The racial divide, and who is really crossing it

Despite the intelligent and highly eloquent defence recently presented here by Frank Ellis, I have to admit that I was very ambivalent as to the value of  LSE professor Dr Satoshi Kanazawa's controversial research, published earlier this year, into race and attractiveness, and his purported findings that black women were generally found less attractive than women from other racial groups.  

Whereas I am a passionate believer in free speech, (as evidenced by the extraordinary length of time I continued to tolerate one particular commentator at this blog) as well as the freedom of academic research, and was outraged by the attacks on Kanazawa and the calls for his dismissal, I failed to see the point of this research and what it had actually achieved.

Research into behavioural issues and the propensities of certain races towards violent crime or irresponsibility in matters of sexual health have merit, as they can be addressed and they inform debate on vital topics such as immigration, justice, health care and, of course the decisions people make in order to protect themselves. 

However, research which establishes that one group is less desirable than another seems to me to be rather pointless, after all what can be done with these finding which could be of benefit to anyone?

I suppose, if it were allowed any official credibility, the research could act as a counterbalance to all the contrary research which claims to find that non-whites have a superior ability to whites in in various areas, (such as the bizarre insistence that running is the most skilful of  all Olympic sports on account  of the fact that blacks are generally rather good at running) however, beyond its “tit for tat” application, and with all due respect to Dr. Kanazawa, what merit there is to his research in this respect continues to escape me.

However, I was reminded of the explosion of outrage which greeted the decision by Psychology Today to publish Dr Kanazawa's findings back in May (since cringingly withdrawn) when I read an article on the American black network site “News One” which declared that there were only '3 “Good” black men for every 100 black women' .  The article bemoaned the fact that only around 3% of black men met the criteria which would make them a suitable prospect as a romantic partner for black women.  The remaining 97% failed to make the grade for a variety of reasons including lack of education or success and the fact that so many were either in prison, between periods of incarceration, or had fathered a number of children by other woman.

Another significant group of black men were viewed as unsuitable by black women on account of the fact that they are either exclusively or primarily attracted to white women.

In fact the number of black men who effectively reject their own race in favour of white women is becoming a matter of some concern and resentment within the black community in America and is also causing  some negative comment amongst the black community in Britain.  If one looks at the figures what is happening is quite significant, but not in the way which the media, with its determination to undermine and mock white men, would have us believe.

The  common claim within the media and popular culture is that the number of interracial relationships indicates that white women find black men sexually attractive, however, that claim ignores the racial demographic as it still stands in the west, and the sizes of the respective ethnic groups in Western nations. In fact the figures actually reveal something very different than that which the media would like to have us believe.

In America, 8.5% of black men are married to white women, however, given that black males account for around 6% of the US population, whereas white women make up almost 38%, the far less widely publicised statistic is that less than 1% of white women are married to black men.  This is a relatively insignificant number, especially considering the amount of propaganda which white women are subjected to.  (in fact according to Wikipedia, who are, if anything, likely to exaggerate the figure, only 2.1% of white women are in any form of mixed race marriage, slightly less than white men at 2.3% - this is not the picture we see on TV is it?)

Statistically, it is black men, not white women, who are most enthusiastically spurning their own.  So why is this happening? 

There is no need to ask why the white woman involved do it, with the exception of a few committed liberal multiculturalists, the vast majority tend to be of the type which would sleep with anything provided it has a pulse or a battery, and in any event, as a percentage of their demographic, they are actually relatively insignificant.     

It is when one asks why black men are crossing the racial divide in statistically far more significant numbers that the answer becomes less favourable to the advocates or racial integration, and, sadly, somewhat unflattering to black women.

Popular mythology would have us believe that white women are rushing to embrace multiculturalism, however, in fact only a very small group are doing so, a truer picture is that an embarrassingly large number of black men are rejecting their own race.

Whatever one may think of  Satoshi Kanazawa's much condemned research paper, it would seem that by their politically incorrect actions many black men are adding credibility to the most controversial aspects of his findings.
 
It is also encouraging to know that the situation is not quite as depressing, for white people, as it sometimes appears.

An Interview with Muhammad Ali

Interracial Marriage

This contribution from Alan O'Reilly:

All right-thinking Britons who love their country should oppose interracial marriage. The implications of race-mixing are much more sinister than is commonly understood - individual objections notwithstanding. Integrationists by definition are far too blinkered to see the big picture.

It is common knowledge that the mainstream media and many leading politicians exert considerable pressure in favour of race-mixing and scream 'racist!' whenever any sane individual protests against this kind of coercion.

Such pressure is mainly directed towards blacks and whites. In spite of the abominable practice of Muslim 'grooming' of mainly vulnerable white adolescent girls, Asians will almost exclusively favour their own kind for longer-term relationships regardless of any outside pressure. Muslim women risk so-called 'honour' beatings and even killings if they don't [like Banaz Mahmod, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6733919.stm ]. Heinous as this cruelty is, it simply reinforces the point.

Large-scale white and black liaisons are of course unlikely to occur in spite of media and political pressure. They could, however, be enforced by the EU, via Europol and the Euro-army, when Britain is fully absorbed into the EU Superstate or ['golden garrotte'] concentration camp following the treason of Gordon Brown in May 2009, compounded, sadly, by royal assent. The aim, as always, is to destroy white Anglo-Saxon Celtic Britain, both as a nation and as a people.

(The USA attempted much the same with Germany after WW2, by sending large numbers of black troops to make up the occupation forces.)

Enforced race-mixing is one of the most effective ways of so doing. The black race in Britain would be destroyed in the process but that would be of no consequence to our European masters, i.e. gauleiters.

Paul Broca published a study in 1864 on hybridity in the human race. He found that, in South Carolina, where white Anglo-Saxon males had cohabited with negresses, the mulatto offspring were "little prolific and short-lived." See
http://campus.udayton.edu/~hume/Broca/broca.htm

He also reported that "the union of the Caucasian women with negroes is very frequently non-productive."

J.H. Van Evrie, M.D. reached the same conclusions after studying "several thousand cases of mixed blood" and published the results of his research in 1868. A CD entitled Vatican Assassins 3rd Edition, by American Baptist writer Eric Jon Phelps, summarises Van Evrie's work and is obtainable via Eric’s site http://www.vaticanassassins.org/store/ .

Van Evrie concludes that the mulatto progeny of white males and negresses, who then inter-breed with other hybrids, are by the 4th generation "as absolutely sterile as muleism...it may be assumed as the natural and impassable barrier of this abnormal and exceptional being."

He adds that "it is in the female hybrid that this tendency to decay...is most apparent. Many of them are incapable of nourishing or taking care of their offspring, and together with miscarriages and the numerous forms of disease connected with maternity, they are often found to have had a large number of children, not one of whom reached maturity."

An additional burden for our already overstretched NHS, I suggest, should the EU force this strategy on Britain.

Broca found that mulatto offspring of Southern European whites and negroes were more successful in reproduction but where this happened on an appreciable scale, as in Portugal, the result was disastrous after little more than 100 years.

In Racial Realities in Europe, Lothrop Stoddard describes how Portugal was a major sea power in the 16th century.

He then describes how she experienced a drift of her population away from rural areas to the cities, lured by wealth, a constant drain on her manpower by foreign wars and "racial impoverishment...with negro blood," as great landowners imported large gangs of Africans to work the half-deserted countryside and who inevitably intermingled with what remained of the indigenous population.

In little over a century, Portugal degenerated into a minor nation as a direct result of these combined trends.

Britain is degenerating in the same way. 5,500,000 or at least 10% of white Britons now live abroad. Britain continues to haemorrhage her white indigenous population at the rate of over 100,000 a year, to be replaced in over abundance by 300,000 foreign incomers annually. See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6210358.stm

Her available employment, including rural work, is progressively being taken over by foreigners, especially Poles.

Though obviously not of African descent, Poles and other Eastern Europeans are nevertheless not equivalent to the native peoples of the British Isles. They are largely, i.e. 90%+, Alpine Caucasians, not Anglo-Saxon Celtic, or Nordic Caucasians (the Nordic distinction applies to all so-called 'immigrants' to these isles up until and including the Norman i.e. 'North-man,' conquest) and clearly cannot be assimilated without a deleterious effect on Britain's indigenous racial character.

And incomers of African or Afro-Caribbean descent to Britain now number well over 1,000,000 and they are continuing to arrive in large numbers, e.g. Congolese to Norfolk, Somalis to the south-east etc.

This is sufficient for the EU to further its strategy of Britain's ultimate destruction as a nation and a people as outlined above.

Given that white Britons could be a minority in their own country by the year 2066 if present trends continue, the EU could achieve its aim by about the year 2100, or not much later.

Remember Portugal - and that, like Portugal in its final decline, Britain is no longer a major sea power, so the EU destruction of Britain is off to a running start.

Alan O'Reilly
N. Yorks.

Diversity or Deception?

Click the picture to view Diversity or Deception? Part 1 at YouTube

Click here for Part 2

The threat to the Western male

I make no pretense other than that this article is purely speculative, I have no current scientific evidence to support the hypothesis which I shall put before you. However, that is inevitably the way in our current world, if one seeks to examine theories which travel beyond the strictly enforced boundaries of permitted orthodoxy and to question the inflexible dogmas governing currently acceptable truths.

Outside the realms of what is permitted there is no science, there is no research, established doctrines can not be questioned, and no funds are available to support anyone who dares to do so.

Therefore, when asking questions such as those I am about to ask, the only option is to speculate, for in doing so, one has entered a domain where science dare not go. This is hardly surprising, the penalty for transgression can be severe. Cruel examples have been made of those scientists and writers who tried to enter no-man's land, the savaging of Herrnstein and Murray in the 1990's and the more recent reputation destroying demonisation heaped on Nobel Prize winning Dr James Watson for daring to speak against the doctrines of our age, will have warned others of the fate awaiting those who fail to obey.

Therefore, I make no apology for being unable to support my speculation with current science, for we live in an age where were a scientist to provide such support, or even Investigate the possibility, he would, of course, never be permitted to work again.

The topic I wish to discuss, but can not support with scientific data is what may actually be the cause of the falling fertility rates amongst some sections of Western Society. Over recent years none of us can have missed the articles which keep appearing in newspapers and magazines reporting the drop in fertility rates amongst Western Males. A recent report indicated that many as one in five healthy young men between the ages of 18 and 25 produce abnormally low sperm counts.

This report was greeted by the somewhat feigned hysteria by the Daily Mail with the warning that men, as a group, could become infertile within a few generations. Clearly if this were true it would lead to the death of the human race, given that scientists have not yet mastered the manufacture of human sperm from radishes, bananas or ocean plankton, which would enable the continued survival of the Sapphic Utopia which some man haters dream might follow.

However, given exploding birth rates worldwide, it would appear that this phenomenon is only effecting Western males, there is certainly no evidence of falling fertility rates in the third world, in fact, very much the reverse would seem to apply. So, if we are to believe what we are being told, it is among white European males that sperm counts are dropping and fertility problems are increasing, however, is that really what is happening?

The newspaper reports focus on the male, because it is fashionable to belittle men, especially white men, but in fact the report states that the problem with male fertility “starts within the womb”, so, in fact, whatever is going on actually effects both sexes. Something is happening within the pregnant female body which is impacting on the fertility of the male child. What can that be?

Naturally scientists, researching within the parameters in which it is permissible for them to research, are seeking to identify environmental factors.

Of course many were quick to blame science's favourite villain, tobacco. Mothers who smoke, they claimed, were having an effect on the fertility of their unborn male child. However, this claim does not make sense, male infertility is increasing, whist smoking has been on the decline for decades. Smoking mothers did not hinder the baby boomers who were born to a generation who had smoked their way through the war and the (truly) “never had it so good” 1950's. A child born in 1955 was considerably more likely to have a mother who smoked, and smoked through pregnancy, than would be the case with a child born in 1985, yet it is amongst the children born in the late 1980's and 1990's, after smoking mothers became pariahs, that male sperm counts are falling.

In addition, in the same period smoking rates began to grow in the third world, especially in places like China and India where instead of causing fertility problems, the governments have employed progressively more desperate measures to control birth rates. Would the Chinese, amongst the most enthusiastic smokers on the planet, have had to introduce a one child per family rule, if there was a problem with Chinese infertility.

Other scientists have pointed to pollution as a possible cause, however, once again, why is it that the problem if disproportionately impacting on the West when parts of the Far East, for instance, experience far higher levels of “modern day” pollution than most of the West, and have done so for decades, without any evident fall in fertility rates.

Of course there are many other factors which could be at the root of the problem, but in an increasingly globalised world, it would be difficult to identify many environmental factor which exclusively effects a distinct section of Western society. It certainly isn't effecting all Western communities, as the booming growth in the Muslim community demonstrates.

There are, however, behavioural factors, and one behavioural factor in particular which has, in recent decades, impacted on White western society to a significantly greater degree than it has impacted on any other racial group on the planet. That factor is the instance of inter-racial sex and the production of mixed race children.

In no other part of the world have distinct racial groups mixed sexually to anything like the degree they have in the West, at least the White section of the west (Muslim families on the other hand have been known to murder daughters who so much as look at a member of a different race – whereas white girls are all but accused of racism if they do not jump into bed with the first black youth to call them “bitch”).

It is not just the girls, in Europe it is quite common to see a white man with an Asian woman, however, in Asia this is a very rare phenomenon, whilst liaisons between Asians and Africans are all but non-existent . In the Middle East, marrying members of other racial groups is very much a taboo, whereas in Africa, with the exception of the Cape Coloured group of mixed Asians, Africans and whites, interracial sex is almost unheard of, at least on a consensual basis.

It is the racist White Westerners alone who have willingly, and in increasing numbers, mixed their blood with other races, the same is not true in the homelands of those we have been mating with. It is now we, the white westerners who are experiencing fertility problems, whilst birth rates are soaring elsewhere in the world. Is there a connection?.

Scientist working in the Victorian age would have said there was a connection. Towards the end of the 19th Century and well into the early 20th Century it was a commonly held scientific belief, based largely on studies of interaction between whites and freed black slaves in North America, that interbreeding between races led to sterility by the third or fourth generation. Such beliefs have long since been decried as “racist” and few if any are the scientists who would dare voice such an opinion, but does that necessarily mean they were untrue?

There is much which is condemned as racism, not all of it is untrue.

I am, of course, speaking the unspeakable here, but that won't be the first time. The very suggestion that interracial sex could have serious and long term genetic problems is so unacceptable to the zealots of the modern orthodoxy, that no researcher would be permitted to investigate the possibility, and any who merely suggested it would be driven out of the profession.

But what if it is true?

It has long been claimed that race is nothing more than a social construct, however, recent findings suggest that may not be entirely the case. It has recently been discovered that all Europeans and most North Asians have around 4% Neanderthal in their DVA, however, black Africans have no Neanderthal DNA whatsoever. This in itself is evidence of a genetic difference, what else will science discover in future years?

The fact that one in five Western males are experiencing fertility problems would sadly fit with the number who are likely to have have some form of recently introduced mixed race ancestry, however distant, so the suggestion is not so very far fetched.


As I said, this is merely speculation based in an area where modern science fears to tread. As such I have no evidence to support my hypothesis, however, I submit to you that the theory fits the facts and is less easy to dismiss than some more popular explanations.

If it is correct, however, then science may be, for reasons of political correctness, deliberately ignoring a situation, resulting from deliberate government policy, which could not only have a devastating impact on our racial group but could mark the end of Western Society.

Mrs. Cole's night out

This will mean more to UK readers

Source

Spot the victim

These two people met up and moved in together, guess which one is now dead

Full Story

________________
Hat Tip: Dabex

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.