Answering lying scum.
A piece of utter filth commenting at Counter-Currents writes:
threestarsPosted May 31, 2019 at 10:43 am | PermalinkYou’re perfectly exemplifying the malaise Quinn is talking about. You’re maliciously strawmening Derbyshire, who NEVER advocated for race mixing with Asians and specifically said so himself on numerous occasions. If we were to shun every member of our movement or ally who was married or had sex with Jewish, Asian, or Indian women we’d be back to the dark days of barely articulate methheads raving about Hitler.
Let’s put aside the interesting statement (perhaps true for the Alt Right) that there would not be many activists left - apart from stupid drug addicts - if we shun race-mixers. Also, we can put aside the implication that opponents of miscegenation are “barely articulate methheads” (I suppose they are slightly nuts latrine flies as well). Let’s focus on the claim that Derbyshire never advocated for Eurasian mongrelizaiton.
Really? Derbyshire NEVER advocated for race mixing with Asians? Of course, there’s different interpretations for “advocated.” Given the sensitivities involved and the gross damage done to racial interests by miscegenation, I consider a defense of, and supportive tolerance of, race mixing, coupled with praising the results of such mixing, to be reasonably equivalent to “advocating” – particularly when the person in question is a race-mixer themselves and represents the miscegenation ideal in the bedroom and the crib.
Let’s consider Derbyshire’s infamous “awkward squad” VDARE post, the one in which he essentially admits that he married a Chinatrix because he is a socially awkward loser with an unpleasant personality. While it is true that he suggests that mass miscegenation may have “unforeseen consequences” and that opposition to such mass mixing could be legitimate, we note he never defines what level of admixture is too much, and then he proceeds to strongly defend European-Asian admixture, even to the extent of mass admixture that produces an evenly hybridized population. The relevant passages are as follows, emphasis added:
It can, I think, seriously be doubted whether, if there had never been large numbers of blacks in the U.S.A., anti-miscegenation laws would ever have been thought of at all.
As to Jared's dire warnings about the dangers to mental and physical health faced by the offspring of mixed-race marriages—Pshaw! There are hazards of every kind in human reproduction.
I just last week read in a newspaper article that: "Twin and triplet babies have a five time greater risk of dying within their first year compared to single babies." We all know that older mothers have higher risk of birth defects. Suicide rates are sensationally higher in some nations than in others, for reasons partly genetic. (The only three nations of Finno-Ugrian linguistic stock are all in the top 20 on that list.)
Should we not then have twins? Should we make our women breed early? Should we shun marriage with Finns, Hungarians, and Estonians?
I suppose some people would say so. Most of us, however, have in these matters what investment advisers call "a high appetite for risk," and take whatever Nature feels like offering us with the partner we have chosen.
In the particular case of European-Asian matches, Jared and I both recently attended a lecture that included a genetic analysis of the Uighurs, a Central Asian people. They are very precisely half European, half Asian.
I have, as it happens, met more than the average number of Uighurs. They seem to me a fine sturdy people not notably lacking in intelligence or afflicted with any very noticeable personality defects. They are certainly robust enough to be giving the Chinese Communists a lot of trouble.
I say again: Pshaw!
So, first, he stupidly equates race mixing with having twins or triplets or mating with “Finns, Hungarians, and Estonians.” Then – and here is the crucial part – he utterly rejects Taylor’s anti-mixing attitude (Pshaw!), and cites the Uighurs as an example of a wonderfully sturdy and robust product of very nice half-and-half European-Asian mongrelization.
He then even more stupidly defends miscegenation because the Uighurs are “certainly robust enough to be giving the Chinese Communists a lot of trouble.” Last I looked the Han Chinese were in absolute zero significant danger from any Uighurs, who they are repressing quite nicely, and any non-significant danger from Uighurs likely has more to do with their religion than with their racial makeup. And even if Uighurs were real troublemakers – what? – is that a defense of race-mixing? Gee, racially mixed Blacks and Hispanics in America are causing White Americans all sorts of trouble, so let’s support European-Sub-Saharan African- Amerindian admixture. I mean, they are all real sturdy and robust, so what’s the problem?
Take home message: Derbyshire is a supporter and a de facto advocator for European-Asian miscegenation, and filthy scum who claim otherwise are LYING to you.
I say again: Pshaw!