Saturday, 28 February 2009

Praising the melting pot

Anyone who takes an interest in the comments posted by readers at this blog, will notice that we have recently received a few praising the alleged evolutionary benefits of interracial sex, including the one from a lady who ended her contribution by calling me a “bigoted, bored Nazi housewife, racist, bimbo” . (Gosh, it's over a week since I was called any of those, and even longer since they were all in one sentence)

These posters, ignore the fact that Europeans have done pretty damn well mating with other Europeans for thousands of years, as indeed have, Africans, Asians, Arabs and Orientals. Instead they tell us that, at this point in mankind's development, the best means for the species to survive is by the enthusiastic mixing of ethnic genes, which they suggest will create a more healthy, efficient, and, presumably to their mind, “ideal” specimen.

Lets disregard for a moment the fact that they are seeking to use my blog and my belief in free speech in order to further spread the sort of propaganda which can be found across the internet, in a way which they would never allow ideas such as mine to be spread on their ideologically pure little blogs and websites, and, for the sake of argument, actually give some consideration to their argument and take it to its natural conclusion.

A candidate for interbreeding?

Let us, for instance, apply this argument to other species, and, where better to start than with cats. Why on Earth do we need all these different breeds?, especially when they all seem to have their own unique weaknesses. Persian cats, as an example, tend to suffer from kidney problems, whilst their flat faces mean they are often martyrs to catarrh, and, of course, their hair is a nightmare to vacuum, the solution, according to our correspondents would apparently be to get rid of the thoroughbred breed of cat and create a longer nosed, shorter haired creature, called a “prabby” perhaps.

Many other breeds of cat could also benefit from the same treatment, Siamese tend to have that awful irritating high pitched Meow, Burmese can be grumpy, and as for Sphinx cats and the Cornish Rex, well they are just plain ugly. (Tabbies, of course, are so much prettier and healthier, albeit a little boring after a while.)

All these problems, it seems, would be solved by interbreeding, think about it, cats breed more rapidly than we do, given the same degree of dedication which has been applied to the colonisation of Europe, within a few decades we could rid ourselves of all the diverse breeds, with all their inconvenient breed related foibles, and create a single mono-breed, multi-purpose, cat. Perhaps we could call it a mogg.

Why stop at cats? Dog breeds are equally problematic, corgis snap, labradors go to fat, spaniels shed, and Afghans are totally useless when it comes to guarding your house. Surely the way ahead for the survival of the species is through the creation of the mono-breed mutt.

According to the logic of proposing interracial mixing as an evolutionary solution, amalgamating all the different cat and dog breeds into single homogenised moggs and mutts, with all the irritating weaknesses and hair loss problems bred out, would be for the betterment of both species. It would certainly make the process of choosing pets less complicated, albeit perhaps a little less interesting.

Beyond domestic pets, mass interbreeding within the animal kingdom would solve any number of problems, and think of the time it would save conservationists. Those currently fretting over that rare and endangered species of Saharan cheetahs, are clearly missing the obvious solution of importing a few thousand of the sub-Saharan breed and “Viola!” (its not as if there isn't a template).

Indeed for the sake of diversity (albeit, it would not be diverse for long) they could try bringing in some leopards, certainly a more hardy type of big cat. Who knows maybe leopards and cheetahs would mate successfully and they could produce, healthier and more efficient “Cheetards”, which would not only be better at climbing trees, but they would do it a damn sight quicker. (Not terribly useful in the Sahara, but, hey you can't have everything)

Sumatran tigers under threat? Just send down an Empire Windrush full of Bengal or Siberian tigers, problem sorted!

I accept that leopards and cheetahs are different species of big cat, and there is quite a a difference between Siberian tiger and a Sumatran one, but then again, unlike mules, which, as one pro mixing blogger by the name of Liliput kindly reminded me, can not breed, ligers and tigons can do so, albeit, as yet, without great success, so the scenario might not be so absurd.

However, more prosaically, when it comes to two breeds of cheetah , the differences are much less marked and they should mate with little difficulty. Surely those seeking to preserve genetic differences dating back thousands, or even millions, of years are being over sentimental, or even “racist” aren't they? - scarily such allegations are already being made.

“Woah!” I can hear the race mixing enthusiasts shout “We were not talking about animals, it is only different coloured people we want chucked in the melting pot!”

Ah yes maybe that's true, maybe it is only human beings who they want to intermix, indeed, in reality, their target is even narrower than that, they only want their meting pots in Europe or North America, but certainly no-where else.

It is only in the lands where there is still an indigenous or majority white populations where they want to set up their meting pots. As we all know, a desire for ethnic preservation is only a sin when white people do it, amongst any other group it is viewed as both admirable and indeed a basic human right.

I will, therefore, restrict the comments to human beings. However, for the sake of fairness, let us, for once ignore Europe and North America where the unquestioned dogma espousing the “benefits” of sex with other races have been preached to the point of indoctrination, and turn the spotlight on those races and nationalities who are never told they are racist if they wish to stick to their own, and who are not endlessly encouraged to jump between the sheets with the first foreigner they encounter.

I can not see why anyone would object, surely if there are such great evolutionary advantages to race mixing for white people, other races would doubtless also benefit from mixing their genes with those from other ethnic groups.

Most races have cultural issues, some might call them flaws (certainly the likes of Jack Straw do when referring to the English) maybe, like with white people. some of these “issues” are genetic, and can be improved by mixing in a few exotic genes. It is worth considering, after all, we are constantly told how good it is for us.

Lets look at Africa, where there certainly do appear to be some cultural problems, which are hindering development and which arguably put their long term futures at risk. It has been suggested, in the same way as the English are alleged to have a propensity for binge drinking and anti-social behaviour, the African character lacks drive and industry, and is prone to acts of irrational violence (recent events in Kenya and South Africa would seem to bear this out). If this is true, then the solution is obvious, they should import as many Chinese as possible (its already happening) and, in a few generations of Afro/Oriental amour we might see a new industrious and driven Africa, with a very rational approach to violence.

A long term solution to the Middle East might be to encourage the hot blooded young men there to become romantically involved with Melanesians and Australian Aborigines. Who can tell, if the benefits of race mixing are what we are told they are, the desire for jihad may fade as they discover the pleasures of making love and getting pi............

Hold on, what's that high pitched shrieking sound I hear?!! ... Oh. Its the fans of interracial sex, objecting to what I am saying. What's that they say?, (its so hard to hear them over John Cruddas's flatulence, and Lily Allen being sick) ..... “racism?” they shout .... “racial stereotypes?” they cry.... “sounds like eugenics?” ...... they gasp .

Of course they are right, it does sound racist, what I am saying in the paragraphs above does rely on racial stereotypes to argue its case and, if I was being serious, it would sound far too much like eugenics for comfort. Then again it sounded exactly like that when they said exactly the same thing to us. The only difference being that we were called Nazis when we objected.


Anonymous said...

yet rainforest tribes in south america are given special rights to protect their culture, and racial identity, try telling a socialist that you intend on bringing the west to the tribes. they will call you an imperialist and eco terrorist. yet the same ideology is thrown back in our faces that we have to accept mass immigration and cultural and social experimentation.

Anonymous said...

Multiculturalism - when all the characteristics, heritage, traditions and history defining the host culture as a nation are obliterated by invasive parasitic cultures demanding the retention of the cultural characteristics that define them in order to declare the host nation racist and intolerant.
- Cynic

Dr.D said...

"what bigoted, bored nazi housewife, racist, bimbo you have justdisplayed you are!!!"

Congratulations, Sarah! You are obviously doing a good job. You certainly pushed her buttons. When someone is reduced to such a baldfaced ad hominem attack, it is clear that they have nothing of substance to say for their side of the argument and have just point to that fact in spades!

Actually, if breeding whites with nonwhites produced sterile offspring, as with mules, that would satisfy the goal of the multiculturalist even better, since that goal is the extinction of the white race.

alanorei said...

Re: Actually, if breeding whites with nonwhites produced sterile offspring, as with mules, that would satisfy the goal of the multiculturalist even better, since that goal is the extinction of the white race.

Exactly, Dr. D

You got it in one. That is indeed the kernel of the NWO global strategy.

It is Satanic, which really says it all.

(See my other comment on Sarah's previous article.)

Anonymous said...

Hi Sarah

I can see what you are trying to do with the cat analogy but its quite difficult to compare it to our Human species situation.

Cat and dogs are genetically engineered through mating to enhance human desired charachteristics - not necessarily for evolutionary fitness.

I think that its time to accept that as a white person you are in a minority on this planet and as such you are feeling threatened by the thought of no more white people left. Its more like save the Whito then save the Rhino. Having said that, this has nothing to do with genes (superior or inferior) its just fear of change.

I just want to bring up the point that the white South Africans - probably boers and colonial English - who were probably one of the most white racist (I don't know what other word to use?)people were the first to interbreed - there is a huge coloured population in Cape Town as proof. I guess they weren't too worried about genetic purity were they?

Finally, as a white South African who worked intimately with the white farmers - the holocaust is sad but doesn't surprise me. Its the ultimate example of you reap what you sow. You cannot expect to treat people worse then you would think about treating a dog - and I include beatings etc and not expect any consequences?

Please, Sarah, as I asked before on an article written about South Africa - have these people actually been there - now and during apartheid?


Sarah Maid of Albion said...

No, you don't get the cat analogy Liliput, however, that seems to be part of a pattern. You read things as you like to imagine they were written, as such you and I may as well be speaking different languages.

I hope that others with more open minds will will understand the point I am making.

As to your question, I can't speak for everyone who comments, but, yes, those of us who contribute to this blog have spent time in Africa. We see things differently to you, but you may again be seeing what you want to see.

I suspect that many of those from South Africa who do comment here will take issue with your comments about about Boers being the most "white racist", my guess is that if you were seeking real white racists I think you will find more on your side if the street.

I am sure that most readers will be as offended and disgusted as I am by your parting comment, where you seek to blame the victims of the farm holocaust for what has been done to them.

Your attempt to draw an equivalence is really sickening, you should be ashamed, assuming you understand the concept

Are you trying to suggest the Boers did anything to black Africans, which comes close to the degree of violence and pure sadism involved in these crimes?

Did the Boers cut fingers and toes off conscious victims?, burn them with hot irons and boiling water?. Did they castrate them before making them watch their children being raped in front of them and then in turn torturing what is left of the chiledren to death?

If that were true, people like you would be strapping school children to their chairs and force feeding them with with that information for days on end.

Then again, you probably are doing so anyway, the truth is always trumped by an agenda.

Lilliput said...

Hi Sarah

More then anything, I thank you for the opportunity to write on your blog - many others just refuse to put dissenting views and that really irritates me as they might as well be preaching to the choir.

I will reread the cat analogy as you are correct that people normally read to support what they already think is true so I will look at it again - although it is hard to set aside the bias.

Finally about the farmers, I am at no point pointing any finger at a particular white farmer and telling him/her its your fault - as it is 100% not. But you have a situation where for generations white farmers have treated black workers atrociously. All those things that are mentioned - raping, burning, and all means of torture were done. You only have to listen to the testimony of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee - unless of course you don't believe them - in which case why should they believe you?

My point was, that if you treat people like animals, they will become animals and whose fault is that? I wonder how you think the blacks were treated by the whites under aphartheid? If it was so wonderful - why did they fight so hard to destroy it.

Thats what I'm not understanding?

Anonymous said...

@ Lilliput

The African black peoples have one great strength and that is to stick together no matter what. They continue to create and empower black dictators and despots, replacing one with another, so long as his skin is black like theirs. They continue to endure the worst kinds of tyranny, torture, sublimation and miserable poverty as long as it‘s at the hands of someone as black as them. That’s better than being ruled by someone that’s not black. I doubt we will ever see a non-African leader in Africa again, not even Obama would be black enough. But let's not call that racism!

Unfortunately, we whites lost our ability to be race-loyal when we became “civilized”. In the name of tolerance, diversity and political correctness we turn on our own kind regardless of the circumstances because the logic behind it is that if there are whites involved they are in the wrong and it’s ever so attractive to be liked for demonstrating cap-in-hand atonement and guilt for perceived ills.

If you are, as you put it, "a white South African", you will surely know the meaning of the Afrikaans word "verraaier" (traitor) which is the perfect label for you. It’s a pity that white South Africans don’t adopt their African counterparts’ practice for their verraaiers; like your pal Winnie and her savages with their necklacing (placing a car tyre around the victim’s neck, filling it with petrol and setting it alight) – zero tolerance there! Aren’t you lucky the very civilization process that produced limp-wristed, despicable betrayers like you is what protects you from suffering the barbaric actions that you defend and would so richly deserve.

And just in case you’re producing the usual knee-jerk response, no, I’m not an Afrikaner; I’m European by birth but have lived in SA for 45 years so am qualified to have my opinion of you and your ilk.

Anonymous said...

"I just want to bring up the point that the white South Africans - probably boers and colonial English - who were probably one of the most white racist (I don't know what other word to use?)people were the first to interbreed - there is a huge coloured population in Cape Town as proof. I guess they weren't too worried about genetic purity were they?"

This is pure ignorance. The historical process that resulted in the Cape Coloured population is much more complicated than assumed here. There were not a whole lot of Dutch and, presumably later, English whites mating wholesale with non-whites. To the contrary as anyone visiting South Africa today will see, the Afrikaners and English whites of South Africa would easily fit back into Europe insofar as physical features go. The Coloured population is entirely separate, and how did it arise?

Well this requires a little history. When Jan van Riebeeck of the Dutch East India Company landed at the Cape in 1652. He met no blacks of the Bantu race, they had not yet reached so far south. He did meet the Hottentots - the Khoi Khoi and soon the Bushman San. These were primitive hunter-gatherers. Many of these died in various wars with whites, and the other blacks, but some were absorbed into what are known today as the Cape Coloureds (about 4 million of them in the Cape). When the Company (DEIC) freed some of their employees, the Free Burghers, to begin farming the Hottentots weren't interested in farm labour, and so some slaves were imported from the East (Indonesia and Madagascar). These too became part of the Cape Coloured ancestry. A minute minority of the Dutch settlers also contributed to this ancestry, as did some of the white sailors who visited the Cape half-way house between Europe and the East.

Dan Roodt of the PRAAG website sums it up well:

" ...some miscegenation did take place in the first years of Dutch rule at the Cape ...However most Coloureds are descendants not of any black-white mix, but of intermarriage between Oriental slaves and the Khoi Khoi..."

To repeat, whites in South Africa are distinctly white. The Coloureds are distinctly separate. And, by the way Lilliput, I am quite happy for you to call me racist (i.e. someone with an unashamed preference for his own race). I know you mean by racist - a supremacist genocider. Well the proof that whites in South Africa are not that sort of "racist" is that the black population so overwhelming outnumbers us today. Never did we practise genocide - and our health services, education and other civilised infrastructure (yes staffed and controlled by us whites, only in place because of us whites) was responsible for their rapid multiplication and wellbeing during the era of Apartheid. Today under black rule and control South Africa is rapidly regressing into a 3rd world jungle.


Anonymous said...

"...yes staffed and controlled by us whites, only in place because of us whites..." - from my previous comment.

This should of course be "we whites".


Anonymous said...

The main point is, whatever came out of Africa that was any good?The sooner we wash our hands of that worthless dysfunctional continent the better.......the day will come!

Anonymous said...

You guys are gonna laugh, but even though I carry a South African passport, I was actually born in the other so called Apartheid State of Israel - so the shit never ends!

My parents who are Eastern european by birth, immigrated when my Dad got transferred from work. they loved it so much that they decided to stay.

My question to them was always - how could you not see what was going on and how long did you think the dream would last?

I'm reading and accepting all you South african's are saying but still there is noacceptance on your part for mistreating the native population. Yes we didn't decimate them, yes we brought them things they never had before - completely agree - but yes we mistreated them and yes we lived a better standard of life because of their hard labour - thats all I would like to be admitted.

How they treat each other is a seperate issue - its completely wrong and outrageous - but that doesn't make what we did right.

I'm not a traitor - I believe we took what wasn't ours to begin with - can we at least agree to that?


Anonymous said...

@ Lilliput

You said:
“but yes we mistreated them and yes we lived a better standard of life because of their hard labour - thats all I would like to be admitted.”

And what happened in South Africa on 27 April 1994? Was that not a major step towards admitting and acknowledging that what had gone before was wrong and needed to be redressed? The very same Truth and Reconciliation Commission that you mention was part of that process.

The problem is there are people in society (like you) that, for their own reasons of self-gratification, need to sweep under the carpet the efforts that have been and are being made by whites to make this an equal society and to sweep under the carpet the atrocities that have always been and are still being inflicted by blacks on blacks because that wouldn’t support the qualities of saintliness and martyrdom which have been applied to Africans. How they treat each other is not a separate issue at all and it’s time that it is loudly addressed by the world media.

As for living in Israel, get off your high horse and learn from them. The Jews have really been persecuted, for millennia, by many nations, yet unlike our opportunistic African friends who become experts at the blame and entitlement game, they picked themselves up, flipped a finger to the world, created a land out of a desert and as a people are a force to be reckoned with globally. Of course, you could always move to Nigeria, Sudan, Uganda etc. so that your racial sensitivities are not so offended….

Anonymous said...

"...but still there is no acceptance on your part for mistreating the native population. Yes we didn't decimate them, yes we brought them things they never had before - completely agree - but yes we mistreated them and yes we lived a better standard of life because of their hard labour - thats all I would like to be admitted. ...I'm not a traitor - I believe we took what wasn't ours to begin with - can we at least agree to that?"

To answer the last part first: NO WE CANNOT AGREE WITH THAT. We whites did not steal from poor good-hearted productive blacks. Blacks were not any more aboriginal than whites in South Africa. (The Hottentots and Bushman would have a stronger claim to being aboriginal - they've dissappeared: in war, also contributed to Cape Coloureds). As in all parts of the world, different peoples have met and clashed. Blacks and whites began migrating into the interior at about the same time. Those who were stronger with more successful societies won. (The black "victory" of 1994 in South Africa, was not because of their own efforts, the ANC were and remain pathetic - they were given the country on a plate, because SA's whites were betrayed by the white west - a totally unnatural event.)

It was the hard work of whites that developed the country. Yes some blacks were used as servants and labourers, but that doesn't mean that whites simply sat back and watched them work. In the beginning, the economy of SA was primarily agricultural, and it was the hard work of white farmers and their families that developed this. Only when whites arrived was the land utilised successfully (just as it was the Jews, not Arabs, who developed Israel). The liberal lie that whites kept the best farmland for themselves is absurd - the black Homelands contained the most fertile land. Where blacks take over white farms, they collapse (see Zimbabwe). If we whites could be given the old black homelands for ourselves, within ten years, blacks would again be complaining we had the best land and want to take them back again, because their land (the formerly successful white land) was bad!

It is true that when mining developement took place (end 19th, but mostly 20th century) then blacks were employed in the mines, and mining of course created vast wealth from which all benefited. But two important facts need to be remembered: 1. The mining houses were mostly owned by the "uitlanders" - foreigners - whom President Kruger wanted to keep out and fought the Anglo Boer War over. 2. The blacks employed in the mines were mostly foreign blacks from Mozambique, Zambia, and other surrounding black countries. This was a major source of income for these countries. Black South Africans, in the main, did not work in the mines, and they were not forced to. (Interestingly, today Mozambique wants white Afrikaner farmers to rescue their farming. Seems they were not so traumatized by working with white Afrikaner workers on the mines!)

It is never pleasant to focus on the negative characteristics of others and that is one reason why white South Africans generally, have been rather poor at defending themselves from this charge. Equality is all very well when you are surrounded by others of the same sensibility, it is another story when there are vast differences. To explain that to those who avert their eyes from unpleasantness, and blindly believe in liberal egalitarianism and utopianism, is almost impossible. Fortunately the Third World invasion that the West is experiencing is beginning to change this.

Always look at the context when judging things. I admit that some individual blacks were mistreated. So were individual whites and coloureds etc. Show me one society where no individuals are ever mistreated - such a utopia doesn't exist. Apartheid was not instituted merely to cater to the vanity of whites. It was necessary to preserve order and civilisation in a corner of the world where the "law of the jungle" (i.e. witchcraft and savagery) had dominated before the arrival of the white man. (That liberals can't accept this doesn't change the fact). How blacks treat each other is a "separate issue - and doesn't make what we did right" you say. But that IS the issue. Only the power of the white man's law kept everyone - white and black - safe. The "New" South Africa demonstrates every day what a society is like where "how blacks treat each other" is the norm: high crime, murder, rape, intimidation, bribery, incompetence. Apartheid wasn't perfect, but it certainly ensured a greater proportion of justice for all South Africa's inhabitants.

I've written this elsewhere, but I'll repeat it here because it sums up what I'm trying to say:
Of course Apartheid South Africa was an unequal society. Whites (on average) and Blacks (on average) are not equal. But I deny - that because (in areas where whites alone were responsible for development - ie of Universities, of theatres, of parks, in fact of all the civilized amenities) we did not allow uncontrolled access to blacks - we therefore were unjust. That was the only way to preserve civilization (as has been made abundantly clear since 1994 when blacks took over). And justice (as opposed to equality) demands recognition of differences: in ability, in contribution, and in behaviour.

And as for the so-called "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" that was simply an exercise in the leftist re-writing of history. I don't have the quote to hand, but the people who ran that circus also had the attitude that truth needs to be re-defined to be less "euro-centric" - in other words tall stories in the African oral tradition.


Lilliput said...

Thank you for your answers Keith and Anon - I can't really argue with any points you have raised except:

"Whites (on average) and Blacks (on average) are not equal."

They may not be equal in education, IQ, physical fitness etc - but intrinsically as members of Homo Sapien Sapien species they are equal. Otherwise as a Jew - I would get really nervous about when you might start to think that I am not equal - and there are many references to Anti semitic sentiments such as the Protocals of Elders of Zion from this blog.

Like it or not we share the Earth with different races - I want to know how you see us doing that for the best of all of us?

Anonymous said...

Mating with people who are genetically very different from you is not healthy.
Check these links out
One should marry people like oneself. It is not unhealthy as the media tells you but not doing so (i.e. marrying people of other races) can be very unhealthy.

Anonymous said...

The blue bird doesn't mate with the red bird. It just doesn't happen. Likewise, Negro/Caucasian/Oriental should not interbreed.

Anonymous said...

I would like to exchange links with your site
Is this possible?

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Let me know what what your blog is and I will let you know if we can link

Anonymous said...

What a great web log. I spend hours on the net reading blogs, about tons of various subjects. I have to first of all give praise to whoever created your theme and second of all to you for writing what i can only describe as an fabulous article. I honestly believe there is a skill to writing articles that only very few posses and honestly you got it. The combining of demonstrative and upper-class content is by all odds super rare with the astronomic amount of blogs on the cyberspace.