[BretLudwig]

On Interracial Marriage

By Steve Sailer

"A letter writer to VDARE.COM took umbrage at my recent attempt at a
General Theory of Race, "It's All Relative: Putting Race in its Proper
Perspective." I had inserted a few positive remarks about the harmonizing
effects of interracial marriage - such as "Intermarriage is what turned
the Angles and the Saxons into the Anglo-Saxons.€� My correspondent
declared my views to be "pure evil."

That seems exaggerated. Personally, I thought that what I said was only 99
and 44/100ths evil.

The whole topic of intermarriage raises deep passions. This is hardly
surprising because it is terribly important for understanding how the
world works. Yet it is largely off-limits for objective analysis - witness
the anonymity of this letter.

In polite society today only Jews, such as Alan Dershowitz, are allowed
publicly to voice opposition to intermarriage in the name of group
survival. Perhaps the leading spokesman against Jews marrying Gentiles is
Norman Podhoretz's son-in-law Elliott Abrams. His activism in favor of
ethnically exclusive marriages did not stop him from recently being
appointed the National Security Council's senior director for democracy,
human rights and international operations.

Well, I decided long ago that mouthing polite fictions just wasn't as fun
as telling the truth. So I've written extensively over the years on
interracial marriage, outlining its effects, positive and negative,
mundane - and surprising. (Some of my articles on exogamy are collected
here.)

Still, as crucial as the subject is it's important not to overstate how
rapidly interracial marriage is growing. Since, roughly, the 1997 Masters
tournament, we have been repeatedly told that Real Soon Now everybody on
Earth will look like Tiger Woods, ushering in a utopia of peace, love,
and, presumably, low golf scores. Others, like the letter writer, see
racial mixing as bringing on Chaos and Old Night.

But the reality is that racial groups have been coming together (and
splitting apart) forever. The rate of convergence between
continental-scale racial groups accelerated in 1492, and is currently
increasing. Yet most of our existing continental racial groups are going
to be around in roughly their present form for what will be, by individual
human standards, a long, long time.

And before global Tigerization is anywhere near complete, genetic
engineering, human-computer hybridization, and interstellar colonization
will introduce so much new diversity into the species that the early 21st
century will be looked back upon as an era of great biological
homogeneity.

My correspondent writes:

"Miscegenation destroys irreversibly and utterly that which took
Nature tens of thousands of years to create."

This is also the opinion of the federal government. Well, not about
people, but about red wolves. The red wolf is found in isolated spots in
the South. Although the government lists it as an endangered species, it
looks like a cross between a wolf and a coyote. Indeed, as genetic tests
have shown, that is exactly what it is.

In other words, the red wolf is not an endangered species but an
endangered race. The main threat to the continued racial existence of red
wolves is - miscegenation with the common coyote. So, in some parts of the
South, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is pursuing an aggressive campaign
of sterilizing or killing uppity coyotes that can't keep their
cotton-pickin' paws off our precious red wolves.

This program of lynching Southern coyotes that don't know their place is
pretty amusing in a sick way. But it probably is the only way to preserve
the red wolf race. Being of conservative temperament, I tend to favor
conserving things, because if we don't, we'll miss them when they're gone

Similarly, there are human racial groups who do indeed desperately need
"human biodiversity preserves." Example: the Pygmy Negritos of the Andaman
Islands in the Indian Ocean. (I recently interviewed the leading expert on
these tiny people.) The men average 4'-10" and 95 pounds. The women have
such pronounced "steatopygia" that a mother who needs to carry her toddler
on her back will have the child throw his arms around her neck and stand on
her remarkably protuberant, gravity-defying buttocks. (Unfortunately,
Carleton Coon's you-gotta-see-it-to-believe-it photo of this is not on
line.) Tragically, when Andamanese tribes first come into social contact
with outsiders, they quickly waste away to near-extinction because of
diseases for which they lack all biological defenses.

In the late 1990s a boy from one of two remaining wild and healthy tribes,
the reclusive and hostile Jarawa, was found injured and taken to the Indian
colonists' hospital. There, he discovered the addictive pleasures of
television. Cured, he went home and told his friends. They started coming
into the Indian town to beg and steal. In only three or so years of
integration, the Jarawa have declined in population from about 350 to
250.

Fortunately, the few hundred Andamanese on remote North Sentinel Island
remain unaware that all civilized people favor multiculturalism. Not that
they would care. They have driven off numerous political and scientific
busybodies with swarms of arrows.

Long may they live in splendid segregation.

In extreme cultural contrast to the Stone Age Andamanese are the
extraordinarily accomplished Zoroastrian Parsis of Bombay. Only one
percent as numerous as Jews, and lacking their own national homeland far
from amorous gentiles, they are in eventual danger of disappearing because
the sons and daughters of non-Parsi elites keep marrying them.

For example, the heirs of the first Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan
both married Parsis. (The name of India's Gandhi dynasty traces not to the
Mahatma Gandhi, but to Indira Nehru's Parsi husband.) I recently wrote an
article comparing Parsi and Jewish strategies for ethnic survival,
illustrating it with the story of a part-Parsi psychologist's struggle to
find a Parsi woman willing to marry a half-breed like himself.

Now, my anonymous VDARE.COM critic does have a point. The Pygmy Negritos,
for example, have clearly evolved characteristics such as small size (and,
perhaps, steatopygia) that superbly suit their islands' jungle environment
(although not the modern pathogen environment). Whether Darwinian
selection has also adapted Parsis or Jews - or larger hereditary groups
such as whites - to prosper in their environments is a much more difficult
question. But, considering what we know now about the power of selection to
alter gene frequencies, it cannot be ruled out.

Which raises another important question: Are whites in the same dire
situation as red wolves, Pygmy Negritos, and Parsis? I strongly doubt it.
Currently, there are about 200 million white Americans. Beyond America,
there are about 700 million white Europeans, plus a little less than 50
million whites in Canada, Australia, etc. Exactly how many whites there
are in Latin America, North Africa, West Asia and South Asia is a
complicated question. But the world total for whites would run€”depending
on strictness of definition€”from over one billion to over two billion.

Anyone wishing to "abolish the white race" had better pack a lunch €“
theyre going to have to wait a long time.

In the U.S., according to the Census Bureau, about 97% of married
non-Hispanic whites in the U.S. are married to other non-Hispanic whites.
That percentage is declining, but it has a long, long way left to fall. In
the 2000 Census, 12,859,892 children under 5 years old were identified by
their parents as white-only versus a mere 796,360 declared to be white and
something else. That's a 16 to 1 ratio. Further, the highest white birth
rates are in Republican-voting Red States where interracial marriage is
uncommon.

Of course, what really gets people worked up, pro or con, is black-white
mating. This, however, remains rare. Less than 0.5% of married whites are
wed to African-Americans. Nor is it clear that black-white relationships,
married or otherwise, are that much more common today than in many other
eras in American history. As I have reported, DNA analysis suggests that
something like 50,000,000 Americans who call themselves white have had at
least one black ancestor over the last dozen generations. In turn,
African-American adults are genetically about 17%-18% white. On average,
down through the generations, about one out of every 25 or 30 babies born
to an African-American woman was fathered by a white man.

It's at least arguable that the mixing of various European nationalities
that has been going on in America for generations, especially since the
immigration cutoff of 1924, has been more important than the much more
limited mixing of different continental-scale races that began a few
decades ago. When you peer closely enough, white Americans just don't look
that much like Europeans anymore, apparently due to genetic blending among
white Americans.

The overall impact of interracial marriage on the IQ of the children of
American mixed marriages is unclear. It might have raised their IQs
slightly, since many (but not all) of the non-white spouses are coming
from countries where the average IQ is higher than among white Americans.
(And we could mimic Canada and make a lot more of an effort to select
higher quality immigrants.)

Still, although the percentage of white-white marriages won't drop
terribly quickly, a fairly fast growing number of American citizens are
finding that, say, a cousin has intermarried and had mixed-race children.
Because people talk to their relations a lot and tend to trust what they
say more, this will have a mild but probably beneficial effect on racial
friction.

If the letter writer wants to move to his own version of North Sentinel
Island, I would wish him well. But I wouldn't expect many to go with him.

My bottom line view on marriage: you ought to marry the person you love.
The alternatives€”marrying a person you don't love or not marrying at all
- are worse.

I didn't exactly come up with that idea all by myself. Over the last
millennium, this has become the predominant view of Western Civilization.
In fact, it may be Western Civilization's most defining characteristic.
The theme of true love battling against social constraints has been one of
the most popular topics in high art and mass entertainment since the
medieval troubadours. Romeo and Juliet is only the most famous example.
Increasing freedom to form love matches reflects the West's distinctive
values such as individualism, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

In much of the rest of the world, arranged marriages and inbreeding are
the norm. Among Muslims in West Asia and North Africa, the ideal marriages
are arranged ones with first cousins. In Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan
close to half of all marital pairings are between first or second
cousins.

Not surprisingly, individuals in these regions tend to be intensely
nepotistic toward their extended families/clans/tribes, and thus
unpatriotic toward their countries. Nor should it be shocking that€”due
in part to the nepotistic corruption, lack of civic trust, and general
political fractiousness caused by their extreme endogamy€”these
pseudo-nations tend to get their butts kicked by more unified armies from
countries where the breeding pools are larger and more inclusive.

Finally, the impact of immigration on rates of interracial marriage is not
widely understood. Those who view white DNA as inherently evil would of
course want to import as much non-white DNA as they can get away with. On
the other hand, those who aren't white-haters should favor limiting
immigration, especially if they think interracial marriage promotes social
harmony. By expanding racial/ethnic immigrant enclaves, mass immigration
makes it easier for immigrants to find mates within their own group.

In California, mass immigration is definitely slowing the growth in the
rate of interracial marriage. The reason: immigrants appear to be about
one third as likely to marry across the major racial/ethnic boundaries as
are native-born Californians. So immigration is driving up the absolute
number of mixed marriages - by raising the total population - but it is
driving down the proportion of mixed marriages, by allowing previous
immigrants to marry within their ethnic enclave.

Think intermarriage is a positive good for American society? Demand
immigration cutbacks."

--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/
More information at http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/faq.html

[Clyde Slick]

On 22 Apr, 19:32, "BretLudwig" wrote:


In polite society today only Jews, such as Alan Dershowitz, are allowed
publicly to voice opposition to intermarriage in the name of group
survival. Perhaps the leading spokesman against Jews marrying Gentiles is
Norman Podhoretz's son-in-law Elliott Abrams. His activism in favor of
ethnically exclusive marriages did not stop him from recently being
appointed the National Security Council's senior director for democracy,
human rights and international operations.


Allow intermarriages and the first thing that
will happen is we will have little Bratzi's that look like this:

http://jewishbook.ca/catalog/images/...ovu_bratzi.gif