"A.M.," The Thinking Housewife, Dec. 12, 2009
It seems the side in favor [of mixed marriage] is arguing from a standpoint of idealism, individualism and airy fairy abstractions, while the other side is defending concrete realities. One of your readers, I thought, had a good point when she said there are six interested parties to a marriage: the bride, the groom, their respective families, their unborn children, and society. I would like to add a seventh constituency, which perhaps is implicit in one of these groups: ancestors.
A recent poll found the vast majority of WWII vets in Britain loathe ZANU Labour Party and what they have done to that once great nation. Many have stated that they would never have fought Hitler had they known that their treasonous élites would allow the French and Germans to run their lives through the EU, or that hostile, illiterate and in many cases inbred Third World savages would be allowed to invade and colonize their country without the people’s consent. Such feelings are widespread in all Western nations that are being inundated with this rabble. While I don’t suggest that young people must be beholden to all the whims of their elders or ancestors, I do think the wishes of one’s parents, grandparents and forebears should be given consideration. These people did not toil to see the fruits of their labors handed over to alien peoples. This is as relevant to intermarriage as it is to immigration.
A good many things have been said about the individual experiences of people who intermarry, or those who are the products of mixed marriages. Much has also been added here about the societal effects, but as far as I can remember, nobody has yet brought any statistics to bear on the discussion, so I think I will do so. First, I would like to point out that less than 100 years ago, white people accounted for around a third of the world’s population. Now we are not much more than 12 percent. In fifty years we could be half that. In a century practically extinct given current demographic projections. In the United States, whites have fallen from 90 percent less than fifty years ago to only 75 percent today, according to official sources. Of course, literate people know the real figure is closer to 65 percent, since the liars in the census department (or their marxist masters in government, take your pick) intentionally inflate the figure by counting as white such sundry groups as Indians, Pakistanis and Arabs.
I think a point being overlooked in all this is immigration. Virtually all other ethnic groups have at least some unchallenged ‘Lebensraum’ to call their own, which to their credit they are guarding fiercely. It is only white nations that are being called upon to invite the world in. When non-white nations like Mexico treat Guatamalan or El Salvadoran migrants like garbage, much worse than the the U.S. treats its wetbacks, they’re given a free pass. Not so with Whitey. In an overwhelmingly homogeneous society like the ones we enjoyed not long ago, the odd mixed marriage would not threaten people nearly as much. Such marriages were simply not prevalent enough to alter the demographic makeup of society. But if the founding stock’s share of the population plummets due to evil immigration policy then this, concomitant with a rise in mixed marriages, creates a problem. In other words, if you look after the macro (immigration policy), the micro will look after itself. If you don’t, these issues will have to be raised one way or another amongst individuals, however uncomfortable it makes some people. We simply don’t have the genes to spare.
Speaking of genes, a few people have hinted at a causal relationship between genetics and culture without really getting to the heart of the matter. For those who don’t know, intelligence has been conclusively proven to be primarily genetic in origin, the most common estimates being in the range of 70-80 percent. Forget what egalitarians have told you, this is a settled scientific fact, quite unlike the leftist pet topic of global warming. Experts working in the field are in agreement on this, although most of them are too cowardly to acknowledge the fact publicly. Just as variation between individuals is mostly genetic in origin, so is intergroup variation. Smart groups build advanced societies, dim-witted groups do not.
Surely most people reading this are perceptive enough to have noticed that virtually all non-white countries are backwards cesspools. The only other people who have shown themselves capable of building and sustaining first-rate societies are East Asians. All others are mired in various states of backwardness. Not surprisingly, then, the traffic flow is one-way. Marxists are about the only white people who idealize these places, though when they visit, they tend to stay in their air-conditioned compounds far away from the hoi polloi. Deluded fundy Christians are at least willing to spend long periods of time in these exotic locales, they get their hands dirty. I would give them a small measure of credit for this, except for the fact these tend to be the same people who are pushing for massive Third World immigration into our countries.
So what it comes down to is this: non-whites need white people. It’s overwhelmingly whites who have made the scientific, medical and other discoveries that have extended life spans and improved living standards in the world over the past 500 years. Looking at the Nobel Prize list or any other objective measure of civilizational attainment, it looks like a white man’s (and especially Ashkenazi Jewish) conspiracy. Whites are no less the world leaders in altruism. When there is a natural disaster of any kind, even in a worthless Muslim hellhole, it is White Christian (or formerly Christian) nations who are first on the scene, first in funds donated. The lazy, inbred Saudis and others with their petrodollars don’t lift a finger to help their brethren.
One commenter implied that blacks aren’t given enough credit for their contributions to the building of America. I don’t mean to sound insensitive, but their contributions were very marginal in the area of inspiration. In the area of perspiration I will give them their due, but as I think the late Sam Francis pointed out, you could have replaced them with the Chinese or any other group of laborers and America would have been none the worse off in the long run. Descendants of slaves clearly benefited from the exchange. I’m not sure the white majority did, given the social problems and strife the large importation of a foreign people created.
Lastly, aesthetics. White people have many recessive traits that are scarcely found in other groups. In my admittedly biased and ethnocentric opinion, whites are the most physically beautiful race. Non-whites may protest, but their actions indicate many of them share this view. Blondes were prized as concubines in the Ottoman world, just as they are prized in China. Whites dominate the modelling industry. This industry is run by homosexual leftists, so I really don’t think they are picking whites for political reasons. Whites just sell, that’s all. Even the South American Miss Universe beauties, or blacks who are touted, tend to be light-skinned women with Caucasoid features. In fact, most black men are said to prefer lighter-skinned black women. They get white features and the straight hair while staying true to their people. I can’t blame them for that. The irony is that by marrying white women, non-white men in mixed marriages are reducing those recessive white traits in the global population. The sons and grandsons of such men will have less and less opportunities to gaze upon unique white beauty because of their fathers’ actions. So maybe the solution is for black men who really like white women to find black mates with light skin and Caucasoid facial features. I suspect that the demand far outstrips the supply, though, and we’re back to square one. In any case, if we’re such an ugly and awful people, the non-white malcontents should surely want to get far away from us. I don’t see too many rushing for the exits.
Some people may consider what I’ve written above to be harsh, blunt or mean-spirited. In any honest discussion on sensitive issues, that’s the risk you take by speaking your mind. But I think it’s a natural and justified reaction to half a century of white-bashing. The truth is that whites are being held to a higher standard. A phony conservative would cite George Bush’s ‘soft bigotry of low expectations’ because these cretins never miss an opportunity to pander to minorities. In truth, whites are the victims here. We are the only people who are being prevented from sticking to our own kind and freely associating with our kin to the exclusion of others. The point is no less valid just because self-loathing whites instigated this and wish to exterminate their own people. They and the minorities they manipulate are both driven by envy. And we will deal with the white traitors in due course.
For my part I don’t need any token minorities like Michael Steele to speak on my behalf. And my race and civilization certainly doesn’t need to justify its right to exist to anyone. We WILL survive whether you like it or not. The smart minorities know where their bread is buttered, and are grateful to live in our societies. As someone pointed out, the minorities’ opinions don’t count for squat when it comes to our survival. We refuse to be dispossessed, physically exterminated or absorbed through intermarriage. We won’t go away to make failed societies or ethnic groups feel better about themselves.