A monoracial homeland—Any logic there?

I suspect that the difference between myself and others who frequent this blog is emotional rather than logical. I just do not feel the need to be among others like myself that most people here seem to feel. But I respect that feeling. On my reading of the psychological research, preference for the similar and the familiar is more common than not. And I do think that the societies the Anglo-Saxons have created have few rivals in general desirability. Our example is the one that most of the world aspires to and tries to emulate. Even most Muslims aspire to it as far as I can gather. They certainly vote with their feet when they flock to our countries and try to get in by hook or by crook.

What I DON’T do is judge individuals by their group membership. Should my brother be hanged because I commit a murder? All principles of justice as we know it (some systems of tribal justice excepted) say No. Similarly, should all Muslims be discriminated against because a minority of Muslims are dangerous religious nutcases? Again the answer has to be No. Yusuf might be a very decent man while Ali is a psychopath. And there are plenty of Yusufs. I know a few. So to treat the Yusufs like the Alis is a breach of all natural justice. Each case must be judged on its individual merits.

And that applies to Anglos too. There are plenty of dreck Anglos. And they should be treated like dreck while decent Anglos are treated as they deserve. So I make no judgement about Anglos IN GENERAL that can be applied to any individiual. The group level of analysis is interesting and may even be important but conclusions from it CANNOT justly be applied to any individual in that group. Any particular individual may be an exception to the rule.

So while I see no virtue in living in a monoracial homeland, I DO see great virtue in living in a homeland where immigrants are selected for generally desirable characteristics. And Australia is a fair example of the latter. We may have lots of “wogs” here but they are generally GOOD “wogs”! And some “wog” groups—Asians mainly—do in my view leave Anglo-Australians for dead in generally desirable characteristics—such as low crime-rate, family-orientaion, proclivity to work hard etc. I am happy to have them around.

Mind you, I thoroughly sympathize with “white flight”. As a group, Africans are undisputably BAD “wogs”. White flight shows that most Americans think that and who am I to argue? What I have seen on my visits to America has certainly convinced me that a wise white person keeps as far away from groups of blacks as he can. On Hispanics as a group I reserve judgment. There clearly are lots of “good” Hispanics. I have met a few.

So I think there is no reason for seeking a monoracial homeland that can be deduced from any external fact or set of facts. You just feel the need for such an environment or you don’t. I don’t. I DO however feel a need to keep undesirables out of my country and the fact that both the U.S. and U.K. governments have failed to do that seems to me a tragedy of the first order.

One argument I constantly hear is that racial distinctiveness cannot be maintained in a multi-ethnic society. But the case of Mexico shows the opposite. As Steve Sailer reports:

“And, despite almost 500 years of intermarriage, the economic elite remains strikingly whiter-looking, compared to the more Indian and/or black-looking people at the bottom. As Vicente Fox’s former Foreign Secretary Jorge Castaneda admitted in 1995, Mexico’s ruling elite has been getting whiter. Many powerful men in Mexico and throughout Latin America had recent ancestors who clawed their way up out of the darker masses. Over the generations, their descendents get whiter-looking as the rich men marry the fair-skinned and fair-haired women—who are, interestingly, still considered the last word in beauty in Latin America.”

So whether or not racial identity should always be maintained as it was, the argument that a monoethnic society is needed to maintain it is just not factual. Successful people tend to intermarry, regardless of whoever else is around. The fact that racial distinctiveness has actually become GREATER in Mexico despite a small influx of people from another group is surely thought-provoking. Perhaps a multi-ethnic society FOSTERS preservation of “good” genes.

Posted by jonjayray on Monday, July 11, 2005 at 04:49 AM in Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests
Comments (46) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by Mark Richardson on July 11, 2005, 06:53 AM | #

John, I think you miss the key difference.

Most of us “monoracialists” would readily concede that there are fine members of other races and less than admirable members of our own.

What we don’t do is to adopt the same set of assumptions about justice that you do.

For you “natural justice” demands that we treat people in terms of their individual qualities and attainments - to discriminate against someone on the basis of a group identity you view as unjust.

Hence, your concern to show that you personally make friends and seek the company of people based on their individual qualities, rather than their race.

Hence also your preference for a “selective” immigration programme which rewards people for their individual merit (as opposed to either a race based programme or an open borders one).

So the question boils down to this: why do you accept the view of “natural justice” that you do?

As you know I believe the answer is as follows. During the Renaissance it came to be thought that what made man distinctively human was his capacity to create his own self according to his individual will and reason.

Therefore, to limit man’s capacity to choose what he could be and do was to deny his humanity.

Thus the focus of “justice” in the world today is on ensuring that no-one is “discriminated” against on the basis of qualities that lie outside of their own individual domain.

But what if the Renaissance thinkers got it wrong? What if our humanity is formed from the totality of our natures, including the sense of connectedness and identity we obtain from our membership of a race?

Would it then not be an injustice to deny to men the right to live within their own traditional ethnies?

Wouldn’t it then be right to act loyally to our kinship group, even if some members of that group behaved below the standards we set for ourselves as individuals?

Posted by Mark Richardson on July 11, 2005, 08:22 AM | #

As for the Mexico thing, John, there are several problems.

First, it seems a little hopeful to believe that our own sons and daughters will each rise to the top of a racial pyramid in order to preserve our own genetic inheritance.

But a more important objection is that the ethnic ideal involves more than just reproducing the odd European phenotype in a mixed population (like the English-looking Pakistani someone posted a photo of some time ago).

Part of the satisfaction of belonging to an ethny is to partake in the common life and common traditions of the kinship group. It’s as if a body of people, united by kinship, were working together to further their own distinctive existence.

The Mexican situation, in which there is a social stratification on the lines of colour, doesn’t represent the same thing.

Posted by Stuka on July 11, 2005, 08:54 AM | #

Did our ancestors shed blood, sweat, & tears just so our country could end up like Mexico? Or Brazil? Why bother?

Posted by Svigor on July 11, 2005, 10:27 AM | #

John seems to think that whether one’s children are one’s children or the result of cuckoldry makes no logical difference.

I think that’s dumb.

If I’m grappling with a strawman here lemme know.

Posted by JW Holliday on July 11, 2005, 10:30 AM | #

John Ray has all the qualifications of a perfect GNXP blogger: a love of Asians, a disdain for white homogeneity, and - most important - a blogging philosophy that consists of repeating the same arguments over and over again, completely ignoring contrary facts and arguments, and particularly ignoring when his own arguments have been refuted.

Let’s take for example the idea of the maintenance of white racial characteristics in admixed societies. John quotes Steve Sailer, whose grasp of race is a mixed bag- sometimes very informative, sometimes as asinine as telling us what his wife thinks Shelby Steele’s ethnicity is based on appearance. Now, I have already on another thread cited genetic evidence to demonstrate that the “white” populations of South America, which John had previously used to make his point, are in fact signficantly racially admixed. Furthermore, I cited that the upper classes of Chile, which John again used to make his point, was also admixed. Now, I guess, he moves to Mexico.

If John and Sailer want to make their anecdotal comments, so can I. A relatively recent issue of Newsweek had an essay by a Mexican-American woman about her father. Talking about his “blue eyes, fair skin, and brown hair”, she asserted that he could be mistaken for a “white man” until one hears his accent.

Very well. Unfortunately, there is a photo of father and daugher accompanying the story - the father has unmistakably Amerind facial features, and the daughter is a full mestiza. John would probably classify the ruddy mestizo as “white.”

From John’s other posts, he seems to be under the delusion that complexion alone determines race, so that a ruddy Korean or a light-eyed, light-skinned (and African-faced) mulatto I assume are “white.” But no, that is not the case. While Mexico does have a small white population, many of the other “whites” are admixed. Sexual selection is mate choice. It can increase the percentage of particular traits in a population but it cannot change the ancestry of the population; one cannot compare a mestizo Mexico to what would have been maintained if their Spaniards had practiced racial exclusiveness.

Furthermore, if John is intellectually honest he will trawl deeper into Sailer’s writings, and then come to MR to tell us that Sailer thinks that Mexico is a terrible model for America’s future: a large colored underclass with a small white overclass with their gated communities. Does John think that America should emulate Mexico? Even if a diminished racial continuity is possible, why should this be desired?

As regards the entire post, it is absurd, because the voluminous posts on this blog about the work of Salter have clearly underlined the real logic behind monoracial societies. Now, perhaps John disagrees with Salter; that is his right. But he does not have the right to delegitimize our requirements for monoracialism by evoking emotionalism. This sort of demonization is a left-wing tactic; not becoming to a man of the right.

A few more points: treating people as “individuals” is not possible in a world with 6 + billion people, and is naive when other peoples do judge in a group-oriented fashion, particularly John’s beloved Chinese. I’ll note from another thread that my point about American “racial degeneration” did not necessarily imply miscegenation, but the overall downgrade of America’s population from shifting demographics, as well as dysgenic breeding habits.

But, that’s all irrelevant to someone like John intent on playing the a-racial leftist demagogue.

Posted by JW Holliday on July 11, 2005, 11:11 AM | #

Mark makes an excellent point:

<objection is that the ethnic ideal involves more than just reproducing the odd European phenotype in a mixed population (like the English-looking Pakistani someone posted a photo of some time ago).

That is what is going on in these mixed-race Latin American countries that John Ray thinks should serve as a racial model to the west. In highly genetically admixed ethnies, fortuitous combinations of genes plus the kind of sexual selection described by Sailer results in some percentage of "throwbacks" - people who at least partially reconstitute phenotypic characteristics of white peoples. But they are - with a few exceptions - still part of the admixed genepool.

Another anecdote: I knew this Puerto Rican fellow who was (significantly) darker and more African-looking than Colin Powell. One day he introduced me to his (full-blooded Puerto Rican) first cousin - a fellow who was blonde/blue-eyed and with North European features. Both men were co-ethnics, belonging to the same extended families, sharing considerable kinship and genes.

Thus, someone who could pass for a light-skinned African-American, and someone who could pass as a Swede, both close blood family. That is NOT what racial preservationists are interested in. We are not interested in a panmixia where a phenotypic continuum exists and where admixed people "cover" their Afro-Amerind ancestry by posessing a combination of phenotypic genes created by chance or by their father's mating preferences.

Note Sailer's quote in detail: he talks about "darker men", of presumably significantly admixed ancestry, picking "white-looking" wives once the men have achieved high-status. So, what we have are Mestizo/Mulatto combinations seeking out women with a higher degree of genes coding for a more European phenotype, and concentrating those genes in the upper classes.

I wonder though - is there any

evidence that the upper classes in Mexico getting “whiter” - other than quotes by Mexicans? More important - are Amerind and African genes “creeping up” into the higher classes (see: Stoddard’s “Rising Tide of Color”, Red Man section) due to the phenomena described by Sailer? If one were to do autosomal gene testing of different generations of upper-class Latin Americans, would the younger generations have more non-Caucasian ancestry?

More to the point of John’s post - is this scenario anything we should want? A genetically admixed, mongrelized society in which status is linked to a color/phenotype continuum - with the whitest mixed-racers on the top and the darkest on the bottom? Is that preservation? Is that consistent with “western values” and “conservatism?”

Posted by ben tillman on July 11, 2005, 12:09 PM | #

Should my brother be hanged because I commit a murder? All principles of justice as we know it (some systems of tribal justice excepted) say No.

That is false. Principles of justice say that it depends. If you are a co-conspirator or an accessory, then you are subject to punishment. But it’s not a matter of imputing the actions of one group member to other group members, at least not initially. It’s a matter of imputing the actions of group members to the organized group under the principle of respondeat superior. Members of the group who ratify agression against other groups (or unorganized populations) by remaining in the group and failing to punish group members who commit such aggression are indeed complicit in, and responsible for, such aggression.

Posted by friedrich braun on July 11, 2005, 01:59 PM | #

Is John saying that we (in the West) should emulate Mexico, that tremendous success story?

As to phenotype and genotype, in a heavily mixed milieu it’s entirely possible that some individual may appear White, yet act Black (i.e., the so-called White could have the same proportion of African alleles as his Black neighbour who also happens to be of mixed ancestry).

Finally, only Whites think in invidualistic terms, all other races make group judgments; and think and act as groups. Group efforts will defeat atomized individualist strategies every time.

Posted by Kubilai on July 11, 2005, 02:40 PM | #

All excellent comments from the people here. Let me just chime in to John’s question, that being…