The PLEDGE DRIVE is almost over! If you’re a fan of this blog, please help fund its continued existence by clicking the button below. THANKS!
By David Futrelle
So over on 4Chan’s /pol/ board, the anons are talking about ways to save blondes with blue eyes from what anons think will be their eventual genetic demise. Never mind that the notion of the “disappearing blonde gene” is scientific nonsense; these guys love to get worked up about things that aren’t true.
In any case, one anon proposes what he sees as a solution to this imaginary problem, According to him, those with blonde hair and blie eyes
should only breed with alike phenotype. There should be serious incentives from the government if they have 7 children or more. There should also be a blonde hair blue eye ethnostate.
I would say I did Nazi that coming but I sort of did.
But as bad as this is, another anon manages to outdo it with a proposal that combines racism and misogyny, and even a bit of antisemitism, into one giant casserole of terrible:
I don’t even know where to start with this one; in addition to being utterly repugnant, I’m not sure it contains even a single sentence that’s true. Fertility (or the lack thereof) is tied most to birth control and abortions than it is to rape or promiscuity; there are plenty of traditionalist married couples with tons of kids. Black men aren’t out there raping white women en masse, nor are they “savages.” While “forced seduction” is a thing in some romance novels, women in real life don’t generally fall in love with their rapists. Consent — or “concent” — doesn’t make sex bad; it’s what distinguishes sex from rape. Jews are not sending financial aid to people of color. Black people aren’t churning out countless babies in their “gettos,” and, in fact, birthrates of people of color are declining rapidly. And while China is growing in worldwide influence, there’s no reason to think that Jews will soon be sharing the throne with Asians as kings of the world. (I mean, they make up 0.2 percent of the world’s population.)
Is that it? I may have missed an incorrect fact or two; it’s hard to keep track with something so densely wrong as this.
Fun fact about blue (and also green and grey) eyes is that technically speaking, nobody has them. Eyes are pigmented with melanin, same as all the other outside bits; there’s no pigment for those colours anywhere in anyone’s genome. When the melanin level in the iris is low enough, refractions through the cornea give the appearance of blue (or etc.). So sky-blue eyes isn’t a metaphor, the physics of blue eyes and blue skies is the same.
…Wow. Been a while since I’ve seen something so mind-bogglingly awful it makes me want to rip my eyes out of their sockets and pour a gallon of bleach directly in the gaping holes left. That or fire. Fire is also good.
First of all great way to start, by being racist towards the group you purportedly want to “save” (calling Scandinavians “Ikeans”? Seriously? Also, you’d be surprised at the number of non-blonde Scandinavians…).
Then there’s Ye Olde “Black Brute” myth (now in Brown! Because we all know everyone with more melanin than the average North/West European descendant are from the EXACT SAME ETHNIC GROUP, amirite?), back from when rapist slaveowners made a lot of projections onto their male slaves so that they convinced themselves said slaves were all biding their time looking for a chance to rape white women (yes, of course there were some cases where that happened, because humans in general are ass and being a slave does not exclude that, but it’s rather obvious and well-documented that the main reason so many African Americans are paler than the average subsaharan African isn’t due to Southron women getting pregnant from enslaved Tysons – see Thomas Jefferson).
Next to show up, misogyny! Beause of course it does! Because everybody knows rough sex=rape, and some women liking rough sex=all women like rough sex, therefore women all go Stockholm for their rapists! (Please, just kill me now…) Oh, and being polite and respectful is a good thing, so let’s stop doing that because it’s boring (for the women, of course; pay no heed to the fact that the original author’s main source of knowledge on male-female interactions is RooshV before he went all Orthodox(?) clerical-fascist)!
Then they seemingly disassociates themself from white people (why exactly I wonder?) while talking about not committing war crimes being a bad thing, and brings up (((DA JOOZ))) and their money because of course he does.
Then, sexual promiscuity bad, m’kay? But you should totally do it because Blacks in ghettoes are all like that and so make A MILLION BABIES (brought to you by POWERTHIRST*) and you don’t so you gonna go the way of the dodo and you’re stoopid doodoo hedz bekoz I iz an x-purt!
And this concludes this essay about blonde men raping and impregnating blonde women because blonde genocide bad.
Personally I kinda wonder how that waste of existence envisions the caretaking of those babies; pretty sure being a result of rape is rarely conducive to a stable happy childhood, not counting the high amounts of abortions that would result (of course they probably have just as disgusting an essay on how to deal with that too).
*Disclaimer: Powerthist only mentions 400 babies. Powerthist is not responsible for any stupid, monstrous shit you may commit if attempting to reach either number.
Recessive genes don’t just disappear. Even if somehow every single child of the next generation was mixed race, the physical characteristics associated with whiteness wouldn’t go extinct. They would show up fairly frequently as the genetic dice are rolled and people with non-presenting recessive genes partner off with each other. For example, my mom has brown hair, but I ended up with blonde hair.
And even if “white” physical characteristics were somehow at risk of going exinct, if the only way to preserve those characteristics is through an ethnostate or mass amounts of rape, then those characteristics deserve to die out.
My ancestry is heavily skewed to Scandinavian and German and I’ve got brown eyes and hair. My 100% Norwegian grandfather did have blue eyes, but he had brown hair. I just can’t grasp how some people still think all Northern Europeans are blue eyed blondes. That’s just not how it works.
Who is going to support all these babies?
_______________________________
Here’s what I wrote in Nov. 2019, elsewhere:
It’s true that in past centuries, in the U.S., people had children they didn’t really want that much so they would have someone to care for them in their old age, but not any more. So, it’s safe to bet that nobody has children for the sake of helping the neighbors – or the economy.
Don’t forget that even WITH all the out-of-wedlock babies, the U.S. birth rate, in 2016, was a mere 1.8 per woman. In other words (unlike in “Idiocracy”), even the poor and the clumsy more or less managed to use birth control efficiently and not breed like rabbits, and/or the middle classes can’t AFFORD more than two babies, if that. Plus, those in the top third of society clearly don’t WANT more children than they already have – or at least one of the two parties doesn’t. (And isn’t it a GOOD thing that the teen pregnancy rate – not just the birth rate – has dropped?)
Besides, since we obviously can’t afford to have too FEW children (last I heard, no one was suggesting that if we let every single refugee become a citizen, we’d have too many citizens), we clearly need to come up with a system that helps middle-class women, at least, have them…
…It’s been said by many that it’s just plain wrong to adopt, per se, for reasons other than overwhelming love. Why should the rule be any different for biological parents?
Google this:
“10 Bad Reasons for Choosing to Adopt”
…Bottom line: It’s just plain silly for anyone to complain about the men and women who have babies they know they can’t afford on their own, AND complain about the men and women who REFUSE to have babies they can’t afford or just plain don’t want. (Keep in mind that most parents would very much prefer to raise their kids in a safe neighborhood – another big fat expense.) Anyone who’s seen the newspaper or TV ads for foster kids knows there is no shortage of unwanted kids. Why should we have even more kids who are unwanted or living on the edge of poverty?
If we truly need more kids, either that means more immigrants or more help for parents, married or not. If, instead, we can handle an aging population with the help of more Victorian-style personal thrift, well, maybe we need to look at how economies managed for centuries, until about WWI, to thrive on thrift, as historian David M. Tucker wrote. (Of course, that would mean having a very different culture and economy.)…
…Oh, and in 2013, fundamentalist lawyer and media consultant Don Feder (now 74 and a father of four) wrote one of his vitriolic columns. Can’t find the whole thing anymore online (I did print it), but early on, in it, he said:
“…Thus, Time – The Overpriced News Brochure ($4.99 for 60 pages) – had an intense erotic experience with the cover story in its August 12th issue, ‘The Childfree Life: When having it all means not having children.’ Please note the choice of words – not childless but childfree, like cancer-free, as if children are a life-threatening disease, which is pretty much the way the contraceptive left views them…”
He finished it like this:
“…Some can’t have children. Others forget to have them, being distracted by education and careers.
“But the proudly, defiantly childfree? To call them selfish is like saying that Barack Obama is somewhat disingenuous. Basically, their attitude is après moi, who-gives-a-bleep. Time magazine calls this trailblazing and heroic.
“In a Townhall.com commentary, David Stokes reminds us of the words of Theodore Roosevelt on a European tour in 1910: “The greatest of all curses is the curse of sterility, and the severest of all condemnations should be that visited on the willfully sterile.”
“The Old Bull Moose and committed natalist contended: ‘If the failure is due to the deliberate and willful fault, then it is not merely a misfortune, it is one of those crimes of ease and self-indulgence, of shrinking from pain and effort and risk, which in the long run nature punishes more heavily than any other. If we of the great republics, if we, the free people who claim to have emancipated ourselves from the thralldom of wrong and error, bring down on our heads the curse that comes upon the willfully barren, then it will be an idle waste of breath to prattle of our achievements, to boast of all that we have done.’…”
_____________________________
Um, no, people do not “forget” to have children. They just pretend it was an accident, to fend off nosy types like him.
And I’d love to ask him what is stopping younger conservatives from having extra babies to fill in the gap. Could it be…not wanting to cut back on their lifestyles? Or women being, reasonably, too afraid to take months or years off from their jobs? Or couples just not wanting three or more kids? Or maybe a lot of macho men are realizing they don’t want even ONE kid if it means having to change even one diaper?
Or, as Kristen Tsetsi (aka Sylvia D. Lucas?) titled one piece: “He Says He Wants Kids — But Does He Mean, ‘I want YOU to have kids’?” (The original piece was written in 2012.) It’s great – very eye-opening.
@Lenona
This is one of the many great contradictions of the right wing: they are insistent that young people have more children, but repeatedly cut back on services that would help people afford children, such as child care, healthcare, maternity leave, etc. Then they wonder why fewer people are having children. Some of it is personal choice not to have children, but I also know a number of people who would love to have children but can’t afford them.
O/T: Ex incels are working with the FBI and incels online are angry.
@Lenona – As much as I like old Teddy Roosevelt, if quoting someone from one hundred years back, when the world was a vastly different place, is your best possible argument, you should probably ask yourself why. Then again it’s not like people like that are big on self-reflection.
@Naglfar – Come on, our forebears raised most of their kids in what’s considered today to be abject squalor, why can’t young’uns today do the same!? Useless parasites all, I say! /S
In my own province of Quebec, numbers from the turn of the 19th century (the minimum amount of turning back the clock many of those wingnuts seem to want, as the 50s are now too progressive for them) were absolutely appalling: according to this article (in French), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2912632/ the mortality rate for children compared to births in Montreal was 26.8%; Quebec City was even worse, with a whopping 49.9%. IIRC the average deaths-to-births ratio for the whole province was about 1:3. Pretty sure their methods (besides relying on the unspeakable horror that is rape) combined with their traditional lack of any actual support for helpful infrastructure would likely see the death toll rise about as high in about a generation.
– ‘License to reproduce’ is a critical concept that needs to be introduced into the society.
– Men often get flack from women, regarding male violence, male aggression, male harassment, and rape of women – Toxic masculinity.
– But what is always forgotten is that –
– For hundreds of years, the DNA of criminal males, has been allowed to multiply, entirely unrestricted and completely free.
– Therefore, the society then must NOT bemoan when males display acts of aggression and violence toward the females.
– When you give the criminal DNA the opportunity to multiply, you have basically given the malicious part of the human gene pool, the ‘license to grow’.
– And when you do this, then you have relinquished your right to complain that men display ‘Toxic masculinity’.
– They most certainly will!
– What else do you expect?
– Since criminal DNA has been infused into their DNA, by not restricting criminals, and other nefarious individuals, from reproducing, they will, without doubt, display criminalistic behavior, including against women.
– Therefore, the solution to this problem is –
(Continued)
@Naglfar:
Only those who have a severe prefabricated furniture fetish.
My dad is blond and blue eyed, my mum is black haired and brown eyed. At least they used to. Now they’re grey haired.
I’m blonde with brown eyes.
Blond hair gets darker as you age. My dad was white blond as a kid, I was gold blond as a kid.
Now we’re both dark blond.
I get the brown eyes (and the bad eye sight) from my maternal grandfather. All my other grandparents had blue eyes.
My direct genetic line ends with me, cause I won’t have kids.
But my the vast majority of my cousins on both sides does have kids, so my genes won’t exactly disappear.
As if it is important anyway.
@Naglfar:
plays tiny, tiny violin
🙂
I also feel like playing the tiny violin in response to all the wailing and lamentations of “Ze white race iz being replaced!!”
I hate but I am not surprised to see them just as racist towards scandinavians than all the rest. I wonder to which extent them being useless trash push them toward projecting that everyone is a useless piece of trash.
There’s little if any hint of where human will go evolution-wise. The current trend is that the pressure will entirely be social, since, you know, currently the biggest by far impact of skin color is social, same for eye. Sure, maybe the sun will get brighter, but we can add more protective clothes or sunscreen, while being black is still a significant drawback in a lot of way. We would need to get rid of racism first before there could be any evolutive pressure against whiteness. And that, well, not terribly likely to ever happen.
@Dalillama
Yes I find this interesting too! My husband has green eyes *wistful sigh* and they are always changing shade depending on how the light hits them/ what they are reflecting. So they are super green when we are swimming in the sea, but in clear light you can see they are a mix of hazel around the pupil bordered by blue, which we tend to perceive as green.
@Alan Robertshaw I love the cheeky grin they put on that ancient British man. I remember reading that the Victorians thought the number of very dark haired people in Wales was because a Portuguese boat was shipwrecked there, but really it’s just a more “Celtic” trait.
Now I want a girlfriend with blue hair and platinum eyes…did I get this right?
I once met a cute girl and tried to ask her out while demonstrating my tongue-rolling ability, but she just took a quick glance at my earlobes and said, “you’re not my phenotype”
[/joking]
WWTH:
IIRC the prevalence of blonde hair in Europe is concentrated around Estonia, though it might not be a big difference compared to Norway or Germany. Here in southern Finland I see hair color typically varying from watery blonde to watery brown to sometimes black, while natural redheads are rare.
(My own hair has evolved from childhood blonde to “dark blonde”, while my personality might be roughly described as “bland dork”.)
@Alan Robertshaw
That cheeky smile is great! Where do I go to meet this Ur-Briton and share the joke that is tickling him?
Every time I‘ve seen a Nazi post with their images of pure Aryan womanhood, most of the hapless girls* whose photos they’ve stolen from Instagram have quite obviously dyed hair and sometimes coloured contacts. That’s not an insult to the girls, it’s hardly their fault that Nazi creeps are utterly clueless and mistake creativity for genetics. It’s just that platinum blonds aren’t super common outside Finland and a minority even there.
*and I literally mean girls, usually about 16 and walking dreamily through a cornfield in a muslin dress.
@ lollypop
Yeah, there’s a lot of very Spanish looking people in Cornwall; and local lore says that’s because of Armada survivors; but that’s probably just the Celtic heritage too.
@ daughter
Isn’t it just. I once met him in a cave in Cheddar Gorge; now he lives in the Natural History Museum. But a lot of people from the south west move to London.
I have no idea what my eye color is supposed to be. My boyfriend says they’re blue. My mother says they’re green. My father says they’re hazel. My brother says they’re gray. Various other people have differing opinions. Looking closely in the mirror, my irises are a jumbled mess of flecks and squiggles in different colors: mainly green, blue, brown, yellow. My driver’s license says “hazel” because when I got my first as a teenager, I was frozen with indecision and my father got mad at me for not agreeing with him that “hazel” is obviously the correct answer and anyone who thinks otherwise is blind. I stuck with that over the years because it’s not like any of the other usual choices are any better – I don’t personally have an opinion, and whatever I put, some people are going to think it’s incorrect. Also, it’s not like anyone pays attention to that anyway.
Oh, and if people want to have creepy blond supremacist cults, it probably won’t be long before they can just use genetic engineering¹ rather than breeding. Also, I’d assume that most of the idiots who want this sort of thing don’t themselves have blond hair or blue eyes… so they’d likely have to exclude themselves from their own breeding cults, regardless of whether rape was involved.
¹ I blanked out on the term for some reason and initially wrote “gene tampering”.
@Alan and @Lollypop : back in the antiquities, a tribe in current Ukraine decided to travel. How far ? A third finished in turkey, a third finished in the Iberic peninsula, and the remainder finished in freakin’ *Ireland*. Which is why part of the mythical setup of Ireland have common root with Turkey, even if it’s hard to tell because older folklore is suppressed in Turkey.
(IIRC it’s older than celts, but I am not fully sure because it’s not my domain of expertise. Celts are, relatively speaking, newcomers in the English Islands)
Ohlmann – I think you’re referring to the early Indo-European expansion? That was indeed huge (also eastwards into Central Asia), though it took a long time. Also, different branches of the Indo-European language family have been overrunning each other and radiating into new languages ever since.
Celtic languages are a branch of Indo-European, they are divided into two sub-branches that successively overtook British Isles around 3000-2500 years ago. IDK if this was earliest forefront of Indo-European expansion there – maybe nobody knows?
@Alan:
I should warn anyone looking for him that he’s lost a lot of weight.
Are you speaking of the Kurgan hypothesis?
@Lumipuna
Cue right wing man babies screeching about “blue haired SJWs.“
@Snowberry
My sister has a similar situation. My family seems to mostly agree that her eyes are green, but other people have regularly said she has hazel or blue eyes.