why do you bring them up?

    I would much rather try and ensure the survival of intelligence and civility then of people who look similar to me. I’m sure you’ll counter that other races (Blacks and Hispanics) tend to not have these characteristics, but of the ones that do, why should they be barred from a an “all white” state?

    Because their children will revert towards the norm of their race. Besides, Unamused has provided studies that show people are less likely to contribute to or feel part of a community that is not like them. You may not agree with it, but it is their instinctive preference. Since you are a political liberal, is multi-racialism worth it if it jeopardizes the sense of community that is the foundation of your social programs?

  44. on September 17, 2011 at 10:34 pm Anonymous 2

    Simon and Destructure: I would not try and separate two people of different races who wished to have children just as I would not force people of different races to integrate. I think it’s a fairly simple concept. I don’t know if that makes me “anti white”, but I’m not a particularly racially conscious person in the first place.

    Anonymous 1: I understand what you are saying, but again, it’s painting people with a broad brush. Not everyone wants to explicitly associate only with people of their own race. Just as an example, over the last decade 4/5 of the migration to suburbs of cities, traditionally white areas, have been minorities, which is in contrast to decades previous.

    Lancophile: You seem to assume that because I’m a” liberal”, I must be obsessed with telling people of different races what to do? Well, I’d say that’s more stereotyping then anything else…

    Notice the small margin of differences between liberals and conservatives. Perhaps it’d be better to call me a moderate, I don’t have particular interest in a certain area as of now. Again, I’ve already said that I’m for tightening up immigration, both legal and illegal.

  45. The “good” Blacks are the point of the wedge, historically speaking. The nice smart eight or nine Black kids who integrated Little Rock’s Central High School were followed by the mob of morlocks who made it the dump it is today. I don’t hate Blacks. This morning, I bought a tool from a Black woman and spent a couple hours chatting with her. She’s an intelligent person, a retired school teacher, and we have a common interest in metalworking. But I am still not fooled into thinking that she is at all typical. Whites have been subject to a civil rights bait and switch scam, and for our own survival we need to refuse all further accommodation.

  46. Anonymous 2 writes, “I would not try and separate two people of different races who wished to have children just as I would not force people of different races to integrate. I think it’s a fairly simple concept.”

    Yes, it’s a simple concept. But it’s not what I asked.

  47. […] – “A Father Cannot Be a Mother, and He Should Not Try”Unamused – “Talking About Race (Part 2)”Simon Rierdon – “Unusual Circumstances…“, […]

  48. on September 18, 2011 at 12:50 pm Anonymous 1

    “Not everyone wants to explicitly associate only with people of their own race. Just as an example, over the last decade 4/5 of the migration to suburbs of cities, traditionally white areas, have been minorities, which is in contrast to decades previous.”

    Is that a desire to associate with whites, or their desire for economic oportunity, perceived good schools and neighborhoods, and so on? Likewise as whites have seen this the response has been to tear up even more farm land on new “good” areas, or to gentrify the city being left behind.

    And that last point was the big one, section 8 is what is driving the city -> suburb migration of minorities, so that developers can then gentrify valuable downtown realestate. There is an attempt to put affordable housing in woodstock, and the people there are fighting it in every way they can. Rather than give up because of the sheer number of issues raised(every single one of which comes back to the right to freedom of association that all Americans are supposed to have), developers are going to try to out rules-lawyer woodstock.

  49. on September 18, 2011 at 6:08 pm Anonymous 2

    Destructure–I really don’t know what you’re looking for here. A blanket statement like “Miscegenation is bad!” makes no sense, because nobody of the same race is the same person, so to judge like that is futile. The only other logical option left would be that keeping the color of the skin the same is the ultimate goal of avoiding miscegenation, which seems to betray part of the “race realist” point of view.

    Anonymous 1: Well, I guess that leads into a good point, which is that there are many reasons why someone would want to live in a certain place besides race. Races is but one factor. A big one, I will concede, but just one. By the way, I believe most of the new minorities in the suburbs were not as of yet citizens, so they are fairly new to the country.

  50. Destructure–I really don’t know what you’re looking for here.

    I asked if you were “into black women” and you blew me off saying it was irrelevant. I then asked if your opinion of miscegenation “was based on theory or practice” and you again blew it off. Now you say you don’t know what I’m asking. I think you do.

    “A blanket statement like “Miscegenation is bad!” makes no sense, because nobody of the same race is the same person, so to judge like that is futile.”

    Moral relativism eh? Based on your logic, prohibitions against bestiality and cannibalism make no sense because nobody is the same person. As it so happens, some things aren’t a matter of opinion. For example, alcoholism and smoking cause cirrhosis and emphysema. Some things really are “bad” regardless of what one thinks about them.

    The only other logical option left would be that keeping the color of the skin the same is the ultimate goal of avoiding miscegenation, which seems to betray part of the “race realist” point of view.

    Not at all. You don’t understand genetics.

  51. on September 18, 2011 at 8:30 pm Anonymous 2

    Destructure:
    If you can explain to me how terrible miscegenation is, I’ll be happy to listen. I don’t have many objections to it because I don’t find it morally wrong, and because I haven’t seen that would lead me to believe that it’s objectively bad on scientific grounds. Extreme endogamy has been associated with genetic disorders and even lead some groups on the verge of extinction. Of course like all things there are probably benefits to be gleamed (some more isolated groups have had higher IQs), but deciding which ones are of higher worth is a subjective preference. Like I said, If you have other information I’m open to hearing it.

  52. Anonymous 2-

    I’d be happy to explain. But first I’d like you to answer my original question. Does your approval extend to practice or is it limited to theory? Also, since you’ve mentioned that “extreme endogamy has been associated with genetic disorders” do you think incest should be prohibited?

    Please answer my questions so that I can move on to making my point.

  53. on September 19, 2011 at 4:20 pm Anonymous 2

    Perhaps I’m not understanding the question here. Are you asking if I would do it? In that case it would completely depend on the person and circumstances, as I prefer to judge people as individuals. And no, that’s not necessarily “moral relativism”. If I personally was against it on moral grounds but accepted other cultures/countries doing it on the grounds that “everybody’s different” that would be a type of moral relativism.

    “Also, since you’ve mentioned that “extreme endogamy has been associated with genetic disorders” do you think incest should be prohibited?”

    Not at all.

  54. Anonymous 2-

    I appreciate your answer. I was trying to determine whether your opinion was influenced by your personal situation. My second question regarding incest was to test your moral consistency. And you do appear to be morally consistent on these issues. Based on what you’ve said I would judge you to be more of a libertarian or “classical liberal” rather than what’s generally considered to be a liberal today. I do, however, think you have the effects of miscegenation and incest backwards. Nearly everyone does.

    Rather than spam this thread with a VERY LONG explanation, I’ll direct you to the explanation I made on my friend JAY’s blog last December. I wrote it as “fred.” Please do read it.

    http://jewamongyou.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/should-incest-be-illegal/#comment-2072

  55. on September 20, 2011 at 7:52 pm Anonymous 2

    Thanks for your response. I said that I am a “liberal”, but in reality I’m not a fan of using over arching generalizations, especially with ones that don’t really have any meaning anymore, like the terms “conservative” and liberal. Anything to the left of Pinotech in the US sometimes seems to be called “liberal” anyway.

    On to your link: Inbreeding only survives in large numbers in order to sustain enough genetic diversity to survive. Had the black man outbreeded at most his offspring could only have one dominant sickle cell trait and one recessive sickle cell trait. Nobody would die. Not to mention that there are hundreds of negative genetic traits in any organism, and with more and more inbreeding the negative traits will spread out and accumulate in the offspring until the population group will no longer able to survive. Without enough genetic diversity, a group will die out.

    Outbreed depression mostly occurs when one group gets a mixed adaptation that doesn’t help him. Example: a subspecies in Environment A breeds with subspecies in Environment B, and the result is a certain trait that doesn’t help to adapt in either environment. I’m not sure that it happens often in humans but I’m fairly certain it can’t be worse then inbreeding. The effects of hybrid vigor are strongest in the first generation and the subsequent offspring will weaken the affect, but it will be a net positive because the mean frequency of the negative trait in the population is reduced.

  56. anonymous 2-

    Inbreeding only survives in large numbers in order to sustain enough genetic diversity to survive.

    Well, of course, the overall population has to be of sufficient size. And one can’t simply breed closely related individuals indefinitely. At least not without a very high fertility/mortality rate. But my point was not that it was healthy to repeatedly inbreed a very small population. My point was that some inbreeding among the population helped to strengthen the gene pool by removing defective genes. Historically this occurred because most populations lived in small communities. There would be some inbreeding in the communities as well as some exchange between nearby communities.

    I’m not sure that it happens often in humans but I’m fairly certain it can’t be worse then inbreeding.

    At the individual level over the short term, maybe not. At the group level over the long term, definitely.

    The effects of hybrid vigor are strongest in the first generation and the subsequent offspring will weaken the affect, but it will be a net positive because the mean frequency of the negative trait in the population is reduced.

    Rumours of hybrid vigor are greatly exaggerated. I addressed that in my essay.

    I see you were selective in your terminology. Yes, the “mean frequency” of a particular defective gene is reduced. But it doesn’t reduce the overall frequency. Plus, outbreeding adds defective genes from the second population. One might see a net drop in some diseases because it reduces the odds that an individual would inherit two copies of a particular defective gene. But one would see an increase in other diseases because it breaks down gene complexes. More genes and more gene complexes means more things to go wrong. Genes evolved to work together after all. So not only is outbreeding dysgenic its devolutionary as well.

  57. on September 21, 2011 at 7:19 pm Anonymous 2

    “Rumours of hybrid vigor are greatly exaggerated. I addressed that in my essay.”

    However, they do exist. Outbreeding simply ups the chances that you won’t get a negative trait by adding more possible traits.

    “At the individual level over the short term, maybe not. At the group level over the long term, definitely.”

    The differences between races are small enough and have evolved in such a way that they would be unlikely to be unable to adapt to an environment in modern society. Thanks to technological advances, you don’t need to have extreme adaptations in order to survive.

    “But one would see an increase in other diseases because it breaks down gene complexes.”

    Gene complexes are simply different genes on working together functionally. If outbreeding populations have not separated enough to create completely separate gene complexes, then outbreeding depression is very unlikely to happen.

  58. Sorry for the delay. I just saw your response.

    anonymous 2 writes:

    “However, they do exist. Outbreeding simply ups the chances that you won’t get a negative trait by adding more possible traits.”

    Since you’re convinced hybrid vigour results from miscegenation, perhaps you could give