The Lonely Londoners

Alex Kurtagic, American Renaissance, July 26, 2013

WindrushPaper
What it was like for blacks in the 1950s.

Sam Selvon, The Lonely Londoners, (Alan Wingate, 1956; Penguin Modern Classics, 2006), $14.00, 160 pp.

The field of postcolonial studies ostensibly tells the story of European imperialism from the viewpoint of the colonized. While this is a perfectly valid area of study, it is used in Western academic circles to advance a radically egalitarian agenda. The literature serves to embolden and cultivate revanchism among the descendants of former colonial subjects and to burden white students with a sense of collective guilt for the evils of empire.

LonelyLondoners

This has multiple benefits for the Left: It facilitates the colonization of Western countries by colored settlers from the former colonies; it politicizes these settlers, encouraging them not to recognize the indigenous authority and to press for accommodation; and it lowers moral resistance to these processes among the whites.

But it does not have to be this way. We, too, can—and indeed should—provide our own perspectives on this literature. Otherwise, for lack of opposition, the Leftist argument wins by default. As this review will show, even a book written by an “other,” from his perspective, offers much that is helpful to us.

Sam Selvon was a Trinidadian author, best known for his novel, The Lonely Londoners. Born in San Fernando in 1923, he was the son of Indian immigrants from Madras, though his paternal grandmother was Anglo-Scottish. In the 1950s, at the age of 15, he moved to London, where he lived for 20 or so years, before moving to Canada and, finally, returning to Trinidad.

Sam Selvon

Sam Selvon

Published in 1956, The Lonely Londoners was the first novel to tell the story of the daily lives of the West Indian (Afro-Caribbean) immigrants of the “Windrush generation,” so named after the British troopship, MV Empire Windrush, which in June 1948 brought nearly 500 Jamaicans to the United Kingdom. This migration was made possible by the British Nationality Act of 1948, passed during Clement Attlee’s Labour government, which granted British citizenship and full rights of entry to all people living in Commonwealth countries. At that time the British government was encouraging mass migration to fill shortages in the labor market arising from the losses of World War II. The Lonely Londoners is an important book in the field of postcolonial studies.

It is not, however, a diatribe of post-colonial ressentiment. It is an amusing novel, written in creolised English, about the often comical adventures of a handful of Afro-Caribbean characters.

The story begins on a foggy, winter evening, with the Trinidadian Moses Aloetta. A veteran settler, he had been asked to meet an immigrant from Trinidad arriving that day at Waterloo Station, about whom he knows nothing, except his name: Henry Oliver. At the station, he meets Tolroy, another Jamaican settler, who is there to greet his mother, also arriving that evening. As Tolroy scans the passengers getting off the train, he is in for a surprise:

A old woman who look like she would dead any minute come out of carriage, carrying a cardboard box and a paper bag. When she get out the train she stand up there on the platform as if she confuse. Then after she stand a young girl come, carrying a flour bag filled up with things. Then a young man wearing a widebrim hat and a jacket falling below the knees. Then a little boy and a little girl, then another old woman, tottering so much a guard had was to help she get out the train. (p. 8)

Tolroy is livid.

‘Oh Jesus Christ,’ Tolroy say, ‘what is this at all?’

‘Tolroy,’ the first woman say, ‘you don’t know your own mother?’

Tolroy hug his mother like a man in a daze, then he say: ‘But what Tanty Bessy doing here, ma? and Agnes and Lewis and the two children?’

‘All of we come, Tolroy,’ Ma say. ‘This is how it happen: when you write home to say you getting five pounds a week Lewis say, “Oh God, I going England tomorrow.” Well Agnes say she not staying at home alone with children, so all of we come.’

‘And what about Tanty?’

‘Well you know how old your Tanty getting, Tolroy, is a shame to leave she alone to dead in Kingston with nobody to look after she.’

‘Ah, you see what I tell you?’ Tanty say to the mother, ‘you see how ungrateful he is? I would go back to Jamaica right now,’ and she make as if she going back inside the train. (p. 9)

Tanty, of course, is staying, as are all the others, and Tolroy, staggering in dismay and disbelief, now has a troop of relatives in London with nowhere to stay.

Soon Moses’ charge arrives:

Moses watch Henry coming up the platform, and he have a feeling that this couldn’t be the fellar that he come to meet, for the test [guy] have on a old grey tropical suit and a pair of watchekong [canvas-soled tennis shoes] and no overcoat or muffler or gloves or anything for the cold, so Moses sure is some test who living in London a long, long time and accustom to the beast winter. Even so, he really had to feel the fellar, for as the evening advancing it getting colder and colder and Moses stamping he foot as he stand up there.

The fellar, as soon as he see Moses, walk straight up to him and say, ‘Ah, I bet you is Moses!’

Moses say, ‘Yes.’

‘Ah,’ Henry say, looking about the desolate station as if he in an exhibition hall on a pleasant summer evening, Frank did say you would come to meet me in Waterloo. My name Henry Oliver.’

‘You not feeling cold, old man?’ Moses say, eyeing the specimen with amazement, for he himself have on long wool underwear and a heavy fireman coat that he pick up in Portobello Road.

‘No,’ Henry say, looking surprise. ‘This is the way the weather does be in the winter? It not so bad, man. In fact I feeling little warm.’

‘Jesus Christ,’ Moses say. ‘What happen to you, you sick or something?’

‘Who, me? Sick? Ha-ha, you making joke!’

Moses watch the specimen again suspiciously.

‘You must be have on bags of wool under that suit,’ he say. ‘You can’t fool a old test like me.’

‘What you making so much fuss about?’ Henry say, opening his shirt to show bare skin underneath. ‘This is a nice climate, boy. You feeling cold?’

‘Take it easy,’ Moses say, deciding to wait and see how things would develop with this strange character. ‘Get your luggage and we will go. Tonight you could stay by me, but tomorrow I might shift from my room and go upstairs, and I will see if I could fix up with the landlord for you to take my room.’

‘Whenever you ready,’ Henry say.

‘Where your luggage?’

‘What luggage? I ain’t have any. I figure is no sense to load up myself with a set of things. When I start work I will buy some things.’

Now Moses is a veteran, who living in this country for a long time, and he met all sorts of people and do all sorts of things, but he never thought the day would come when a fellar would land up from the sunny tropics on a powerful winter evening wearing a tropical suit and saying that he ain’t have no luggage.

‘You mean you come from Trinidad with nothing?’

‘Well the old toothbrush always in the pocket,’ Henry pat the jacket pocket, ‘and I have on a pair of pyjamas. Don’t worry, I will get fix up as soon as I start work.’ (pp. 12-14).

Moses’ astonishment only grows when he finds that Henry has arrived with only £3 in his pocket, having gambled away £2 on the train:

‘All right Sir Galahad,’ Moses say, ‘Take it easy. London will do for you before long. Come, we will catch the tube as you ain’t have any luggage.’

Thus it was that Henry Oliver Esquire, alias Sir Galahad, descend on London to swell the population by one, and eight and a half months later it had a Galahad junior in Ladbroke Grove and all them English people stopping in the road and admiring the baby curly hair when the mother pushing it in the pram as she go shopping for rations. (p. 15)

CaribbeanImmigrants

Afro-Caribbean immigrants arrive at Waterloo station (1964).

That sets the tone for the rest of the novel. Sir Galahad is shown the ropes, and Moses remains the axis around which revolves a small constellation of amiable hustlers. One is Lewis, who gets a job in a factory. Told that his wife is “giving him the horn” while he is at work, he beats her regularly until she files for divorce. Tanty proves the archetypal big black mamma—bossy, loud, proud, nagging, and funny—she eventually persuades—or bullies—the local grocer into extending credit to the entire neighborhood. There is Captain, or Cap, a Nigerian who refuses to work. He swindles landlords out of their rent and his endless white girlfriends fund his food, drink, and cigarettes. And there is the weed-smoking fellow from Barbados, Five Past Twelve, so called because he was darker than midnight. And there is, inevitably, the self-important Harris, who speaks in polished Standard English and tries to be more English than the English:

. . . when he dress, you think is some Englishman going to work in the city, bowler and umbrella, and briefcase tuck under the arm, with The Times fold up in the pocket so the name would show, and he walking upright like if is he alone who alive in the world. Only thing, Harris face black. (p. 103)

Harris, who is status-conscious in an English, middle-class way, worries about how his easy-going, roguish, and nearly uncontrollable peers could reflect badly on him or on the West Indian community as a whole. This they do in short order:  At a “fête” Harris organizes, where he stresses to the others the importance of being well-behaved on account of his having “distinguished” guests, the others smoke weed, get boisterously drunk, and get into a brawl.

In all cases, the motivation for settling in Britain is economic. Yet, the glamour of life in the Imperial capital is also part of the allure. Once Sir Galahad has found work and has suits in his wardrobe and a white girlfriend, he delights in telling Moses that he is meeting his girl in Piccadilly Circus, or some other iconic, world-renowned location.

Nevertheless, the lives of these “fellars” are grim. They live in dismal, smelly, cramped bedsits, hostels, or small hotels. When they work, they have factory jobs. When they are unemployed, they either hustle, sponge off friends and girlfriends, or go hungry. At one point, Sir Galahad is forced to snatch a pigeon in Kensington Gardens, and Cap survives for a time on the seagull population on the roof above his bedsit.

Most importantly, they are collectively an island, socially cut off from the rest of the metropolis, which is itself a compendium of social islands.

It have people living in London who don’t know what happening in the room next to them, far more the street, or how other people living. London is a place like that. It divide up in little worlds, and you stay in the world you belong to and you don’t know anything about what happening to the other ones except what you read in the papers.

They find the English cold, suspicious, and fearful, and the urban experience of being alone among multitudes is strange to them. So are the subterfuges of employers, landlords, and hoteliers who pretend the job or room they had advertised has already been filled the moment they see a black face. The “fellars” would almost prefer open discrimination, 1950s American style, for at least everyone knows where he stands.

“We only want to get by, we don’t even want to get [along],” says Sir Galahad (p. 77). (The United States, incidentally, is spoken of with fearful awe, as a terrible place where blacks have it extraordinarily bad.) Strangest of all, of course, is the British climate: freezing cold winters, with dark days, long nights, fog, rain, and grey misery, which only aggravates the settlers’ loneliness.

The settlers are baffled by British civism: at the Underground stations, commuters pick up their copies of the Evening Standard and leave payment on the table, even though it is unattended, and stealing would go unpunished. Women have rights, and can take wife-beaters to court. And the British state even provides a safety net for the unemployed—though the incredulous West Indians see this as an invitation to get by without working.

The settlers are also baffled by British democracy: It astonishes them that the public can criticize the government and publicly express all manner of opinions. As they settle in, they soon learn to support Labour and in some cases the Socialist Worker’s Party, but it is clear that British politics are very remote and disconnected from their lives.

The Labour movement, which at the time focused on the working class, seems almost irrelevant to the black settlers. They think in racial terms, and feel that the Marxist class struggle is the white man’s business. Black settlers would say that race was the more important issue.

Though mere shadows, politically, the settlers are well aware of the rising disquiet in British society over their rapidly growing presence:

the English people starting to make rab about how much West Indians coming to the country: this was a time, when any corner you turn, is ten to one you bound to bounce up a spade. In fact, the boys all over London, it ain’t have a place where you wouldn’t find them, and big discussion going on in Parliament about the situation, though the old Brit’n too diplomatic to clamp down on the boys or to do anything drastic like stop them coming to the Mother Country. But big headlines in the papers every day . . . (p. 2)

Jamaicans walking in Brixton, London. The graffiti stands for "Keep Britain White" (1952).

Jamaicans walking in Brixton, London. The graffiti stands for “Keep Britain White” (1952).

Not so worried are the Jewish tailors, who are portrayed as eager for business, though some are also described as unscrupulous predators. As in all large, multicultural cities, there is rapacity between ethnic groups.

Thus, the settlers develop a collective identity based on their race and the fact that they are far from home. Every Sunday morning they visit Moses, ask him questions, share a meal, borrow money, smoke, swap stories, keep track of each other, and engage in ‘oldtalk’ about their native islands. Theirs is a tight, racially-based community and support network that transcends nationality.

Perhaps the only point of intersection with British society, besides jobs and money, are the white girls, of which there seem to be plenty for all, a fact spoken about with wonder even in the far-flung tropical islands. We learn that back in Trinidad, Sir Galahad was told, “Boy, it have bags of white pussy in London, and you will eat until you tired” (p. 79). Yet, these girls are treated merely as objects of sex and conquest, or else, as wallets. They—or rather, their legs, which for part of the year are concealed by the winter coats—are mostly spoken about as something that is ogled and coveted from a distance.

Even when white women appear as dates or girlfriends, they are always at one remove—always ‘other,’ something exotic, remote. We learn nothing about their feelings, aspirations, or opinions—not even what they look like, except in one case; we only learn that they are white and English, or French, or German. A white girl may, indeed, be referred to merely as “skin.” They are, essentially, trophies for the black men—they are simple sources of status. Neither do we learn why these white women are so plentifully available; we do learn, however, that the black men were seen as a threat by the natives, and that when a relationship results in inter-racial children, these attract curiosity in the street and taunts in the playground.

Much of this low-intensity native hostility is accepted by the West Indians as a matter of course, but it occasionally perplexes them. At one point, Sir Galahad wonders what it is that West Indians want that whites find it so hard to give; from his perspective, he only wants some upward mobility—not much, but enough to have a roof over his head, food in his cupboard, money in his bank account, and a “frauline” on his arm. Yet, it seems the British would rather see a black man starve than let a pigeon go hungry.

The fruit of the Windrush generation riot in Brixton in 1981,

The fruit of the Windrush generation riot in Brixton in 1981.

Sir Galahad decides the problem is not him, but the color black. It would seem, then, that this is the first stage in a process that leads to the formation of a Harris: once a black man sees his negritude as a barrier to money and status, he is split, unable physically to escape his negritude, but yearning to become as white as possible in every other way. But Harris tries too hard, has only a superficial understanding of whiteness, and becomes only a very style-conscious dandy with semi-archaic mannerisms and an acute consciousness of how other blacks may expose the lie through stereotypical black behavior.

The long-term prospects for the West Indians are ambiguous. In some cases, despite all the petty miseries they endure, they end up not wanting to go home. In other cases, they neither plan nor want to stay, but find themselves trapped, working dead-end jobs, unable to save enough money to buy return tickets. Time passes and they become accustomed to the strange pattern of life in London, and continue to postpone the decision to go home.

The end of the novel finds Moses reflecting on the decade he has spent in London, nostalgic for his native Trinidad. He knows he must one day return, and fears the prospect of getting old in London, as others have, only to end up alone and destitute, picking up cigarette butts on the platforms of Underground stations. For the unassimilable outsider, immigration ends in disillusionment.

Immigrants riot in London, 2011.

2011: Immigrants riot in London.

What is perhaps most interesting about The Lonely Londoners is that it offers white readers a good-natured but refreshingly frank account that confirms many of the perceptions whites have of African and West Indian settlers. However, using this merely to point out the truth behind certain stereotypes would be trite.

What is most valuable are the insights Selvon provides into the settler experience in the period after the war. This may be a novel, but it is also a historical document.

First, it is clear that the black settlers of the Windrush generation saw Britain fundamentally as a resource: a wallet, a source of status, and a harem of white girls ready to be conquered. And who could argue with that? The white man had given them the go ahead, and enshrined it in law.

Jamaican immigrants welcomed off the Windrush.

Jamaican immigrants welcomed off the Windrush.

Second, it is clear that white Britons were increasingly alarmed by the influx of Afro-Caribbean settlers. The politicians in the novel are locked in ineffectual parliamentary debate, but many ordinary Britons improvised subtle strategies to keep blacks out of their own local environment. Casual racism, however, was clearly not enough to deter further immigration, let alone encourage emigration.

Third, it is clear that Moses’s disillusionment stems from an inability to fit into a society that, even after a decade of residence, remains strange and unnatural for a black settler. At best he either gets used to it, developing survival strategies, or learns to imitate superficial aspects of it. British men remains remote, inaccessible, incomprehensible, like a creature from another world—an obstacle to be avoided. White women, though seemingly available, are almost completely dehumanized—they remain psychologically at a distance, even while in a relationship.

Finally—and this we can deduce from historical developments after the novel—it is clear that the only long-term solution has been to fundamentally change British society. Once white Leftists realized race opened a new front in their struggle for ever greater equality, and once black settlers realized they had political support among white Leftists, the settlers welcomed the initial concessions and pressed for more, eventually becoming Leftist theorists, campaigners, and legislators in their own right. We have seen across the West how quickly settlers of color master the language of radical egalitarianism, clearly emboldened by the fact that even conservatives dare not speak against it.

None of the above are original conclusions, of course. We have known this for decades. But the fact that our conclusions can all be derived from the recorded experience of black settlers rather than from ‘racist’ speeches by Enoch Powell shows that the arguments of whites who value their own societies are not delusions. Dispossession is unpleasant, and the push for ever more intrusive polices shows the degree to which no one is really happy.

Powell

This leads to the ethics of egalitarianism, which is what justifies current race-related policies and also makes it hard to argue against them. Through egalitarianism, we both fail to value our uniqueness and to recognize difference in the Other. The Other is well aware of this difference, but has learned that paying lip service to egalitarianism in our part of the world is a good survival strategy while they are here, since it leads to concessions. These, of course, never end, since, from the Other’s perspective, there is no reason to stop at equality when more is available. Egalitarianism thus perpetuates an exploitative relationship, and transfers privilege from one group onto another. The path to mutual respect and dignity is the recognition of difference, not the pretense of equality.

Topics: , , ,

Share This

Alex Kurtagic
Alex Kurtagic is a publisher, cultural commentator, novelist, musician, and artist. He is the author of the dystopian novel, Mister (Iron Sky Publishing, 2009), the founder and director of Supernal Music, and editor-in-chief of Wermod and Wermod Publishing Group.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Spartacus

    “Once white Leftists realized race opened a new front in their struggle
    for ever greater equality, and once black settlers realized they had
    political support among white Leftists, the settlers welcomed the
    initial concessions and pressed for more, eventually becoming Leftist
    theorists, campaigners, and legislators in their own right. We have seen
    across the West how quickly settlers of color master the language of
    radical egalitarianism, clearly emboldened by the fact that even
    conservatives dare not speak against it.”

    ———————————————————————————————————————

    In other news, me and a few of my buddies went crow-hunting today. We did it in broad daylight. No one said a word to us, even though we did it in front of witnesses, mostly other Romanians. People are starting to understand the truth, and they’re not interfering with those of us who do something about it, so I’m optimistic. So the “conservatives” who “dare not speak” about the scum are growing thinner, while the ranks of true men are getting thicker. Get prepared my brothers, the day is coming.

    • Ed_NY

      Good for you and your friends. I hope your hunt went very well!

      • Spartacus

        We got 15 of them, so yeah , it was pretty good .

  • David Ashton

    A typically lucid exposition and accurate comment that saves anyone from buying the book. This is a problem that has engaged my attention from London boyhood in the 1950s to the present catastrophe of top-down totalitarian enforcement of “equality and diversity” legislation of cultural-marxist origin. The white leftists soon latched on to the immigrants as susceptible revolutionary cannon-fodder, with a shared opposition among embarrassed liberal politicians, to the “racism” of the indigenous resistance. “Here to stay, here to fight!” was one key slogan. “Only whites can be racist” was another. Those of us who felt at the time that KBW was unduly “offensive” and counter-productive now look back with wry regret.

    The full story of the Self confronted by the Other has yet to be published. For too many the Other is now the Self.

    • Sick of it

      Was what he said about the white women in Britain true for the 1950s? In America, at the same time, such women would have been seen as the lowliest of creatures and face complete social exile.

      • Spartacus

        It couldn’t just be dark-skins lying and then bragging about it, because that never happens…

        • Sick of it

          Everything they say to put us down is vindicated by our lack of response or even encouragement of their behaviors. Our people were once very different.

      • David Ashton

        At that time any such women were mostly of low social status and looks, or actually common prostitutes. Though we did not have the segregation history of the US or experience of large numbers of blacks inside our imperial metropolis, there were a few tiny crossbred communities here and there in dockside areas. There was a strong resistance at all class levels to miscegenation which was considered socially scandalous, and temporarily discouraged by landlady discrimination and then popular media hostility. Such opposition was very noticeable in the Notting Hill unrest and as Oswald Mosley wrote shortly afterwards, “There are exceptions, but in general it is only the trash that seeks to mix.”

        US desegration and the anti-apartheid movement worked to undermine the opposition. Scientific investigation of crossbreeding was effectively closed down from the mid-1960s.

        There was a collapse in general resistance that I would date to the early 1970s, as a result of emergent anti-racist laws and propaganda on one hand, and the growing black presence in entertainment, pop music, the dance and clubbing scene on the other. Whereas it was once considered “not done” to have interracial “sex”, it is now considered “not done” publicly to oppose it.

        • Sick of it

          I’d have to concur re: the 70s being a buckling point because that’s exactly when everything started to shift in the U.S. The 70s was also when “American” culture became popular all over the world where it previously had been shunned (including the more conservative Middle East).

        • KingKenton

          Scientific investigation of crossbreeding was effectively closed down from the mid-1960s

          This is something I have been meaning to read up on. Is there evidence that cross-breeding has negative consequences? My own observation is that people whose lineage contains extensive cross-breeding have a look about them that is not “normal”.

          • CaptainCroMag

            Many talk about hybrid vigor, but there is the other side to it, which is called out breeding depression, a very real biological occurrence. Basically, when groups from two very different sub-species(Blacks and Whites) breed, they are creating new genetic combinations that have not been tested through the trials of nature.

          • Bossman

            What trials of nature? Give some examples. We know that cross-breeding works very well for horses and dogs too.

          • David Ashton

            Try crossing a racehorse with a carthorse or a donkey.

            “That the greater the genetic distance between breeding groups the more serious the developmental difficulty is indisputable. But that the racial intermixture among men transcends the critical threshold indicated by Stockard’s studies of mixed mating among dogs [q.v.] is very doubtful” (Prof. Ilse Schwidetzky, 1967).

          • Bossman

            A donkey is very distant from a horse. That is why they can only be bred with difficulty and the offspring which is a mule is generally infertile. lions and tigers can also be cross-bred but doesn’t happen in normal situtions. No such situation exists with humans.

          • Romulus

            Precisely!

          • Bossman

            When you say offspring of cross-breeding have “a look that is not normal,” what do you mean by that? I should remind you that here in America, some of the most good-looking people in the movies, have racial mixtures in their backgrounds. I can even supply you with a long list of such movie stars.

          • David Ashton

            That’s why they are selected as movie stars. The general population is another matter. Crossing creates a variety or jumble of phenotypes, including human “mutts” who may be cuddly (or not) but would not win a beauty competition (assuming these have their traditional “racist/sexist” criteria).

          • KingKenton

            I was speaking of persons who are the product of multi-generational interracial breeding across multiple racial groups. Not to just one generation.

            In as far as some people of mixed race being attractive… I would guess that would be between a nice looking white female and a non-white male. I would point out that the child would had been much better looking had the white female paired with a nice looking white man.

          • Bossman

            The singer Rihanna was born in Barbados. She is a mixture of Black, East Indian and Irish. She is rich and talented and could even be described as pretty by some. The American singer and entertainer Beyonce was recently voted as most beautiful woman in the world. She is a mixture of Black, French, Hispanic and American Indian (Cherokee). The great Iconic beauty of American cinema, Elizabeth Taylor was really a mixture of Jewish, Spanish, Portuguese, Iranian and Native American.

          • David Ashton

            Now personally I don’t find these three artificially boosted celebrities particularly beautiful, though one of them has a crude raw sex appeal. My own female triple movie choice would be Naomi Watts, Scarlett Johanssen and Julie Delpy. However, the point is that mixed-race individuals are not all lovely-looking. Many blacks and Indians rate western/white beauty as superior to their own, or at any rate prefer lighter skin and minimal prognathism.

          • Wethepeople

            Of course she was voted most beautiful…by the exact people pushing miscegenation.

          • David Ashton

            A response as brief as possible to an extremely complicated question.

            1.Miscellaneous observations of various negative consequences from the Victorian age through to the period just after WW2 have been dismissed as racist, anecdotal or environmental, usually explained away as the consequence only of poor quality individual matings or of social prejudice against mulatto life chances.

            2.J.C.Trevor, author of “Race Crossing in Man” (1953), suggested in a subsequent sixties article in “Chambers Encyclopedia” that adverse biological and social consequences of crossing remained controversial, but problems that could have been objectively investigated in many target zones, such as Brazil, soon became politically unfashionable or worse. See also William B. Provine, “Genetics & the Biology of Race Crossing,” Science, 182 (4114), 1973, pp.790-6 (maybe still on-line and quoted by the pro-miscegenist Jayne O. Ifekwunigwe, “Mixed Race Studies” [2004]).

            3.The last major review of evidence, before leftist “scientists” pushed the idea that “race” was anyhow illusory, was from Kenneth F. Dyer, “The Biology of Racial Integration” (1974) which defends (absurdly in my view) mass-miscegenation as furthering evolutionary progress, but seems to acknowledge blackxwhite disharmony in dental malformation (at least) and the adverse eventual impact on intellectual levels of panmixia between groups of very different average IQs (though his statistics are more favorable to his theme than those calculated by the eugenicist Julian Huxley).

            4. The question of physical and mental disharmony and outbreeding depression when genetically widely different groups, such as west Africans and north Europeans, are crossed, raised repeatedly in earlier literature, is important and worth investigating on “medical” grounds alone. The late Glayde Whitney was one writer who suggested that some health problems among US “blacks” could be caused by systemic weakness bequeathed by miscegenation. There are a few minor problems with specific Basque outcrossing, White-Chinese hybridization, sickle cell anaemia, etc.

            5. Race mixture increases the frequency of trait variation, and in the early stages produces not a uniform but a hodge-podge of traits. The problem is that the equilibrium disturbed by wide outcrossing is the result of climatic and other adaptations of the original geographic populations; and this is problematic with -respect to immediate and also long-term enviromental selection. It might be better to retain primary race variations rather than to put “all the eggs in one basket” (Garrett Hardin) or in a singe global polymorphic mixture that can never be unscrambled. So while some intermarriage between closely related Nordics and Mediterraneans of good health and intelligence might be a positive development, a happily only “theoretical” mass-miscegenation between (say) Congolese Pygmies and the North Chinese would be ridiculous.

          • KingKenton

            Thanks for the detailed response. You touched on some of the areas I was specifically thinking of.

          • Bossman

            You’ve not answered the question. A Congolese Pygmy and a North Chinese person may not care for each that much but they can still mate and produce a viable offspring that can be very fertile. This means that they are of the same species and are mere variants of each other. It is only since the discovery of the Americas that very different races have been able to meet and mate with each other. What is desirable in humans is a matter of personal taste.

          • David Ashton

            It is reasonable to assume that all human subspecies are interfertile because of their chromosome similarity, though the example I gave has not been experimentally tested to my best knowledge. There may be natural birth problems where M/F height disparity is extreme. Many geneticists have taken the fertility barrier as defining the term species; others not, e.g. R. R. Gates and even C.H. Waddington (“An Australian aborigine, a Chinaman and a West European differ as much from each other as do many related species of monkeys”).

            In crudest summary, the human raciation into five basically different subspecies gradually came to end after1500 CE, otherwise evolution might have developed several separate “post”-human species. But crossing of these intermediate climatically adapted populations can be expected to give rise to assorted disharmonies which do not prevent fertility per se but could impair health.

          • Bossman

            “Assorted disharmonies”….could impair health.” None of that has been proven at this time. And nobody knows for sure. Most people seem to gain some advantage when they are racially mixed.

          • Wethepeople

            Yes you and your motley crew of race traitors remove another viable partner from my race; meanwhile, the offspring has a significantly lower iq than a pure bred Caucasian. The
            notion of hybrid vigour has been established as a truism since Darwin
            discussed it. Now we know that “racial” hybrids of dogs are often in a
            worse general condition than purebreeds. In case of true hybrids of
            species, they are “not problem free”:

            “The concept of hybrid vigor assumes that a crossbred animal (and this
            term is most often used in discussing dogs) will be healthier than a
            purebred. In reality, this is often false.” […] Hybrids are not
            problem free. In Ligers, no fertile male has ever been found and
            necropsies have proven sterility in them. Other issues in ligers and
            tigons: ligers may be prone to gigantism and tigons may be prone to
            dwarfism. Both hybridizations have shown an increase in cancer rates
            and decrease in lifespan. (Tiger Territory, M. Annabell, 2001). In
            wolf/dog hybrids, there are often behavioral issues. The domestic dog
            differs greatly in behavior from a wolf. Dogs were bred to be
            cooperative with humans while wolves fear humans and try to avoid us.
            Even domestic Wolves are far different from dog in terms of behavior.
            Dogs often accept leadership happily while adult wolves will fight for
            leadership within the pack. The wolf/dog hybrid can be a time bomb
            temperamentally when they hit full maturity. Wolves also differ from
            dogs in other ways including: skull structure, nutritional needs,
            estrus cycles, etc. (Canine Hybrid Issues Surrounding the Wolf Dog ,
            M. Sloan, J. Moore Porter, 2001)”

            Furthermore, my 1yr old Blue Tick has caught 13 raccoons so far this summer, find me a mutt that can smell, track, chase down, and kill something that efficiently and we can talk. Start using facts instead of self-hating ant white slander.

          • David Ashton

            There has unfortunately been no proper and extensive investigation of this probability for over half a century. Likewise, of the assertion that most racially mixed people have gained significant or compensatory advantages. The Mendelian inheritance process has been known for decades (see e.g. S. J. Holmes, “Studies in Evolution and Eugenics”, [NY 1923] pp.223-4).

            “Hybridization between people of different races need not be expected to lead to an improvement, because both races will probably have adopted the well-balanced genetic constitution that matches their own environments…[it might in the long run] produce a more versatile genetic structure than before. But we cannot be sure” (Sir Peter Medawar, [Reith Lecture, 1959]).

            I had a personal correspondence with field researcher Gates (“Race Crossing in Man”, [Rome 1962]) about this before he died, and he remained adamant that black x white outcrossing was disharmonic.

            Largely as a reaction to Nazi research (Abel, Fischer, Lenz, &c) there has been a political reversal, first to claim that “races” are “equal” and then to deny their existence altogether, followed by a media campaign to encourage irreversible wide outcrossing, and to isolate, suppress or vilify dissenters.
            .

          • Bossman

            “Disharmonic” is a very vague and subjective term. In a racist white society, a mulatto might feel very uncomfortable but that doesn’t mean he couldn’t be healthier and more intelligent than average.

          • David Ashton

            I have already alluded indirecty to the discomfort and discrimination that mixed-race persons have felt in predominantly single-race societies, and which has been used by anti-racist propagandists as ther “vague and subjective” overall explanation for discordant behavior – hence the old argument that children might feel torn between two ethnicities and that mixed marriages are therefore unduly stressful for them. However, it also happens that mixed-race persons, especially the darker-skinned suffer informal social penalties even in officially non-racist societies, like Brazil, where a loose pigmentocracy develops.

            But the disharmonic traits to which I refer, and which still need objective and extensive investigation, are those likely to arise from the scattering in subsequent generations of genes inherited from different parent populations. These may be quite minor, and not necessarily more severe in the F1 than those from otherwise incompatible same-race parents, but may “tax the organism”. I am away from my desk at the moment, as they say, but if memory serves greater susceptibility to TB has been reported of mixed communities as distant as northern Europe and the western Cape. I wonder if the high proportion of mental illness reported of West Indian immigrants in Britain may not be explicable solely by culture shock, “racist doctors” or cannabis ingestion, but discordant features in the nervous system resulting from previous crossing; I may be completely mistaken, but only an impartial scientific investigation could ascertain the facts.

            As for IQ, this will vary from individual to individual, but generally the average will fall roughly half-way between the parental communities; see e.g. Arthur R. Jensen, “Genetic and behavioral effects of nonrandom mating,” in R. Travis Osborne et al (eds) “Human Variation” (NY 1978), pp.51-105.

          • Bossman

            There’s natural selection and sexual selection in nature. Humans beings are endowed with conceptual thought so therefore they can bend the rules to their taste. There’s going to be a lot of cross-breeding of the races in the future because more often than not it produces attractive and fertile women.

          • David Ashton

            I agree with all your statements, except for your explanation that the production of attractive female offspring (and I have noted your personal taste in this matter) is the driving motive. However, our future human evolution depends on our concepts, and I would side with Julian Huxley, Raymond Cattell and John Glad rather than you. Global panmixia would be a fatal catastrophe because of its irreversibility, but that won’t happen unless the world is controlled by the precise opposite of a Nazi dictatorship.

          • Bossman

            When people are free to choose a mate, it will always be towards what is most attractive, most healthy and most productive. I don’t understand what you mean by “global panmixia.”

          • David Ashton

            (1) Not “always” ! “Amor” vincit omnia.
            (2) Hereditary efects in the ancestral lines can reappear or recombine in subsequent generations.
            (3) Global panmixia is random universal hybridization between hitherto largely distinctive mating groups.
            (4) Hypothetically it could, after an extremely long period only, breed out original specializations such as adaptation to specific climates, including the higher inherited intelligence of the northern races.

            More later.

          • Bossman

            Human evolution is not yet over and certain groups of people may disappear, and global hybridization may allow for a truly superior type to emerge.

          • David Ashton

            What are the selective forces you envisage to work on mutations and or remove certain groups of people?
            When and how and why are such groups exempt from the global mix?
            Why should global mixture produce a superior type to emerge without deliberate selection, genetic counselling or social control, and the prevention of reproduction of “inferior” types?
            Evolution has been primarily a process of differentiation and brachiation, whereas you seem to advocate a contrary process.

          • Bossman

            A key determinant is female sexual attractiveness and maybe coupled with intelligence. In evolution the differentiation is the result of natural selection and that has to do with the environment and climate. Brachiation is all about sexual selection over long periods of time. At this time in history, I’m pinning my hopes on America. The American continent is now a great lab for race mixing and only the future will tell.

          • David Ashton

            In the future we are all dead. Mass-miscegenation cannot be readily reversed among humans once it has occurred, if realised as a mistake.
            Different cultures have different views of female attractiveness. Also, beautiful Swedes and beautiful Nigerians would not necessarily produce beautiful offspring.
            How can we ensure that those with the most harmonious features and (hardly less important, in future) intelligence produce more like kind than those who are relatvely ugly and stupid?
            Meanwhile, we can compare the experiment in Brazil with that in the southern cone.
            “Some of the most talented populations in the world have abstained from extensive inter-marriage with those of other groups…the Jews, the Copts, the Icelanders and the Parsis,” Dr David Rife, ex-Professor of Genetics at Ohio State University, member of the Genetics Society of Egypt, &c, author of “Hybrids” (1965) and “Myth of the Melting Pot” (1954).

            With respect, I think you have bypassed rather than answered most of my questions.

          • Bossman

            Your questions are all hypothetical and cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. And you don’t know the answers to the questions that you posed. What is best for human beings? Who should select what is best for human beings? What an ideal person should look like? What is the epitome of human female attractiveness? You’ve your views and taste and I’ve mine.

          • David Ashton

            Surely no more “hypothetical” than your own. I agree that governments should limit immigration from alien cultures. We could try separate ethnocultural experiments rather than a universal hodge-podge, as suggested by Raymond Cattell.

            The question of what “an ideal person should look like” on a future integrated planet is more one to ask yourself, not me.

            I think we could broadly agree over medical heath – who goes to hospital today – and hereditary factors; e.g. Israeli marital counselling against Tay-Sachs.

            What about intellectual problem-solving capacities (e.g. the mental difference between D sets and A sets in school), which have an hereditary component? These will be more important in the future.

            The unemployabilty of multiplying third world urban male youths is something which the political Left is exploiting. We need a policy too.

          • Sean

            No, because global intelligence would plummet. The dumb races outnumber the smart, ergo global intelligence would go down the tubes.

            Besides, there would be no more individual cultures. We would just be a smelly brown stain on the planet.

          • Romulus

            Yes of course it does. Sickle cell,aspergers,etc. How would turning Britain into a mulatto haven have a positive effect?

        • Romulus

          The parallels between your left and ours is unmistakable. America really did a great job to it’s motherland. Hindsight is 20/20, as the saying goes. Free societies allow all manner of revolutionaries to operate. When the host nation favors a baseless egalitarianism overs the very simple logic of the deleterious effects that come with mass foreign invasion, it will die. An unbelievably epic tragedy. Why in the world we’re whites so willing to kill there own race and then allow the domination by the other two? The sixties obviously affected the entire West. Once we become the victims, will we then be able to Marshall the strength to save our nations? Time will tell.

          • David Ashton

            True, the “sixities” were a turning-point, mostly in the wrong direction. But we have to get together throughout our shared “white world”, recapture the moral and intellectual high ground, and work to alter our prospective fate.

          • Romulus

            Bossman reminds me of your typical leftist college fool, who only recently graduated college and Jacobs been indoctrinated in only liberal thinking,is only armed with knowledge and not wisdom. Young people always believe themselves smarter than their elders and forbears.”There is not a truth existing that I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world” Thomas Jefferson

          • David Ashton

            Youth can also be rebellious and we should try to enlist this instinct to show them how they have been tricked by old men with ulterior motives.

          • Romulus

            Absolutely. It will take some time to undo the social engineering. However, the faster the push from the left, the greater the backlash from the right.

      • sbuffalonative

        From what I see, too many women are motived by three drives.

        They’re driven by their emotions. They’re compelled to take pity on anyone they see as needing help. This makes them easily influenced by people who know how to play on emotions for political gain.

        Some too often fall in love with the potential they foolish see in a man and not the man himself. This is the ‘I can change him’ syndrome.

        Others, like men, are driven by strong sexual urges. Too many women are attracted to ‘bad boys’ and the excitement they experience.

        Unfortunately, woman don’t seem to grasp the fact that they can get pregnant and will be burdened for life by children they may not have anticipated while the man can just walk away.

        Not all women, mind you, but enough to cause problems for themselves, their families, and society.

  • Puggg

    I’m glad for Mr. Kurtagic’s review. Because there was no way I was going to read a book written in essentially mid-20th century British/Afro-Caribbean Ebonics that essentially endorses all the stereotypes about the black undertow that I already know. The more things change…

    • Ed_NY

      …the more they stay the same.

  • YourMOMA

    Have these people brought any skills with them from Jamaica? I don’t care if they brought the entire running team or basketball team, these people brought nothing into European society.

    The problem with the left and their ideology stems from their desire on taking over politics as we know it. Just one political movement controlling a country based on popular vote elections. The popular vote, of course, comes from voters that only want to receive free housing, free education, free food, and free money. Immigrants that bring no real benefit are more likely to vote for left party movement versus a conservative party or even libertarian. As more 3rd world immigrants come into England, France, Norway, and Sweden there will be a constant domination of one party system.

    • MikeofAges

      By the time they win total power, there will be nothing left to rule. One man, one vote, one time. Or some variation of that idea. Maybe an insuperable majority for one generation. And then what, when there is not enough productivity left to fund the safety net?

  • dmxinc

    ” At that time the British government was encouraging mass migration to
    fill shortages in the labor market arising from the losses of World War
    II.”

    That war and the one before it may be the cause of the death of our civilization. Churchill didn’t save civilization by defeating Hitler, it was lost any way, because of the foolish decisions of the victors.

    • jeffaral

      It wasn’t the bigmouth Churchill that defeated Hitler, it was Stalin and the USA.

      • dmxinc

        Churchill and the British faced them alone for a year and a half, defeated them in the air and were victorious in Africa. The Germans didn’t want to risk an invasion by sea.

        Germany’s only hope was to sink all the shipping or defeat Russia and then work on England at their leisure. Barbarossa didn’t work out so well.

        I will concede that the Brits might not have held out without receiving supplies from the US, but most of what we sent at first was junk.

        • Wethepeople

          While your assessment is acceptable I would hardly say they ‘defeated them in the air’. Seen a picture of London circa 1943? Your also nit considering what would have happened if hitler had postponed his war in the eastern front, Britain would have fallen rapidly, and America would not have had a foothold into Europe.

          • dmxinc

            The air war was definitely won by Britain. The German losses were between 2 to 3 times as many as the British losses during the Battle of Britain.

            The picture of London is one of the reasons the British won that phase of the war. The Germans stopped bombing factories and air fields and went for civilian targets – their second mistake of the war (first was Dunkirk).

          • saxonsun

            The British did defeat the Germans in the air. The Royal Air force kicked German ass.

        • saxonsun

          Absolutely right.

    • David Ashton

      All governments were to blame for the war in different ways – Germany, Poland, Russia, Britain, Japan and the USA. It was the second White Civil War, and we are “living” with its disastrous immediate and long-term results. But we must cease squabbling about the past, while learning from its mistakes, and try instead work together for the revival of western civilization and the peoples who created it.

      • dmxinc

        100% agreed.

  • KenelmDigby

    It is a common misconception that mass commonweath immigration into the UK started as means of allieviating post-war ‘labor shortages’. In fact 1948 and the immediate post-war period was a time of high unemployment, due to demobilisation of the armed forces.
    There never was any government backed program to import commonwealth labor. Granted, service industry employers such as London Transport were enthusiastic about employing non-White labor, but the British government never encouraged commonwealth citizens to come to the UK.
    Most of the immigrant labor used in post-war reconstruction, in heavy industry, in the mines etc came from either continental Europe or Ireland. A point that is usually forgotten.
    Mass immigration of subcontinental Indians only really took off in the 1970s – some 30 years or so after the war had ended.

    • David Ashton

      The 1949 Royal Commission on Population warned against the undesirability of immigration to make good temporary manower shortages because “the capacity of a fully established society like ours to absorb immigrants of alien race and religion is limited”.

      The Communist Party simultaneously complained about Poles being used as workers for obvious political motives, whereas their turnabout over West Indians occurred a decade or so later for opposite political motives.

  • Epiminondas

    Indigenous Britons will either fight for their right to exist, or go down. It seems like a cruel joke that they would be roused to fight two wars against their blood brothers on the continent, and yet surrender without a shot fired to the savages brought into the country to replace them. If there is anyone left to read the sorry history of this era, they will shake their heads in disbelief.

    • http://independent-british-nationalist.blogspot.com/ British Activism

      The only counter argument I would make to that, is how this situation has developed in a completely different methodology to that of war or invasion.

      A nation declaring war against a commonly defined enemy is one thing, and if it was announced in say 1950 that 4 Million non-whites were to arrive/invade on our shores “next Tuesday” and render the indigenous population a minority in their capital city a few years later, I am pretty sure there would have been a collective action taken.

      However, tell me, when 50 immigrants arrive in a town of 10,000, randomly, all over England and Wales, then a month later, another 50 follow, then another 50 follow, and in the meantime they have children, who have children, then form enclaves and act as magnets for more of their kind coming, bit by bit, what kind of army would deal with that?

      Could you really amass a citizenry army (as the ‘state’ one would not lift a finger to stop it) that would have been told a ‘small pocket’ of a few streets in a town were going to cause the threat we have today? I doubt it.

      There is no doubt to me that previous generations have been cowardly and asleep at the wheel whilst this took hold, but one of the bitterest points about a comparison to fighting a war (like against Germany), is that we have not been in a position where a “war effort” could have been formulated.

      I think previous generations had the ‘dignity’ of fighting it off removed from them by the deceitful methodology used to swamp this country.

      To later generations, like myself, who have grown up with three of our major cities at least 1/3rd non-white – the idea of storming the streets of these cities and trying to forcibly deport some 7 million people would have sounded too ludicrous to be taken seriously, even if that might have been the action required to solve matters.

      • David Ashton

        We need to take it in stages.
        The first is to work for an immigration moratorium.
        The second to restore English cultural “hegemony” in England.
        Then to remove illegals and plan repatriation as a reverse gift-aid to the troubled third-world.

        There is a grim possibility that it could before then “end in blood as well as tears” (as a former Thatcher Cabinet Minister once said) when “nature” takes the same course as in other multi-ethnic dystopias, and it all kicks off, despite the warnings, rational alternatives, and without any physical assistance from civilized and educated people like you and me.

        • loyalwhitebriton

          Yeah, I think that your first paragraph is the ideal, but your second paragraph is the real. They won’t leave if we ask them to (not even a “pretty pretty please with sugar on top” will work), and I doubt that financial incentives will work in most cases; 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation non-whites are used to the place and will opt to stay. Only one conclusion: it will kick off, big style, and there will be much blood and tears.

          • David Ashton

            The more culturally different they less they will wish to remain if the original cultural norms were reinforced; for example, Muslims should not remain in the House of War if it becomes “oppressive” to their religion. Deportation of illegals and criminals would have general support. Compulsory staged repatriation with fares paid and compensation for recent arrivals in co-operation with the original homelands where they retain citizenship, relatives and holiday destinations, as part of a general western policy of strategic-military support and/or trade-and-aid, is a possibility, though admittedly a declining one. The “third world” itself is well used to involuntary population displacements of all kinds, and we have every right not to import them, or their own ethnic conflicts.

            A “fantasy” perhaps, but then today’s fantasy could become tomorrow’s reality, if the will exists and it is done as humanely as possible. The worst obstacle, as the recent fuss over “profiling” in tracing illegals indicates, is the combination of liberal/left whites and anglophobic non-whites.

            However, you are unfortunately probably right. “How rarely are rational solutions to grave and dangerous problems permitted in the short-term world of political careerists” (Oswald Mosley).

  • rogerinflorida

    “The British Nationality Act of 1948 which granted British citizenship and full rights of entry to all people living in Commonwealth countries”. As an example of naïve utopianism this is hard to beat. Coupled with the Republic of Ireland Act that granted unrestricted access to Britain for the Irish. These Acts, and the attitude of “one race, Human race” BS permeated the Labor party then and still do now. For the sources of this stupidity and it’s roots in Christian socialism read Corelli Barnett. Clement Attlee was a prime example of the type, a do-goody, a fantasist, a naïve “New Jerusalem” type, who, with his co-religionists and fellow travelling socialists destroyed Britain and the British people, may he rot in hell.
    Incidentally at the same time this BS was going native British people were being encouraged to emigrate to Canada, Australia and NZ. In the case of the orphans in the “care” of the Dr. Barnado society, being exported as children, this didn’t end until 1978!
    incidentally the same breed of Christian social meddlers are very active in the US; bringing in hundreds of thousands of third world garbage, with the full co-operation of the State Dept.

    • jeffaral

      Subversive, egalitarian, enslaving Marxism is just an offshoot of Christianity. Jesus Christ is the prototype of the commie revolutionary, a Trotsky or Gaddafi of his time.

      • David Ashton

        The Jesus in the NT is too pacifist and too spiritual quite to fit a Leninist (anti-religious) prototype. But there are scores of alternative “real Jesus” theories….

        • wmhoad

          There is a lot of capitalism in Jesus’ parables. Matthew 25:14-30 — The three servants given talents to invest. Capitalism at work.

          • David Ashton

            Hence the “joke” that we know Jesus was a Jew not an Aryan because his parables are largely about money. Incidentally, he was quite a joker himself.

    • saxonsun

      I second that, may he rot in hell.

      • David Ashton

        That is precisely what the Talmud recommended for the Galilean heretic.

  • Bossman

    Most of the fine prize race horses came about through cross-breeding. Mutts are generally smarter and healthier than pure-breeds.

    • KingKenton

      And PETA says that maintaining pure breed dogs is akin to being a Nazi. The Liberal sickness is everywhere.

      • Puggg

        Then what does that make me? A product of Nazi ideology?

  • Bossman

    All fine prize race horses came about through cross-breeding. Mixed-breed dogs (mutts) are generally smarter and healthier than purebreds.

    • David Ashton

      Careful selection is needed, not feasible in the human case. Cattle breeding is a different matter.

      • Bossman

        What do you mean when you say “not feasible in the human case?” Humans have the power to choose and every sex partner is a selection based on personal taste and criteria. Male animals do not choose and have no such options; they just follow their noses.

        • David Ashton

          The controlled breeding and culling by humans to secure specific results (horses, cattle, dogs, cats) is not a practical possibility for humans unless you set up a global authority to prevent voluntary assortative mating in order to secure some planned biological result.

    • Romulus

      Humans are not horses. Knowing many people that breed horses in Kentucky, you are not correct . The most prized seed to propagate horses come from the best pureblood stallions as to insure the continuation of those genes that exhibit the qualities that are best of the species. That is why purebreds cost the most money.

    • Sean

      Not necessarily true, it’s 50/50. Mutts can end up with none of the health problems purebreds encounter or some from both sides.

      It depends on the mix really.

      Also of note, the dog comparison doesn’t hold true for humans. If a white man has children with another race they will take on more of the other ethnicity’s traits due to white genes being predominately recessive. Recessive traits are generally more desirable because it shows a unique adaptation to the environment.

  • David Ashton

    Preserve the “white” bear from crossing, but not the “white” human?

  • sbuffalonative

    “At that time the British government was encouraging mass migration to fill shortages in the labor market arising from the losses of World War II”

    Bring in cheap labor quickly today, pay the price for decades if not centuries.

  • Bossman

    Not true at all. Closely related species can sometimes mate with difficulty such as donkeys and horses producing a mule which is generally infertile. Completely different species cannot mate.

    • Sean

      Whites have a bit of Neanderthal in us.

      As long as we’re all homos we can mate!

  • jeffaral

    I have no problems with Blacks or Muslims. My enemies are the degenerate would be Whites.

  • Mike Lane

    While I appreciate AmRen and their many thought provoking articles, would it kill you to post more optimistic pieces? (generally speaking- I’m not referencing this one in particularly.)

    • WR_the_realist

      Alas, the choice is often to be realist or be optimistic. Politicians are always optimistic, which is why their policies are never realistic.

      • Mike Lane

        Who says you can’t be both realistic and optimistic? If the most realistic outcome of human history was always pessimistic, then there would be no human history.

  • Mike Lane

    If only black Americans could be enlightened on the fact that it is the Leftist establishment taking advantage of them- oh how the tables would turn.

  • wmhoad

    Very interesting book review. I was reminded how mysterious a white man’s thinking can be to a black — unfathomable and opaque. They are most fearful the white uniting as a racial group again and turning their collective thinking to domination.

  • Creepy as crackers!

    As Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor has said, “This multicultural approach, saying that we simply live side by side and live happily with each other has failed. Utterly failed.”

    • David Ashton

      Genetic assimilation is no panacea either.

  • Bossman

    That is a fact that has not yet registered with many of the posters in this forum. Latin American beauties have been completely dominating these international contests for the last 20 years or more.

    • David Ashton

      It is not so much the complexion but harmony in facial features and slim body form, including relatively longs; youthfulness and radiant health are the unconscious factors. It is true that the larger everted lips, flared nostrils and bigger eyes of mulatto women can convey a crude sexual attraction sometimes more male-genitally potent than that of ice-queen northern types; Rihanna v Grace Kelly. But aesthetically the thinner the nose, clearer the eyes and lighter the skin, the better when it comes to universal choice. Hence the black male preference for lighter-skinned women and the recent Indian demand for “milky” western IVF sperm-donors.

      Inuit and Pygmy ladies are not likely to win the Miss World prize (unless PC-fixed), but we can wish them well in their own internal communities. By the way, Bossman, I wouldn’t recommend trying to cross these two mating-groups.

    • Sean

      Funny that you neglect to mention that in Brazil especially modelling agencies are under attack by the PC media because there are few black women and men that are chosen by the “racist” agencies.

      Recently it was found that the agencies specifically recruited from ethnic German enclaves. The German population is a small minority.

      I agree that some darker skinned women can be very attractive, just generally not those with negroid features. Even black models almost invariably have very white features.

  • David Ashton

    “Matings of men with caucasoid genes with women with mongoloid type will also produce no erythroblastosis (in the first generation). But in matings of mongoloid-group men and caucasoid-group women about 16 per cent of the latter (the Rhesus-negative) will be at risk slightly greater than they would be with caucasoid-group husbands.” – J. Z. Young, “An Introduction to the Study of Man” (Oxford 1974) p.600.

  • Puggg

    “If you don’t have a sword, sell your clothes and buy one.”

    Seems like Christ was the original author of the Second Amendment.

  • Romulus

    The two biggest take seats from the article for we’re in this order 1)Huge labor shortage after white war two 2) the spoons description and conquest of white women. What really annoys me is when people write about invasion and conquest in eloquent prose as if just describing a distant memory. It is very simple to”fix” the problem in actual terms. The people don’t seem to have heart or the gall. I see little is mentioned of the behind the scenes “deceivers”

  • Romulus

    Even the crossbreeding of plants has shown to be detrimental, being less nutritious and potentially hazardous. The arrogance of humans to try and replicate what nature has been doing for 3 billion years is self evident. Even the crossbreeding of many canine breeds would not survive without human intervention.

  • Romulus

    Baloney! They are picked because of political correctness. There quite a huge influx of European DNA in south America, in case your unaware.

  • Romulus

    Spaniards as opposed to mestizos or mulattoes

  • David Ashton

    There is virtually no proof of hybrid vigour even in the first generation of human wide-outcrossing.

  • David Ashton

    By me as well, of course. This phenomenon is sometimes cited by anti-evolutionists to support their view that one “kind” cannot mutate into another.

  • Brian

    Decades? It’s been known for millennia.