Needless to say, these views are inconsistent: either altruism was forced on the West, or they were innately altruistic.

It's not inconsistent at all - MacDonald argues that whites naturally lean toward individualism and a lack of ethnocentrism (relative to Jews), but the acceptance of Jewish-promoted ideologies pushed whites towards a fundamentally suicidal extreme.

Even if fertility is purely environmental, that just means we'll see an increase in fertility-promoting memes (which we're starting to see already, e.g. Mormonism).

Needless to say, KMD-style scapegoating is no more of an explanation here than it is in most European countries with immigrants, including the Netherlands.

I'd say that the reason why Icelanders (and people in many European countries) are more anti-immigration than we are in the United States is because there is less Jewish influence there. But, even so, the development of multiculturalism at all in these countries is probably due to cultural and intellectual influence from the US, and hence ultimately Jewish in origin. Or do you believe that the Icelanders spontaneously developed multiculturalism all by themselves?

2) Gentiles like Susan B. Anthony lead the first wave of feminism, which gave women the vote. Women are another reliably liberal group.

The feminism of Anthony was quite different from the Jewish 1960's feminism of Friedan/Allred/Steinem/Abzug/Sontag/Dworkin/etc.

4) Gentiles with war brides after World War 2 came back to the US with them. The result was public pressure to eliminate miscegenation laws and open immigration to Asians. That was the 1944 War Brides Act, the precursor to various immigration/marriage reforms that culminated in the 1965 Immigration Reform Act and the Loving decision.

I did a Google search on "1944 War Brides Act" and got only three pages, one of which was this same post of yours over on the Original Dissent forum. I don't see anything suggesting that this act was of influence on later immigration acts. Do you have a source indicating that it was? For the most part, there was a fairly strong anti-immigration sentiment in the United States until it was overwhelmed by Jewish lobbying.

7) Most importantly, the European countries with few or no Jews are secular, socialist, sympathetic to communism, anti-military, pro-immigration, high taxes + welfare...and basically much further left than we are. Think about it - how can less Jews in Europe mean more leftism, if KMD is right?

This depends on what you mean by "leftism". Neither KMD nor I (nor anyone I know of) claims that only Jews support government programs. That obviously would not be true. An good example: Hitler had plenty of welfare state programs without any Jewish influence. The point is that the sort of radical anti-American leftism has never caught on in Europe - most Europeans, even those who support an increased welfare state, have some sense of national pride (or at least a relative absence of self-loathing and guilt). Multiculturalism and immigration, although they certainly exist and are a problem in Europe, are not nearly as strong as they are here in the United States, and most European countries have fairly strong anti-immigration parties/movements. They may not constitute anywhere near a majority in these countries, but they're much stronger than anti-immigration groups in the US.

It continued as Europeans contacted people from other cultures via colonialism and realized that they were not all "wogs" (e.g. Meiji Japan, Ramanujan, Gurkhas, etc.) There is quite a bit of truth to the idea that many people with different skin tones are not necessarily hostile or stupid, which is one of the reasons it caught on.

I don't believe that all non-whites are stupid, and neither do most white nationalists. And neither do the Japanese, who remain intensely ethnocentric and nationalistic. Japan (and Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, etc.) provides a perfect counter-example to the notion that technologically advanced countries necessarily bec
More....

well, throughout much of the 19th and early 20th century immigration policies were lax.... (special exclusion acts against chinese had to passed, etc.)

Yes, I realize that some non-white immigration would have occurred (and did occur) without Jewish influence. However, immigration restrictionism had triumphed by 1924 and would not have been overcome if not for Jewish lobbying and (perhaps more importantly) Jewish-promoted intellectual movements.

We've observed that the white men who have Asian wives/girlfriends then to be less the studly alpha-male whites males, and more the nerdy not-too-good looking white males.

Not only this, but the dorky white guys tend to choose from the better looking Asian women (at least from what I've seen). So Asian men are the biggest losers here, because the more attractive Asian men are forced to take less attractive Asian women than they would get otherwise, whereas hot white chicks are still able to get studly white guys.

It would be hard to conduct a survey on the attractiveness of white males and Asian females who date interracially and compare to their racial norms. I would guess, though, that if you conducted a survey at a university with large numbers of Asians and whites, you would find white women to be far less upset about WM/AF dating than Asian men.

The problem with this assertion is the numerical difference. We're talking about large white populations and small Asian populations, so the impact of outmarriage is felt more by the small Asian populations but diluted among the much larger white populations. In a 50/50 mix, every WM/AF couple presents direct sexual competition for both WFs and AMs.

Well, I attend a university with a racial composition similar to UC Berkeley (i.e., roughly 1:1 white/Asian ratio). Still, I don't hear white women complaining about Asian women taking their men, while I do hear Asian men complaining about white men taking their women, and I do hear specific complaints like "they take all the cute ones", etc. Also, when I generalize the attractiveness of the Asian women and white men who date interracially, I'm not basing this on things like "I knew a white guy who...", but rather on generalizations of the dozens of interracial couples I see every day while walking to and from class. One easily quantifiable trait I could think of to test my hypothesis, though: I would bet that white men who date Asian women are measurably shorter than the average white man.

Also, the white guys who intermarry tend to be more intelligent than the ones who do not - see my previous post on the socioeconomics of intermarriage.

This may or may not be true. The whites who marry *Asians* may be smarter than average, but the whites who marry blacks and Hispanics are probably below average. Hard to say how it works out on average.

Personally, I don't really care what happens to the jocks

But the jocks (albeit the more intelligent ones) are the ones producing all those NBKs. ;)

Was I the only person surprised to see Steve Sailer, normally a big supporter of interracial marriage as a (partial) solution to the race problem in America, point out what a total failure it has been in Brazil? Perhaps Sailer's usual support for interracial marriage is merely "politically correct squid ink" similar to Cavalli-Sforza's insistence that race does not exist.

That SAT-IQ conversion table put me in a ridiculously high percentile... 99.949?!? I don't think the SAT is nearly difficult enough to determine IQs at such high levels.

One can make a balanced case against mass unskilled immigration (e.g. NumbersUSA) without resorting to the tactics of demagogues like Guzzardi, Francis, and Brimelow.

VDARE doesn't hide the fact that it opposes pretty much all immigration, and largely on racial grounds. I don't see how this makes them "demagogues".

Anyway, has it occurred to you how much race realism and IQ research has been promoted by the white racialist organizations you so despise? VDARE runs Steve Sailer's stuff (another who opposes all immigration - is he a "demagogue" too?), AmRen runs guys like Rushton and Levin, and the Pioneer Fund has funded practically all modern IQ research, just to name a few examples off the top of my head.

If I recall correctly, Duesberg was pretty well regarded as a virologist before he started promoting the idea that HIV does not cause AIDS. Another such individual is Kary Mullis, nobel laureate and inventor of the polymerase chain reaction.

Although I pretty much accept that HIV causes AIDS, I do find some of Duesberg and Mullis' arguments hard to answer. For example, in the early 1980's it was claimed that AIDS would spread from its initial high-risk groups (homosexuals and intravenous drug users) to the general population. Of course, today, we see that in America AIDS is still confined largely to these groups. The usual explanation for this is that AIDS isn't transmitted as easily through vaginal intercourse - but if this is the case, then why is AIDS infecting very large percentages of the heterosexual population in Africa and parts of Asia? (Duesberg and Mullis explain this by saying that AIDS in Africa is caused by something different than AIDS in America.) Anyone got a response to this one?

Its likely that everything on earth has been invented billions of times before on other planets.

Only if "likely" means "entirely speculative and not supported by any evidence"...

Genes are definately in the house

It's "definitely" (sorry, but this particular misspelling is a pet peeve of mine).

Well, whether agriculture was a "mistake" or not, the bottom line is that any society that decided to give up agriculture would eventually be conquered by a society not so foolish. Modern society is definitely dysgenic, but getting rid of agriculture would be suicide...

Poor people have more kids. Dumber and lesser educated people have more kids. So apparently being poor, stupid, and uneducated increases one's Darwinian fitness (on average).

In any case, I think paleocons share way too much with the far left to stake a claim to the "true right". As I understand it, paleocons are protectionists, isolationists, anti-globalization

These ideas have traditionally been part of the right. In any case, neocons share far more in common with the left than the paleocons, not that this really matters.

anti-military,

Do you see no difference between being anti-war and anti-military?

and often avowed racial separatists/enemies of Lincoln.

Are you saying that Lincoln was NOT a racial separatist? If so, then you don't know your history. Lincoln wanted to ship the blacks back to Africa. And as far as racial separatism goes, I think any honest "evolutionary conservative" would have to realize that humans evolved a pretty high degree of ethnocentrism which makes any racially diverse society prone to serious problems.

Most damningly, they too side with the enemies of civilization - the radical Muslims - in proclaiming the attacks the justifiable fruit of US foreign policy.

Right, lots of pro-Muslim sentiment among the paleocons, sure. If it were up to the paleocons and not the fanatically pro-immigration neocons, there would have been far too few Muslims in the US for them to ever pull off a 9-11 type stunt.

Secondly, one can turn your criticism on its head - why do racial separatists hate Lincoln so, if he was one of them? I'm pretty sure that it's because he freed the slaves. The notion that slavery was an institution that should have continued is offensive to pretty much all of American society (including me), and a moral and political loser.

Those who advocated slavery were, necessarily, not racial separatists, they were white supremacists. They did not want racial separatism, they wanted slavery to be maintained, and hence their anger at Lincoln. As far as why many (though certainly not all) racial separatists today dislike Lincoln, it's probably because a disproportionate number of racial separatists come from the South, which has always harbored ill feelings toward Lincoln. In other words, it's a cultural, not a rational belief.

More to the point, I agree that ethnic heterogeneity generally increases communal tensions, but I think that:

1) matching for IQ minimizes or eliminates much of the friction (see Silicon Valley, US research universities)

I'm an undergrad at a US research university. I can tell you that, from browsing through the websites of the various research labs on campus, they're fairly racially segregated. White professors tend to have white grad students, Chinese professors tend to have Chinese grad students, South Asian professors tend to have South Asian grad students, and so on. There are exceptions, but it's not uncommon for ~75% of a professor's grad students to be from his particular ethnic background. As far as Silicon Valley is concerned, I have little firsthand experience there but I'd bet that the people there still associate primarily with those of their own race when they have a chance and live in segregated neighborhoods. I fail to see why an instinct like ethnocentrism would break down among high IQ people. And, even if it did, Silicon Valley and research universities do not and cannot constitute entire societies. So even if they are not ethnocentric or if their ethnocentrism is relatively benign and not causing problems, there's still the rest of the population to deal with. For every 130 IQ computer programmer, you still have 50 or so ethnocentric lower IQ people running around causing trouble. So it seems logical that immigration policies should take into account not only IQ and educational levels but also assimilability.

2) ethnic homogeneity is no panacea (e.g. Northern Ireland, India v. Pakistan, the many Franco-German wars, N Korea vs. S Korea, etc.), and notions of homogeneity change over time

Yes, but the conflicts you've listed here, with perhaps the exception of Northern Ireland, are conflicts *between* different societies, not *within* them. I'm not terribly concerned about some foreign country coming and kicking America's ass any time soon. Serious domestic troubles, on the other hand, are another sto
More....

i think its time we end the lies and those african- americans who do not believe in the lies of amerikkka for to mutally separate

Preach it loud, brotha! Separation!

What causes AIDS? Wow, that's a tough one. Here are some hints.

What the hell? "88% ACCURACY PREDICTING JewishPercentOfWhites WITH AIDSTotalPercapitaThru2001", compared with 74% for blacks? Damn.

What causes AIDS: An HIV infected person has sex with a person who is not infected.

This isn't quite true. Heterosexual sex is far less likely to transmit HIV than homosexual sex for various reasons, which is why AIDS hasn't really spread to the heterosexual population they way they predicted it would in the early 1980's.