In the entry on Mrs. Tiger Woods, M., a male reader, states that he is indifferent to the personal sufferings of the famous golfer’s wife. Her choice of a husband was a form of betrayal that angers him “on a very deep, existential level.” The reader’s comment illustrates something that many white women refuse to acknowledge: Miscegenation offends some men at the core of their being.

Karen Wilson writes:

The male commentator’s comments about his offense at miscegenation in women are understandable. But what does he think of this? 

This white male from a socially prominent family has not only married an Asian woman, but he has also converted to Islam to do it as his bride’s family would not accept him as a non Muslim. He was brought up as a Christian in the Church of England. Just look at the wedding picture! This is a double betrayal both of his race and religion as well as a cultural victory for the Muslims who must feel that their Islamification process has a better chance of success now that the elites are converting to Islam. 

His parents even attended the wedding in Muslim outfits, just to fit in!!!!  Dr Osborne wore a red and gold suit called a sherwani with a red turban (!!!) while his multimillionaire father Sir Peter wore a blue sherwani. (Does he usually wear such outfits??) Lady Osborne was in a traditional cream lehenga gown. The bride and groom recited verses from the Koran before being declared husband and wife by the imam, after which there was lavish entertainment featuring Bollywood-style bands.

Miscegenation is more common in men than women and is equally damaging in both. In both cases the family bloodlines are destroyed. I can understand white men being enraged when they see white women with non white men but they are more passive when they see white men with non white women, a situation which is far more destructive because of its increased frequency. This is a consequence of liberalism and the declining or absent role of parents in selecting spouses for their children. Greater paternal control of women would not stop the male miscegenation problem unless males were brought under similar paternal control.

M., the male reader who expressed his visceral opposition to miscegenation, writes:

There is definitely something instinctive in men that is aroused by seeing women of their tribe being taken by men from competing tribes. Frankly, at a basic level, the motivation for men to conquer territory, create wealth, and do great things in this world is fundamentally to please and woo women. So when we see “the enemy” walking off with our women, especially the particularly beautiful ones, it is deeply infuriating. What makes it even worse is that we KNOW that those “enemy” men love their conquest of our women all the more because they are taking something that “belongs” to us. It’s really the ultimate victory over an enemy, because you are taking their most prized possession, the beautiful women of their “tribe”, without even having to conquer them – their women are actually voluntarily abandoning them to come to you! What a coup! And here, in this current liberal culture, we are expected not only not to do anything to stop it, but are expected to smile and be affable and act as if it is nothing at all. So there is naturally a certain degree of anger at the competing “enemy” male, but there’s even more anger at the women, who we feel deep inside should have some loyalty to us and some understanding of and concern for our feelings – should be on “our side” – but instead are happily handing our “enemies” the most devastating and demoralizing kind of victory over us that they can have. 

I think the nature of women is different than men in this respect. I think women are drawn to power and that power does not at all have to be power possessed by a man of their tribe. I think there is a thing built into the nature of women that makes them quite willing to be “taken” by a man from another tribe, if they perceive that he is more appealing in some way. I think there may even be an instinct in women to prefer to “cheat” like this outside the tribe. Perhaps it comes from millenia of women being ravished by invading armies; there seems to be a female instinctive desire to yield to male power. And so while men of a conquered tribe were killed or made slaves, women of a conquered tribe, especially the desirable ones, could hope to not only live, but to even live well with their new, stronger masters, and bear strong children with a good future ahead of them in a stronger tribe. 

There is a double standard here because I don’t feel the same anger when men of my “tribe” take women from another. For instance, a white man marrying an Asian woman doesn’t affect me the same way. I think it’s perhaps because we see it as simply one of our men successfully taking a woman from another tribe. That’s a good thing by that innate male calculus. Speaking very bluntly and from this primal perspective, it’s even better if our men impregnate their women in their territory and leave them with their children to be raised by that competing society. Our genes are spread, theirs are diluted, and they have to pay the economic price of raising bastard children and the social price of internal division and strife caused by the presence of these child reminders of a successful “enemy” foray into their territory and betrayal by one of their women. 

That’s why it’s so infurating on a primal level to watch black men saunter in and impregnate our women. (Black men also deeply hate it when their women are with white men, so this is not by any means just a white male concern.) It’s the ultimate defeat for men. And as I mentioned above, what makes it even worse is that the black men didn’t even conquer our tribe – our women simply laid down and gave themselves to them. What a betrayal! 

I will go on just a little more and tell a related anecdote. I was out for a walk recently and passed a bus stop where local teenagers catch the school bus. This formerly white suburb has been becoming more NAM in recent years, probably thanks to Section 8 housing subsidies. As I walked up the street towards the bus stop I noticed that there was a group of teenagers standing there. As I got closer I saw that it was a black teenage boy and five white teenage girls, who were chattering and giggling and fluttering around him like excited birds. The dynamics of the situation were obvious. The boy was in heaven; he was a little too young to know how to move forward but he was obviously loving all the female attention. And the girls were clearly interested in him, flirting and giggling, grabbing his arm, goofing off among themselves to catch his attention. 

Having explained my position on this matter above, you can imagine how I felt about this. But I have enough sense to restrain myself and to maintain some dignity, and I said nothing as I passed. But I did give the boy and the girls a long, cold, direct look in the eyes as I passed and I think everyone knew what everyone was thinking without a word being said. Interestingly, I noticed as I turned the corner and looked back that three of the girls had broken off and left. My intuition was that they felt uncomfortable in the first place and my passing had made it too uncomfortable to continue staying there. 

I continued on my walk and as I approached home again (which was very near to this bus stop) I noticed that the black boy and two of the white girls were still standing there, talking. My path was going to take me directly past them, and I considered going in some other indirect route so as to avoid another eye-meeting situation, but then decided I was going to walk home just like I would anyway. So I walked directly past them. 

Their reaction was interesting. They fell silent as I approached and all three looked like they felt guilty. They turned and watched me as I approached and passed. One girl dropped her gaze to the pavement; the black boy looked positively scared; and the other white girl, who I knew to be something of a troublemaker, impulsively threw her arms around the neck of the black boy and hugged him and glared at me. He awkwardly shoved her away. I continued on into my home and they resumed their chatter. The dynamics of the situation certainly were charged, which I found interesting since presumably these teenagers had been taught since they entered school that race doesn’t matter. Why did they obviously feel so guilty about a grown white man seeing what they were doing? My guess is that it was all instinct. 

I envy the white Southerners of a century ago who would have felt quite comfortable chastising those girls and sending them on their way and would have made sure that black boy knew better than to be cruising for female attention among the young women of the dominant tribe. (I don’t mean violence or lynching. I reject those options as immoral. But there would have been social sanctions like shaming that worked the same way.) Instead we white men have reduced ourselves to no other viable option than silent anger. 

This situation isn’t going to go on indefinitely; it can’t. We will either allow ourselves to be utterly conquered in this sneaking, roundabout way, or we will rise up and stop it. And the responsibility for changing the situation lies with white men. It is our job to maintain the integrity of our tribe. Women will be women; we need to be men. But we have to rid ourselves first of this liberalism which puts us into such a state of paralysis, frozen between what we’ve been taught is morally right – which is always a powerful concern and motivation for white men, unlike black men, generally speaking – and what feels instinctively right.

Karen Wilson adds:

Laura wrote:

Feminism and miscegenation are interconnected. Only a society which has emasculated men would openly condone intermarriage. Let me change that. Only a society in which white men have been emasculated would see the sort of tolerance for and celebration of intermarriage we are experiencing today. 

Are you saying that white men marry Asian women and condone interracial marriage because they are emasculated? Miscegenation is by far more common in men and some of them meet much worse fates than Tiger’s wife. Here is one English groom who was murdered by his Thai wife. White men are abandoning their own women and embarking on mixed race marriages at a much higher rate than women are. What do you propose is done to stop that?

M. responds:

As a more direct response to Karen Wilson’s question about how I feel about white men with women of other races: I don’t like it. In my earlier comment I spoke about how on a visceral level I can, as a white man, more easily condone a white man going to another country and enjoying the women there. But I don’t like white men marrying non-white women. I don’t feel the same visceral anger about it, though; it is more an intellectual awareness that it is a problem. Though I will say that when I see a white man with a woman from another race I instinctively feel that he is a loser who could not win the affections of a good white woman, or as a man of defective, foolish, or misguided perceptions or sensibilities who doesn’t have loyalty to our people. Also, there just seems to be a percentage of people who are, in their bones, the type of persons that are never satisfied with the home town or the home land and have wanderlust. I see those types as flighty and rootless and suspect that many in the long run are not deeply happy. 

I have a question for Karen Wilson: does she feel the same visceral anger I described when she sees white men with women of other races? Does that bother women in the way it bothers men? Somehow I suspect it does not, because I don’t think the genders are wired the same way. My current view is that men are more territorial, wanting to keep the women within their territory for themselves, and looking to win or take the women of other territories. My sense is that women are more interested in just finding a good strong man, regardless of what territory he comes from. 

Clearly both types of miscegenation need to stop if we’re going to save ourselves.

Laura writes:

It seems that many white men seeking Asian wives dislike the agressiveness of the modern Western woman. Asian women seem to offer a solution to their problem. This is in keeping with my point that feminism exacerbates the phenomenon.

Joel writes:

My mother is the embodiment of squishy, feel-good, supposedly conservative Christianity. I mentioned this to her, and pointed out that this is perfectly encapsulates the fact that black-white sexuality basically consists of black men poaching white women from white men. Her response was to harangue me and call that view “childish”. What this stems from is the absolutely faith-based, reason-blind, God-will-provide mindset, whereby believers don’t need to do anything from their own power but pray and pray for God to provide. If there were a million single men in the world and only ne single woman her solution would only be to remain faithful to God and pray. This is the general tack of most of today’s supposedly traditionalist Christianity, and it is why young men, especially in urban areas, are rejecting Christian spirituality as being irrelevant to their lives and needs. 

It is this dynamic that creates the “Game” community that has been at odds with Larry Auster for the past several months. While I do respect Auster, I have to admit that he simply does not address the problems faced by my generation of men, who are cast adrift into a society that belittles and demonizes us. Here’s the problem: our objectively measurable problem is “flesh and blood”, the existence of the ideological left, and not “principalities and powers”. Until the true traditionalists, such as yourself and Auster, understand that fighting this war means hurting lots of people, in real terms, any proposals you make will be nothing more than than unrealizable fantasies, no matter how reasonable and non-radical they seem to you. 

Our battle IS against flesh and blood, in this case the Bible is simply wrong, and if we don’t realize that we will die as a people.

Laura writes:

Joel has gathered all he knows of the Bible from the sentimental pronouncements of a sentimental woman, and the many who are like her. His mother means well, but she is a poor theologian and she can offer little but cold comfort. I suggest Joel start with Jeremiah:

Thou art my battle axe and weapons of war:
For with thee will I break in pieces the nations,
And with thee will I destroy kingdoms:
(Jer 51:20)

Game offers a few useful insights. But fifty years from now, the descendents of Gamers will be relatively few.

Alex writes:

I’m amazed that M. (the male reader) has been allowed to put a “white man’s” point of view on miscegenation so vigorously on your blog. Don’t get me wrong – I virtually agree with every robust point he  makes. And all credit to you for publishing his polemic. However, if your blog was under the control of Google, I’m pretty sure they would  close it down (like Dennis Mangan’s blog ) for inciting something they don’t approve of.

Laura writes:

Yikes.

Don Marco writes:

I, Don Marco Edmundo Jawsario, would like to comment on this thread about interracial marriage – something of which Don Marco does not approve. However, I must take objection to this assertion by some of your readers about Scandinavians. I do not think that northestern European blondes are any better people than other whites – in fact, Don Marco claims that Italians and Slavs are the most ardent defenders of Western Civilization. Too many Scandinavians are race traitors, and all too eager to hand Europe and America over to the non-white hordes. They are almost as bad as liberal Jews, which Don Marco used to be.

Laura writes:

You forget that Scandinavian women are the most beautiful.

Don Marco responds:

Give Don Marco a traditionalist woman any day with a plain nice face and a decent figure over the most glamorous Hollywood bimbo bombshell.

Mike writes:

I was interested by your comment about the emasculation of white men and its relation to the acceptance and celebration of miscegenation.  The story of the Mexican serial sperm donor was not terribly surprising.  Nor was I surprised that he doesn’t want his daughter fraternizing with white boys.  This is all a part of our
ingrained, instinctual reproductive strategy.  Our liberal culture has suppressed this instinct in white men.  We are told that we must accept, even celebrate, our daughters and sisters giving their bodies to non-white men.  Non-whites are happy to take advantage of this, but have no desire to reciprocate by sharing their women.  It’s just a
typical example of suicidal liberal pacifism.  Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why Islam is so successful and so incredibly toxic to Western society.  Muslims are the most vigilant womb-hoarders of all, and it is even codified into their religion – the burkhas and other restrictions make it impossible for these women to “defect”.
White men give others free access to white women and get little in return.

And, as your other reader commented, this also extends to our ever-expanding welfare state.  A great many foreign women come to the United States and exploit our generosity to have more children than they could ever afford to raise on their own.  At the same time, our native-born families are paying so much to support the former group that they cannot afford to raise many children of their own. We see the same transfer from whites to non-whites, and more generally from responsible productive citizens to irresponsible unproductive citizens.  White men pay by far the most in taxes, and receive the least in benefits.

No wonder everyone else thinks we’re suckers.  No wonder we’re emasculated.  No wonder so many young white men here and in other Western countries have turned to things like World of Warcraft, chav culture, and Game.

Rita writes:

I feel like your blog has taken a turn for the worse. For the record I’m a white woman and I can’t believe what I’m reading. As a Christian, my only goal is to further God’s Kingdom. I don’t feel compelled to save the “white race.” I’m sure the enemy of our souls loves when Christians and others focus on things like this. It’s a distraction from what really matters. What really matters is the afterlife. We are only on this earth a short time. I will use any influence I have to encourage people to know, love and obey God, so they can be with him eternally.

Jeff writes:

Laura wrote: “Miscegenation offends white men at the core of their being.” 

Really? I am a white dude, and I feel badly for Tiger’s loss of the previously loyal mother of the children. I am not offended by the shared genes.  Perhaps you’d call my attitude “false consciousness.” Or somethin’.

Laura writes:

I am disappointed Rita is no longer happy with this blog. I know we share similar concerns about the damaging effects of feminism. However, I must take strong exception to Rita’s statements that this is a “distraction from what really matters” and “what really matters is the afterlife.” The importance of the afterlife does not render this life insignificant. Again and again and again, the New Testament and Christian theology acknowledge the importance of our actions in this world and the link between these and our ultimate status in the next world. I may be wrong, but I suspect Rita believes any discussion of racial differences is sinful. I refer her to my discussion with Mrs. E. in the entry, “A Reader Protests.” More comments are to be added to this entry soon.

Regarding Jeff’s comment: There are exceptions to every rule. There may even be millions of exceptions. The prevalence of a strongly-felt aversion to interracial marriage by men of all races helps explain why for so many years it was illegal in this country and is discouraged by law or custom in many, if not most, cultures.

M. writes:

Regarding Rita’s comment: “For the record I’m a white woman and I can’t believe what I’m reading. As a Christian, my only goal is to further God’s Kingdom. I don’t feel compelled to save the ‘white race.’” 

That’s very nice for Rita, that she can live in the rarified atmosphere where only spiritual concerns matter. The rest of us have to live in a world where race and sex roles and civilizations matter, where men and women behave like men and women, competing for resources and mates, and not everyone is a white liberal Christian who turns the other cheek. 

I think people like me and people like Rita are talking past one another. I have no objection to her fine and noble aspirations; but please consider, Rita, that there is a material world here where, whether you like it or not, you can be conquered and made quite miserable by hostile people happy to take whatever you’re unwilling to defend. You may be willing to accept dhimmitude, second-class status, even the extinction of the white race and all that means. I am not. And it doesn’t make me evil or any less spiritual than you are.

Joel responds to Laura:

I spent 23 years involved in relatively theologically intensive and traditionalist churches and am quite aware of the verses you quote, among the multitude more like them. So, while you may take a valid theological position, what you say is functionally irrelevant in the context of today’s so-called conservative Christian community, where such vapid sentimentality is the rule rather than the exception. [Laura writes: Truth is never functionally irrelevant. Is Joel’s  truth only what is popular?]

From late 2007 through late 2008 I probably attended ten to fifteen events hosted by the King Country Young Republicans [Laura writes: These are conservatives?], and was astonished by the rank sentimentalism expressed by most attendees. I ended up being told I was no longer welcome at the events for expressing exactly the same positions you express on your website, as they offended many and made some feel “unsafe.” [Laura writes: Good riddance.] How is this any different from the wailing from feminist groups over “a hostile working environment”? The problem here is that the overwhelming obsession with “fostering a culture of human life” has relegated any robust theolgical Christianity irrelevant on the political scene. [Laura:  Political-schmolitical. We’re talking survival.] Today’s so-called pro-Life Movement is nothing more than the weepy sentimentality of an eight year-old girl wetting her pants after seeing her kitty-kat run over by a car, and this constitutes the bulk of today’s social conservative movement. [Laura writes: Good riddance. Numerical strength does not equal moral or intellectual strength.]

The vast bulk of the leadership of so-called Christianity is drunk on the feel-goodism of “Jesus controls everything” and is assisting in the political suicide of the West. Individuals, like my mother, who follow these leaders down the road of our decline have no ability to comprehend the road down which they are stumbling. This is why I openly call myself an atheist.

Laura writes:

So be it. Live by the logic of your creed.

Mike writes:

M.’s gut feelings are strongly backed by the somewhat fringe field of evolutionary psychology.  Women are hard-wired to submit to foreign conquerors – look no further than the women of France in World War II. There is no advantage for women to fight once their men have been subdued.  Now, nonwhite men in America are not conquerors in any real sense – our society has welcomed them.  But the visceral reaction is no different, just as the visceral reaction does not differentiate between displays of wealth by a self-made millionaire versus those of a man who won the lottery.

Van Wijk writes:

Looks like you’ve touched a nerve. :) Your decision to post conversations like this one, as taboo as they are important, is commendable.

M. sums up my own positions perfectly. He’s right that seeing an Asian woman with a white man does not provoke the same reaction as a white woman with a non-white man does. Even so, the Asian woman/white man coupling is probably more destructive than any other because it is so common.

Asian women are ubiquitous in military communities. Wherever there is a U.S. military post on foreign soil, it’s inevitable that soldiers will be marrying the local women and bringing them to America. Posts in South Korea and the Philippines (the latter now thankfully defunct) are positive wife-conduits. Since Asian cultures place enormous importance on family, and since the U.S. government bends over backwards for non-white immigrants of any kind, the woman is usually authorized to bring most of her immediate family with her when the couple returns to the States.

The children of these unions are Asian-looking and almost always identify as Asian.

M. is also correct that white men who marry Asian women are essentially seen as geldings. They have given up; they lack the fortitude to participate in a “real” marriage with a white woman, instead going with the option that gives them free and easy sex without the bickering. (I don’t know of any statistics on this, but I would venture to say that these marriages have far lower rates of divorce than white marriages.) I knew one woman from South Korea who had lived in the U.S. for twenty years. She’d married a GI in Korea, had two children with him and then divorced. Her English was so broken that everyone had a hard time understanding her. She told me that when she married the GI she spoke no English, and basically admitted that she agreed to the marriage in order to come to the “Land of the Big PX.” In exchange, the husband got sex whenever he wanted it.

Karen Wilson asked what should be done to stop these destructive practices. The answer, of course, goes beyond the scope of miscegenation to the survival of Caucasian people in North America. My belief is that we are witnessing the disintegration of the United States. Like-minded Caucasian people (and those very few non-whites who sincerely discard their own cultures to fully adopt ours) should use the Internet to network, begin to form non-virtual communities, and prepare to defend ourselves.

Laura writes:

The nature of the threat is racial. Therefore, our defense must be racial as well.

By “threat,” I do not mean interracial marriage per se, but the complex of forces that seek to vanquish an entire people.  

Joel writes:

You talk about truth, but which sort of truth? An all-transcending truth that defies time, place and critique? Or a messy and incomplete one that solely looks at the world as it currently exists? Because you seem to be trying to do a fancy straddle, whereby you engage both. First, you criticize Rita for her position that eternal life, winning souls for Jesus, and not the survival of any particular culture is the only real concern for Christians; you correctly point out that we live in this current world, and it’s rather important. Then you turn around and criticize me for taking a facts-based application to the current state of affairs, by reminding me that truth is not a popularity contest. Let’s lay out the situation: 

A) We’re at war (fact)
B) We have no army (fact)
C) We’re gonna lose (truth)

There’s your truth, so, in fact, Truth C is a product of Fact B, which is nothing more than lack of popularity, In this case, then, truth is nothing but a popularity contest, and this case certainly demonstrates such. Your responses to me, amusingly, would pretty much whittle down your allies to a scattered few; “good riddance” is not exactly a winning method of organizing an army, without which I see little chance of survival. 

I heark back to an unfinished conversation we had a few weeks ago where you pointed me to your positive program for regaining a more traditional society. While I applaud the spirit of your proposals, I find them lacking in areas related to Fact B, listed above, because they’re not going to get you an army. The truth is that winning is based on power, which has, at least some, relation to popularity, at least in a democratic age. You had stated to me that your ideas were not radical. But, even were I to grant that for the sake of argument , you are conflating radical with non-feasible, which is where you founder. The Federal Government under the Democrats is systematically undertaking a breathtakingly radical transformation, which, even if we barely escape it this round, is quite clearly feasible in this current political climate. We might even say that the most feasible changes are radical and some of the least feasible rather mundane. 

Any program or proposal first has to address Fact B, prior to any other considerations.

Laura writes:

I criticized Rita for dismissing this world in over-eagerness for the next and I criticized Joel for failing to have confidence in truth in the face of the lies, evasions and foolishness. There is no contradiction as they both represent extremes and defeatism. There is no “fancy straddle” in recognizing  both immediate and transcendent concerns. 

We have no army. Okay. Solzhenitsyn had no army. We have millions of potential allies. Joel has no confidence in the power of ideas and too little patience to sway others. He is saying we cannot fight a war unless we have already won that war. Unless our proposals are popular now, we are doomed. Fine. If we are doomed then dissidence is the only option. Forming close associations with like-minded others who want to defend our country and envision how to rebuild it is our only choice. We have nothing to lose and our lives are not in immediate danger.

Joel writes:

Solzhenitsyn did have an army, better known as the U.S. military, even though that particular force was not under his direct control, so the analogy of living a life of dissent as he did is completely worthless. Personally, I have no interest in what amounts to a modern version of monaticism and I’ll take a life of hedonism leading to empty nothingness over desperate and futile dissent. We occupy the last bastions of civilization, and there is nowhere else to which to turn. In the US we have three basic strands of thought, with some overlap: 

A) Economic types who, basically, think that culture is rather unimportant and whose only measure for how well the country does is GDP. Libertarian, loosely, although a lot of these actually vote Democrat.
B) So-called social conservatives who fetishize opposition to abortion to the point that it is the sole standard by which all other issues must be judged.
C) Utopian leftists.

C is obviously the enemy. A and B are equally impotent in opposing C, so, an alliance between them is pointless since two lies do not make a truth. You charge that I do not trust in the power of ideas to change things, and I would respond by pointing out that I see very powerful ideas at work, destructive ideas, but powerful ones. These ideas are powerful, compelling and crowd out the ideas that would make headway in rescuing Western Civilization. I’m a socially engaging person, who has discussed these ideas and issues in person with more people than I can remember. I have been banned from many right-leaning websites for making the points made here and on VFR, so I don’t understand where you think these millions reside. Hell, as an extremely engaging and persuasive person, I can’t even get my own mother to care about these issues, and she would presumably have a vested interest in this sort of stuff. 

Contrary to your accusation I am not defeatist. I simply do not see that your prescriptions offer a practical way to win the battles that require us to fight. Frankly, I cannot see how they even allow us to field a fighting force, much less win.

Laura writes:

When one is defending what one love’s – and I am not talking about defending our civilization from interracial marriage per se but from overall conquest – one doesn’t ask whether it’s worth it. If by a “life of hedonism,” Joel means he will not seek to have children or to continue resisting in whatever way he can the forces he opposes then he is not a mere drop-out, but an active participant in this conquest. I can understand moments of discouragement, but not this deep sense of futility. The issue of whether we can succceed does not in my mind affect the decision to resist. In war, there is no middle ground between resistance and acquiescence.

Glen H. writes:

I’ve been reading the Golfer’s Wife/Miscegeny post with great interest–cirnging at times and nodding at others. While I have neither the time nor eloquence to effectively effuse my own opinions on the subject, which have more or less been addressed anyway, I would like to point out one vital element of the discussion, or rather an element which is missing.

The word ‘Love’, so far, has been used three times:

M: What makes it even worse is that we KNOW that those “enemy” men love their conquest of our women all the more because they are taking something that “belongs” to us.

Rita: I’m sure the enemy of our souls loves when Christians and others focus on things like this. It’s a distraction from what really matters. What really matters is the afterlife. We are only on this earth a short time. I will use any influence I have to encourage people to know, love and obey God, so they can be with him eternally.

Twice love is used within the context of conquest/failure/destruction, and once in the perfunctory address to God. I find this deeply troubling. While M’s comments, around which most of the discussion are centered, seem guiltily agreeable, he is taking (he calls it primal) a composite, socio-psychological approach which speaks in generalties (not necessarily for the worse) and addresses man as a largely soulless being, one without indivioduality and one without dignity.

There was an earlier discussion ‘Race and Culture v. Family’, a very excellent discussion as well, where in Laura H established to everyone’s satisfaction the happiness, success, and nutritive powers of her family. This did not debunk any of the broader arguments in the Golfer’s Wife string, preciesly because Laura H. is an individual, married an individual, and in an act of love birthed eight other individuals. At no point is the dignity of love of personhood lacking in Laura H. or her family, but the Golfer’s Wife, in its neglect of love, has debased man by indirectly implying he cannot exceed his simple, physical self–a paradox for the (lovingly) married man, who as a dignified and loving individual will consummate with his wife to affirm his individuality, his wife’s individuality, and their personhood, soon to be made manifest in children.

Such a fortunate attainment, which seems rarer and rarer in these days of decay, renders the partaker existentially aloof of racial/cultural discrepancies. This is not to say these potential problems don’t exist or can’t be addressed, in fact they should be for the betterment of all invovled that they might find love themselves. But for those in loving matrimony, it is a secondary issue, and not an intra-familial concern at all. If it’s of any interest to you or perhaps the other readers, I’d like to extrapolate this Personalism to Eldrick Woods and his wife, but I just don’t have the time. (Furthermore, I welcome and challenge other too as well, I think it would be refreshingly constructive within this largely reductionary conversation).

Rita writes:

I don’t think a discussion of race is sinful and I do mourn the loss of my culture however I feel a strong focus in worry about something like this takes the focus off more important things.

I probably stated it a little to strongly in stating that only the afterlife matters. I have real life concerns naturally but they are focused on other things besides race. I just don’t see a strong Biblical mandate to keep the white race pure. There’s no mention of racial purity in the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount. If I were to come out strongly on any issues (and I do, from time to time) it would be to defend the very young (as you often do Laura), the very old, the weak, the fatherless and so on. James 1:27 says “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” I don’t take “pollution” to mean racial impurity, I believe it means polluted from sin. If you can show me new testament commands to keep our bloodlines pure, I’ll be all over it but I suspect anything you come up with will be vague at best.

I’ll take being a weepy sentimentalist (pro-lifer-speaking out against the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in the US every year) any day over being angry about mixed bloodlines. Sorry, I respectfully believe your focus is wrong, my friends. We have much bigger fish to fry.

Laura writes:

This discussion, which has wandered over the course of several days and includes numerous posts, has been about more than the purity of bloodlines. It has covered a number of subjects, all of them in some way related to race. They include the propriety of talking about race; the existence or non-existence of races; the Christian view of race relations; the black community today and the prevalence of anti-white sentiment. To reduce it to a neurotic concern about racial purity is misleading.

I would like to remind readers how this discussion began. Laura H, a white woman married to a black man and the mother of eight children, wrote to me about her thoughts on interracial marriage, a subject I had written about before. I specifically said to her, in so many words, “Are you sure you wish to discuss this?” She responded emphatically, “Yes. This is important.”

Our ancestors up until quite recently thought this subject was important, so much so that there were laws banning marriage across racial lines.

To Glenn, I do think the discussions with Laura H. touched on the centrality of love in family. Also, these posts have been consumed with another subject: the love for one’s people. Whether it is acceptable for whites to express this sentiment in relation to other whites is the theme that runs throughout. I cannot disagree with Rita more strenuously: We do not have bigger fish to fry. We live in a world in which all races, except whites, are aggressively asserting their interests and actively seeking to demoralize whites. The continued failure by whites to defend their own interests amounts to collective suicide. At the same time, as I’ve said repeatedly, race is only one of many layers of our social existence.

Patrick Haney writes:

This is a response to Don Marco.

I have been saddened by how those on the right look down on the Western European stock. Its not just libertarians (who prefer Hong Kong and Singapore for obvious reasons) or mainstream conservatives who prefer the family values of the Third World (and the natural alliance status of Japan and Israel) to our own stock, but I have also found this trend to be the case among race realists.

What Don said, that the Nordics are unwilling to defend Western Civilization, may be true, but we need not turn to Slavs or the Mediterranean races for guidance. I point to the Swiss, the Boers, the Orangeman, still sons of the Reformation whereas the Slavs and Mediterraneans are largely secular. Don’t get me wrong: I do consider those people, white and Christian, to be part of Western Civilization, I just think the Western/Northern European peoples should take the leadership role.

Mrs. E. writes:

M. shares with us how he feels about interracial marriages, and then goes on to describe his behavior towards the group of teenagers he sees at the bus stop. I was very disturbed by his behavior. Glaring threateningly at people who have choices we disagree with is inappropriate. Behaving this way towards children is bullyish. If any of those children were mine, I would be deeply concerned about their safety. And if the young man had been an adult, M.’s behavior could have lead to harsh words between them, possibly ending in a fistfight. All provoked by M.

As it was, I wouldn’t be surprised if the teenaged boy is even now developing a fear/mistrust/hatred of whites based on this very threatening behavior by M. I am sickened that M. relished the fear he caused this boy.

 Laura writes:

Mrs. E.’s comment typifies the modern woman’s effort to emasculate men. She has no respect for M.’s natural inclination to be a guardian, to watch out for the women with whom he feels an instinctive and natural allegiance.  He merely conveyed his disapproval, as every man should when he senses something vital is threatened, and he is accused of virtually destroying a boy’s well-being. I completely disagree with Mrs. E. Our society will have no male protectors if women insist men behave like girls.

M. writes:

I did not engage in “very threatening behavior” with the teenagers at the bus stop.  I did not “relish the fear” I caused the boy.  I did not “glare threateningly” at anyone.  That is all in Mrs. E.’s imagination.
 
I walked along the path I was taking a walk along anyway, and as I passed, without even turning my head,  I looked those people in the eye for a brief moment without smiling.  I didn’t frown, grimace, jump at them, growl, grumble, sneer, or do anything else.  I simply looked them briefly directly in the eyes for a moment, one after the other, without breaking stride.  And they were ashamed.  If they hadn’t felt there was something untoward about what they were doing, it wouldn’t even have occurred to them to behave like they were ashamed, or even to look directly at the man walking up the street to see what his reaction was to what they were doing.  I doubt that five white teenage girls talking to a white teenage boy would have even noticed that I passed, much less hung their heads in embarrassment.  I was just an average man walking along a sidewalk on a late afternoon who looked them in the eye for a moment and walked on.  So relax, Mrs. E. It was not an imminent assault by a white racist maniac about to do the children in.

Glen H. writes:

Laura Wood wrote: “Also, these posts have been consumed with another subject: the love for one’s people. Whether it is acceptable for whites to express this sentiment in relation to other whites is the theme that runs throughout.”

Of course, love for one’s people, by that common association with them, cannot come if one doesn’t first love and respect one’s self. It’s very acceptable, natural, and encouraging for persons of a common race to protect their culture. What I have witnessed so far, which again has been very interesting and refreshingly blunt, is not however a love of one’s race, but an impersonal and unquestioning defense of one’s race, regardless of individual love, as an eminent but fragile construct. M. can feel defensive when he sees white women with non-white men, or even non-white women with white men. What he, and those taking a similar position have thus far not regarded is that individual and potentially loving aspects of these relationships–well exemplified with Laura H., who seems to have a home and love life that belligerents like M. and myself can only envy.

A female reader writes:

My sisters and I were raised in what could be described as a prejudiced household, and were told from early childhood we were not to date black men. We heard “the n word” used and we knew even as young children that was wrong, but we did not dare challenge the adults who used it. In her twenties, a sister rebelled by marrying a black man. I don’t think she loved him and the marriage was a complete failure, ending in divorce with no children. An interesting thing happened while my sister was engaged and married to the black man. Others in the community, including my in-laws, started making awful comments to me, another sister, and my parents about it. I was suddenly on the defensive and it was a very difficult position to be in. I knew people were gossiping and I feared for my sister’s safety after our own cousin threatened to “burn a cross” on her front lawn. (We live in a blue collar area, not very refined, I know). I also got the impression my husband was ashamed of my sister. He tried to be politically correct about it, we all did, but it was hard. I got the feeling he did not want to be married into a family whose daughters would marry a non-white. I never knew him to be racist, but it was as though the whole family’s image changed. The experience changed our family’s reputation in a way that is very real yet very hard to explain.

Karen Wilson writes:

Glenn H. wrote: “What I have witnessed so far, which again has been very interesting and refreshingly blunt, is not however a love of one’s race, but an impersonal and unquestioning defense of one’s race, regardless of individual love, as an eminent but fragile construct. M. can feel defensive when he sees white women with non-white men, or even non-white women with white men. What he, and those taking a similar position have thus far not regarded is that individual and potentially loving aspects of these relationships–well exemplified with Laura H., who seems to have a home and love life that belligerents like M. and myself can only envy.”

“An impersonal and unquestioning defence of one’s race” is a natural instinct and should not be threatened by individual love. Marriage is a tool for family formation, the preservation and transmission of culture, the maintenance of social stability and the production of a future generation of people who resemble their ancestors. It is also the primary institution for limiting state power and preserving private wealth. Thus the individual and potentially loving aspects of mixed race relationships are not relevant. Glen writes as though it is not possible to find love within one’s own race. There are six parties to be considered as stakeholders in a marriage – the bride, the groom, the bride’s family, the groom’s family, the unborn children and society at large.  [Laura writes: That is an excellent point and very well stated by Karen. It cannot be stressed enough in a world that views marriage purely through the lens of self-interest.]   If the interests of all are not upheld, the marriage should be vetoed. Two people of different races may love each other but their marriage is not in the interests of society at large and it is not in the interest of the next generation let alone the previous generation who end up with grandchildren who don’t look like them. The interests of society at large must take precedence over the interests of individuals. The majority of mixed race unions do not work out well in the long run and it is in the interests of most people that they be prevented from entering them.

[See M.’s response to Glenn H. in this entry.]

Glenn H. responds to Karen:

Who ever spoke of threats? Love threatens only those who live in hate. It can supersede race of course, or be contained within it, but always amongst individuals, amongst persons. An impersonal and unquestioning person is little more than a fleshy automaton.

A tool makes work easier. True there is work involved in family formation, preservation of culture (I don’t think you really want transmission of culture, then it can amalgamate and cross racial boundaries after all), and maintaining social stability. Once again, you take a technical approach to a sacramental institution, one which above all is/should be/was a union between two loving individuals and God. You say that marriage is that primary limit on state power, but the definitions and applications of marriage to which you subscribe are those defined by the state.

Karen wrote: “Thus the individual and potentially loving aspects of mixed race relationships are not relevant.” I fail to follow your syllogism. You spoke of constructs around a loving relationship, but without actually addressing the loving relationship. Nowhere, anywhere, never did I ever say or write it’s impossible to find love within one’s own race. I think Karen is in love with Straw Men. I myself am white, and am engaged to a white woman.

Next there is more dilapidated economizing of marriage. “Six parties to be considered as stakeholders” – a marriage between two people, when consummated, cannot be out of self-interest. It is the quintessential giving of self. If a marriage is not, it is annulled. (Vetoes, again, apply to state procedure, not eminent goods like marriage). Society and culture are not the same, and societies can be mixed race, mixed anything. That won’t necessarily make it a good society, much to the chagrin of liberals, but “society at large” seems quite contrary to your previous focus on private, protective cultural interests. Again, explain how Laura H. and her family are a harm to society at large, or anywhere. God forbid, one’s grandchildren don’t look like them…Oh wait…He doesn’t. Between the wrinkles, the sun-beaten skin, and the variations amongst race already (e.g. an Italian marrying a Swede) chances are the grandparents and grandchildren won’t be identical. Should the grandparents withhold their love (and really, what else do they have to give other than “those were the days” tales of temperance?) How can the interest of society take precedent over individuals when individuals make up society? When individuals make decisions that are not in their personal best interests, society suffers—that’s seen from the free market to the dining room table.

Karen writes, “The Majority of mixed race unions don’t work out in the long run and it is in the interests of most people that they be prevented from entering them.” Aside from that very general, unverified claim, now you seem to admit that interracial marriages aren’t such a ubiquitous evil, even that some people can handle them. Which people? Who decides? Most importantly, who will do the preventing, the State? There goes the private sphere. Even in the conclusion, you show you cannot trust people with free will, trust them to look out for themselves, trust them to have dignity. It’s funny because that’s exactly what the miscegenate-or-die, Multikultur uber Alles liberals think too, and legislate (via the state, of course) accordingly. 

Laura writes:

Karen overstates her case when she says that “the individual and potentially loving aspects of mixed race relationships are not relevant.” There are times and circumstances when mixed race marriage, strongly motivated by love, can trump social interests. But these interests, in any society that works to preserve culture, are likely to make life difficult for the mixed race couple. Mixed marriages have a much higher rate of divorce even today when the attitude toward them is tolerant.

There was ample recognition in the previous discussions of the importance of love in Laura H.’s home. Glenn H. exaggerates marriage as an institution purely between two people, to the point of reducing the role of grandparents to old codgers who tell boring stories. He  appears to have little appreciation for the physical bonds that exist between the generations and the desire for the old to ensure the continuity of their culture in both trivial and deep ways. Of course grandparents can love a grandchild who is of a foreign race, but it is natural for them to also at the same time harbor feelings that something significant has changed.

Kimberly writes:

I don’t want to be disrespectful to Joel. I am saying this with a gentle concern and a ladylike admiration for him. I think he is terrified of his own ideas. He doesn’t want to believe himself, and yet, as brilliant as he thinks he is, with good reason, he’s unwilling to understand the simple truth. Like St. Augustine, I think he believes that the truth must be quite complex, beyond the reach of the common mind, and so he feels alone, and that would terrify anyone! But the truth is not complex. It is so simple, one must be very humble to understand it. His pride is blinding him, and in anxiety, he’s banging on your door, annoyed with your profound peace, envious and again, blind.

Do you know who the army is? I’ll bet you do. It’s us. St. Lewis de Montfort revealed this to me, I believe, but I’m no authority, so don’t bet your soul on it. It’s just my opinion. The way he describes the army that the Lord is building, it would make any housewife feel strong! The army is the heel of the Woman who is the Arc of the Covenant, the heel that “crushes the head of the serpent.” This heel is unnoticed, unappreciated, and trodden upon. This heal is hidden and humble. So tell Joel to enter the Kingdom of God, to keep his eyes open for that woman, that soldier, whom the Arc of the Covenant might have prepared for him. He will lead her into battle, and maybe when he gives his mother some grandchildren, she’ll be more willing to listen to his beliefs!

I found a qoute, to end this on a Saint’s note. It’s from St. Jose Maria Escriva, on Citizenship.

“A fundamental error against which you must be on guard is to think that the noble and just customs and needs of your times and environment cannot be directed and accommodated to the holiness of the moral teaching of Jesus Christ.” Amen.

Karen Wilson responds to Glen H.:

I find Glen’s writing to be quite confusing but I shall try to address some of his points.  

Glen wrote: take a technical approach to a sacramental institution, one which above all is/should be/was a union between two loving individuals and God. You say that marriage is that primary limit on state power, but the definitions and applications of marriage to which you subscribe are those defined by the state.

Marriage is a union primarily between two loving individuals and God but there are other important stakeholders – family, generations as yet unborn and society. The interests of all must be considered. This is a traditionalist definition and one which is followed in all parts of the world except the West and black Africa. It has nothing to do with the state but a strong extended family and community is the best form of resistance against the power of the state which is why Marxists and the left want to break down the family and extended family. 

You spoke of constructs around a loving relationship, but without actually addressing the loving relationship

The constructs around the relationship are the basis for forming a loving relationship which is why the marital success rate in countries and cultures which follow these traditions are vastly higher than in Western society where the individual is paramount and the all conquering love of the couple reduces the other stakeholders to spectators. Love alone is not a basis for marriage and this is why almost 50% of marriages in the West are failing. 

“Six parties to be considered as stakeholders” – a marriage between two people, when consummated, cannot be out of self-interest. It is the quintessential giving of self. If a marriage is not, it is annulled.

It can be out of self-interest. In fact the topical Tiger Woods marriage illustrates that. Tiger wanted a trophy blonde wife to improve his marketed image and boost his popularity and earnings. Meanwhile he kept a harem for his clandestine pleasure. The Vatican does not annul marriages for these reasons. The marriage can be ended only by divorce.

Vetoes, again, apply to state procedure, not eminent goods like marriage.

Vetoes don’t have to be issued by the state. They can be issued by families and by social stigma. 

Society and culture are not the same, and societies can be mixed race, mixed anything. That won’t necessarily make it a good society, much to the chagrin of liberals, but “society at large” seems quite contrary to your previous focus on private, protective cultural interests.

Society and culture are closely interlinked. American society was originally founded by British puritans and it has been changed hugely by the immigration of different peoples. In order to maintain social stability, individuals must conform to social norms and customs. The pursuit of individual freedoms which violate social norms eventually leads to the social collapse which we are seeing in the West today. 

“The Majority of mixed race unions don’t work out in the long run and it is in the interests of most people that they be prevented from entering them.” Aside from that very general, unverified claim, now you seem to admit that interracial marriages aren’t such a ubiquitous evil, even that some people can handle them. Which people? Who decides? Most importantly, who will do the preventing, the State? There goes the private sphere. Even in the conclusion, you show you cannot trust people with free will, trust them to look out for themselves, trust them to have dignity. It’s funny because that’s exactly what the miscegenate-or-die, Multikultur uber Alles liberals think too, and legislate (via the state, of course) accordingly.

Statistics have shown that the majority of mixed race marriages fail and are more disharmonious than same ethnic marriages. The one which is a success is the exception to the rule. Exceptions cannot govern social tradition. Even in situations where the marriage is a success, is it really in the interests of western society to allow them and to encourage the birth of mixed race children who have been demonstrated to have up to 4 times the rate of psychological morbidity and psychosocial disorder? Most people want to reduce social problems and not create new ones.