Marry Your Own Kind
Graham Seibert, American Renaissance, January 3, 2020
We can marry whomever we want. Anti-miscegenation laws are gone, and social norms have been relaxed. “Empowered” women, sexual liberation, and lesbianism mean there are fewer white women available or desirable as wives. White men are looking elsewhere, especially to Asian women.
There is a bitter backlash from white women who resent this, but nobody wants to marry a bitter woman. The “manosphere” is full of complaints about white women, so why should a white man marry one? I was married for eight years to an Asian and for 25 years to a half Asian (three children), and am now ten years into a successful marriage (two kids) with a white woman. Marrying your own kind — after choosing carefully — makes the most sense.
I have read widely on evolution. Survival of the fittest means differentiation and competition. The strategies that work best win out.
Sarah Blaffer Hrdy writes that human reproductive strategy was simply better than that of our ape ancestors. Nonreproducing females — sisters, aunts, grandmothers — help raise children. Human males do the same, at least more so than male apes. Human mothers can therefore bear children every two years or so as opposed to every five or six for apes. We out-bred apes, and with homo sapiens’ unique ability to speak and cooperate, other ape-men as well.
Sociobiologists developed the r/K theory of reproductive strategies. That’s r for reproduction, K for carrying capacity. Mice keep their ecological niche filled by reproducing early and often enough to overcome predators. Elephants, on the other hand, reproduce slowly, with most of the young surviving to adulthood, filling the carrying capacity of their niche. A great many factors co-vary in the r/K model:
|r selected||K selected|
|Large litter size||Small litter size|
|Short birth spacing||Long birth spacing|
|Many offspring||Few offspring|
|High infant mortality||Low infant mortality|
|Little parental care||Much parental care|
|Rapid maturation||Slow maturation|
|Early sexual reproduction||Delayed sexual reproduction|
|Short life||Long life|
|High reproductive effort||Low reproductive effort|
|High energy utilization||Efficient energy utilization|
|Low encephalization||High encephalization|
|Opportunistic exploiters||Consistent exploiters|
|Dispersing colonizers||Stable occupiers|
|Variable population size||Stable population size|
|Lax competition||Keen competition|
Social system characteristics
|Low social organization||High social organization|
|Low altruism||High altruism|
In Race, Evolution and Behavior Philippe Rushton applied r/K strategy to races. We evolved different reproductive strategies because we occupy different niches. Northeast Asians — fighting a harsh but predictable climate — became the most K selected. Africans, in a benign but unpredictable environment because of disease and predators, remained the most r selected.
Families reflect these differences. Asian “tiger moms” invest a great deal of effort in each child. Every member of a multigenerational Asian family recognizes that he must work towards bringing up the next generation. More than other people, Asians fulfill their roles out of a sense of duty. One of the attractions of an Asian wife is that sense of duty. Asian wives tend to feel obligated to feed their husbands, whether they like them or not, and to take care of children.
On the other hand, libido is weaker among the K-selected Asians. The newspapers carry stories of young Japanese and Chinese of both sexes who have no interest in sex. They are more likely to be faithful, but perhaps less likely to be satisfying partners. These are population averages; there is far more variation within a race than between the races.
Africans on average have measurably higher levels of sex hormones, mature earlier, and tend to have higher sex drives compared to Asians, but they don’t feel the Asian sense of obligation to spouses and children.
Caucasians are in between, although a bit more toward the Asian end of the scale. Stanford’s Luigi Cavalli Sforza has devised a scheme of measuring the genetic distance between any two populations. The genetic distances between the major races are much greater than those between any two European nations. Since our temperaments are under considerable genetic control, we are more likely to understand a fellow European at a deep level. That has certainly been my experience.
Some things do not fall on the r/K continuum. We white folks came to believe in love and romance.
James Q. Wilson, writing in The Marriage Problem, attributed the notion of marrying for love to the medieval English practice of a young man moving out of the parental house to start his own homestead. When he was established and could afford it, he went out on his own to seek a wife among the local girls. He would choose on the basis of personal attraction, without much input from parents or anybody else.
Kevin MacDonald, writing in Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, pushes the practice back further. He links it to the individualism of the hunter gatherers of preagricultural Europe. Each individual rose on his own merits in the “Männerbund,” or brotherhood of men. These were egalitarian societies in which individual merit mattered more than family.
Dr. MacDonald proposes that monogamy was the standard in these societies. Individuals living close to nature don’t have enough resources to support multiple wives, and sexual rivalries would have destroyed the cohesion of the Männerbund. Both parties chose carefully because they were marrying for life. They wanted someone who was skillful at manly or womanly tasks, but also pleasant to be with. The Catholic Church, a uniquely Western institution, promoted monogamous marriage as a sacred bond, based on love, dedicated to raising children — Augustine’s fides, proles et sacramentum.
That sets Europe in contrast to the rest of the world. In richer societies elsewhere, families chose mates for their offspring to keep wealth within the family. They arranged marriages for the competitive advantage of the tribe. In some places, such as among the Indians of the Brazilian rain forest, chiefs simply assigned marriage partners. All members of a tribe were so closely related by blood that it didn’t make much difference genetically.
The upshot is that romantic love is a Western notion, and we white people evolved the mental equipment to make it work. We believe in love. While the Japanese have made a fetish out of sending Valentine’s Day cards, and the Africans certainly celebrate sex, we lead in our belief in love. Moreover, Western societies were unique in the status afforded to women. We evolved to treat them as true partners, not just status symbols or incubators of our children.
Belief in love is not an unmixed blessing. Westerners are uniquely disappointed when we don’t find it. An Asian man will remain with the wife of his youth and simply take concubines if he can afford them. Sex in African societies is unconstrained. Native Americans likewise consider fidelity to the tribe to be more important than fidelity to their partner.
We Westerners have put ourselves in a bind. Western women have grown to expect that they can have it all: a family and the true love that society celebrates and that their ancestors knew, along with freedom and a career. Sometimes it all fits, often not.
Before the 1950s, sex was seen as part of marriage, not an end in itself. People were expected to fulfill their obligations to each other in the marriage, especially with regard to earning money, keeping house, raising children, and paying bills. Satisfaction came from fulfilling obligations to family and society, not sex.
Hugh Hefner started Playboy magazine in 1953, and in the same decade, Simone de Beauvoir published The Second Sex. The 1960s saw Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique, along with the pill, the sexual revolution, the antiwar counterculture, and drugs. The emphasis turned to self-gratification, with sex becoming a plaything more than an instrument of procreation as part of a larger, social commitment. Sex became burdened with expectations it could never fulfill, leading to generations of unfulfilled men and women. This is how we arrived at today’s situation.
The children of a mixed marriage are . . . mixed. My one-fourth Japanese children called themselves “mixers” — neither Asian nor white. However, when pressed, because being white is so monumentally out-of-favor, they lean toward their Japanese quarter.
If the genetic distance between the parents is great enough, the parents will be genetically closer to members of their own race than to their own children — hard as that may be to believe.
I had hoped my children would inherit their mother’s Asian work ethic and conscientiousness and my drive and curiosity. I was disappointed. Is this common? Anecdotally, I do not see as many successful mixed-race Asian Americans as one would expect.
Only one of my mixed-race children inherited the sense of romantic love I got from my parents. She is also inclined to be critical of men who don’t have an Asian level of conscientiousness. I believe that she and, indeed, all three of them would be more comfortable if they were not mixed.
There is unlikely to be a statistical study of the characteristics of Asian-Caucasian “mixers.” It is hard to imagine a more politically charged research thesis. Moreover, a rigorous statistical study would be very hard to construct. And there is the question of which Asians? Profs. Lynn and Vanhanen find that the average intelligence in Asian nations varies by as much as 20 points.
Children of any mixed marriage find themselves in the same position as my children. Are they white or Asian? Or, like George Zimmerman, white or Latino? There may never be statistical validation of this point, but it is common sense to stick with your own kind and to have children who don’t have to decide who they are.
In-laws and community
Every husband and wife have differences of opinion about disciplining children, managing money, and the like. It is better if they come from similar backgrounds and have similar values.
The situation becomes even more complicated with in-laws. They will almost assuredly be horrified by something about your hygiene, discipline, diet, and so on. In-laws in some cultures have a hard time letting go of their children and do not easily relinquish the authority they have in their ancestral society. Relationships with in-laws are always a problem; it is easier when you speak the same language and have the same culture.
What’s the solution?
To make ourselves attractive as marriage partners, we white people should learn once again to act responsibly. We should learn to respect each another. We should learn that true satisfaction comes from family. But what can you do if you want marriage and children when there are so few well-suited partners?
Look in the right places. Find religion. People who attend church are more likely to believe in the Christian tradition of monogamous marriage and family. Take on a self-improvement program: People who attend Toastmasters or take night courses are more likely to be just as conscientious in their romantic relationships. The people you will meet at Dale Carnegie or dance lessons are more likely to be outgoing and interested in forming stable relationships.
If you are a woman, you should attend American Renaissance conferences, where you will find many like-minded men. You will find younger people in identitarian groups. Don’t just attend — take leadership roles. Learn to speak publicly. If a person’s first impression is looking up at you on a podium, he might continue looking up at you.
You can expect the commenters on articles at American Renaissance to be on your wavelength. There are ways to protect your privacy — burner email addresses, SIM cards and Skype numbers — and still let people know how to reach you. The odds of finding a soulmate among people interested in the future of our people are certainly higher than on Tinder or eHarmony.
Millennial YouTube personalities such as Brittany Sellner (formerly Brittany Pettibone) and Blonde in the Belly of the Beast have an attractive message. Join the commenters on their YouTube pages or Mrs. Sellner’s book and make contact with them.
After my second divorce, I was too old to do these things. As a graduate student on an American campus from 2003 to 2006, I didn’t find anyone who would have interested me even if I had been young enough to be in the running. Two poignant books, “Sexual Utopia In Power” by Roger Devlin and “No Campus For White Men” by Scott Greer pretty well sum up my experience.
The logical choice for me was to look elsewhere. While there are substantial white populations in Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, and southern Brazil, the largest number by far are in Europe. Women in just about every less-developed or recently-developed country, whatever their race, are less affected by cultural disease than women in the United States and Western Europe. Moreover, an American income is also more attractive to them.
I consider the Visegrad countries — Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and the Baltics to be recently developed. Although their standards of living approach those of Western Europe, the people remain traditional. I am continually encouraged by their resistance to the dictates from the European Union that they take immigrants. They are standing their ground, asserting that they are Christian countries and want to stay that way. The former members of the Soviet Union — Russia itself, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine — might properly be considered underdeveloped. Average monthly salaries are less than $1,000. Though Western culture is making inroads, these peoples are still better marriage prospects.
Although most people think going abroad means American men looking for foreign brides, it works the other way. The men in these countries are more traditional. They tend to be more courtly, more inclined to observe the traditional courtesies such as opening doors. They can fix things. They expect to marry, the major constraint being whether they can afford it. At the same time, the characteristics now called “toxic masculinity” haven’t been beaten out of them. A white woman looking for a real man — with both the advantages and disadvantages — could do worse than Eastern Europe.
University has always been an ideal stage of life at which to meet a partner. All of Europe has a tradition of relatively inexpensive education. Here in Ukraine, education is ridiculously cheap — the most expensive schooling is about $5,000 per year for medical school. Moreover, at some universities, a lot of the courses are offered in English. A parent interested in the prospects of grandparenthood and the well-being of his wallet could do worse than to recommend that his children study overseas. Although it will probably take longer if the language of instruction is not English, the knowledge of a foreign language will be a lifelong asset, the experience with a foreign culture invaluable, and the possibility of a delightful (and philogenitive) partner is valuable.
Racial diversity brings differences that are hard to overcome in any context, differences that are on constant display in the United States and Western Europe. Marriage is the most intimate possible human relationship. The difference between men and women is already profound, and bridging it is challenge enough for any couple. As I have learned from costly experience, it does not make sense to burden a relationship with the added differences of miscegenation. Marry your own kind.