In your opinion, which of these two statements sounds more 'reactionary'?

[Tooting Carmen]

(1) "People from different ethnic groups should not intermarry".

(2) "For a non-white person, marrying a White person is in itself a form of social advancement".

[gixajo]

"People from different social class should not intermarry"

[sean]

None.

Disgust is the natural reaction to race-mixing. If you don't feel disgust at it, you're mentally ill.

'Reactionary' is a nebulous term for those who oppose the Marxist revolutionary ideas. It doesn't exist outside of radical left-wing thought.


For a non-white person, marrying a White person is in itself a form of social advancement.

For any regular white person, that sounds like a nightmare. But for a mongrel like you, it will be a dream lel.

https://i.imgur.com/Q9Y6GHu.png
https://i.imgur.com/dcsgesP.png
https://i.imgur.com/e6GR8HY.png
https://i.imgur.com/1DXaqUr.jpg

[Incal]

"People from different social class should not intermarry"

This.

[gixajo]

This.

I do not mean that I agree with that phrase, but that that phrase would be something really "reactionary", in my opinion.

I would agree with something like this:

"People who can fly should never marry people who can't do it "

"People who can fly" has a metaphorical meaning of course, I am not referring to airplane pilots and flight attendants, and I am not referring to people who take drugs or that they are insane .:rolleyes:

[Tooting Carmen]

sean in many things can be a surprisingly knowledgeable and deep user, but not on this issue.

[reboun]

Number 2.

[Incal]

I do not mean that I agree with that phrase, but that that phrase would be something really "reactionary", in my opinion.

I would agree with something like this:

"People who can fly should never marry people who can't do it "

"People who can fly" has a metaphorical meaning of course, I am not referring to airplane pilots and flight attendants, and I am not referring to people who take drugs or that they are insane .:rolleyes:

Lost you there. But your avy rocks.

[Hektor12]

Neither, both are realistic.

(1) If two person place themselves in different ethnic groups, their marriage would welcome a lot of problems, not only for themselves, for their possible children as well.

(2) Marrying a white person could be resulted in social advancement for specific person. For example, a black woman would see much wider acceptance as wife of a white man; in specific regions of the world.

By the way this is the last time i join your topic, because i never see you in my topics.

[Longbowman]

sean in many things can be a surprisingly knowledgeable and deep user, but not on this issue.

Sean is a reactionary on this issue. Note he has no actual argument and he is appealing to emotion with the use of cherrypicked narratives.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of murder cases are same-race. The chances of you being murdered in a mixed race relationship are actually lower than same-race depending on the race you marry; Sean probably knows that but his game is edgelordy bullshit rather than honest dialogue.

Anyway statement 2 isn't inherently reactionary imho, it's sometimes true or earnestly believed to be true. My mixed-race friend says her black grandmother was thrilled when her daughter married a white man (Caribbean islanders). It happens, it's still a held belief by some people, it proves (to them) upward social mobility.

[Roy]

None.

Disgust is the natural reaction to race-mixing. If you don't feel disgust at it, you're mentally ill.

'Reactionary' is a nebulous term for those who oppose the Marxist revolutionary ideas. It doesn't exist outside of radical left-wing thought.



For any regular white person, that sounds like a nightmare. But for a mongrel like you, it will be a dream lel.

https://i.imgur.com/Q9Y6GHu.png
https://i.imgur.com/dcsgesP.png
https://i.imgur.com/e6GR8HY.png
https://i.imgur.com/1DXaqUr.jpg


What if someone from your family would fall in love with someone not white? Would you voice towards him/her your anger or disappointment?

[Andullero]

Number 1, without a doubt.

[El_Jibaro]

First statement.

[Tooting Carmen]

Number 1, without a doubt.

Number 2 is a pretty tainted concept as well, isn't it?

[Jacques de Imbelloni]

sean in many things can be a surprisingly knowledgeable and deep user, but not on this issue.
I wonder if he is a college dropout.

[Andullero]

Number 2 is a pretty tainted concept as well, isn't it?

It is, but in this increasingly borderless current year its impact is mitigated by its race mixing implications. In a more reactionary reality it would be another story.

[Tooting Carmen]

Sean is a reactionary on this issue. Note he has no actual argument and he is appealing to emotion with the use of cherrypicked narratives.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of murder cases are same-race. The chances of you being murdered in a mixed race relationship are actually lower than same-race depending on the race you marry; Sean probably knows that but his game is edgelordy bullshit rather than honest dialogue.

Anyway statement 2 isn't inherently reactionary imho, it's sometimes true or earnestly believed to be true. My mixed-race friend says her black grandmother was thrilled when her daughter married a white man (Caribbean islanders). It happens, it's still a held belief by some people, it proves (to them) upward social mobility.

So you think that a Black neurosurgeon who marries a White dinnerlady is nevertheless somehow improving his social status?

[Longbowman]

So you think that a Black neurosurgeon who marries a White dinnerlady is nevertheless somehow improving his social status?

In his mind, absolutely. Being PM can only get you so far. In the minds of many upward-minded minority people, you need to cross the acrid bridge - unite the bloodlines. Otherwise you're just a gastarbeiter.

[Tooting Carmen]

In his mind, absolutely. Being PM can only get you so far. In the minds of many upward-minded minority people, you need to cross the acrid bridge - unite the bloodlines. Otherwise you're just a gastarbeiter.

OK but would that be the case even in, say, Jamaica or Nigeria?

[Longbowman]

OK but would that be the case even in, say, Jamaica or Nigeria?

Possibly in Jamaica, as I say I have friends for whom that was true in some Caribbean islands where their identity is heavily tied to anglosaxon culture and the UK.

[Tooting Carmen]

Possibly in Jamaica, as I say I have friends for whom that was true in some Caribbean islands where their identity is heavily tied to anglosaxon culture and the UK.

Well actually, that proves my hypothesis that Black Caribbeans - along with SE Asians and mixed-race Latin Americans - are the most White-worshipping non-whites. (I doubt even the most pale skin-obsessed Korean, Pakistani or Saudi would think that marrying a White dinnerlady is somehow a form of social improvement).

[Tooting Carmen]

bump

[TrueIndepence]

Number 2 is a far more dangerous ideology than number 1, therefore it is more reactionary.

[de Burgh II]

(1) "People from different ethnic groups should not intermarry".

(2) "For a non-white person, marrying a White person is in itself a form of social advancement".

Number one is more "reactionary" because the statement itself is a form of xenophobia and "classism" that is more prevalent among conservative groups of people.

Number two is a more "liberal" approach in the sense that people of a lower social standing or an "economic immigrant" (via green cards or "anchor babies") uses this tactic to better themselves economically for purely self-serving, monetary reasons. In other words, this phrase reeks of self-hatred and insecurity who indoctrinate themselves to believe that having "half-white" offspring is some kind of magical cure for self-enhancement/social mobility (which is a delusion in itself for people stuck with the colonial mentality).

[Tooting Carmen]

Number one is more "reactionary" because the statement itself is a form of xenophobia and "classism" that is more prevalent among conservative groups of people.

Number two is a more "liberal" approach in the sense that people of a lower social standing or an "economic immigrant" (via green cards or "anchor babies") uses this tactic to better themselves economically for purely self-serving, monetary reasons. In other words, this phrase reeks of self-hatred and insecurity who indoctrinate themselves to believe that having "half-white" offspring is some kind of magical cure for self-enhancement/social mobility (which is a delusion in itself for people stuck with the colonial mentality).

I broadly agree, but the point about number two is that some even believe that e.g. a Mexican Mestizo doctor who marries a White cleaner is still improving himself socially by account of his wife's race. It is what some US sociologists call "status exchange". (Personally I think it's bullshit, but I can see why some would believe it).

[de Burgh II]

I broadly agree, but the point about number two is that some even believe that e.g. a Mexican Mestizo doctor who marries a White cleaner is still improving himself socially by account of his wife's race. It is what some US sociologists call "status exchange". (Personally I think it's bullshit, but I can see why some would believe it).

Contrary to popular beliefs, I believe strongly in merit and having self respect for who you are as a person rather than your racial category. The mestizo doctor got where he is now through his hard work studying and asserting himself accordingly in academics. So that in itself should be emphasized rather than his wife's "race" because it is superficial and stupid because his self worth is tied to the colonial mentality. Merit is not synonymous with one's race. "Whiter" doesn't equal better. One's ability to apply and commit themselves accordingly matters most.

[Zeno]

no. 1, by an immensely vast margin.

The 2nd statement isn't at all "reactionary", lol, it is constantly promoted, both directly and indirectly to our societies as a whole, from the political establishment itself to the multinationals, regurgitated ofc by the useful idiotic pawns of the establishment that are clinicaly brain-dead enough to call themselves... "tHe ReSiStANCe!11!!!"... It is such an official narrative that anyone adopting is simply NOT a reactionary, by default.

As for no.1, it is reactionary indeed, from the most simplistic point of view: it goes against the mainstream narrative of the last decades, where multiculturalism, racial mixing and diversity are promoted in every societal facet. When this set of values is promoted constantly, anything that doesn't adhere to it is by definition against it. Including the 1st statement.

[Tooting Carmen]

Number 2 is a far more dangerous ideology than number 1, therefore it is more reactionary.

I dislike both statements myself, but how is number 2 'far more dangerous' than number 1?

[Voskos]

The first.

[TrueIndepence]

I dislike both statements myself, but how is number 2 'far more dangerous' than number 1?

Because its root is in a White supremacist sentiment. Statement 1 is more in line with ethnic/racial nationalism which is preferable to a White supremacist mindset (regardless if the perpetrator or the victim is living by it).

[Tooting Carmen]

Because its root is in a White supremacist sentiment. Statement 1 is more in line with ethnic/racial nationalism which is preferable to a White supremacist mindset (regardless if the perpetrator or the victim is living by it).

So if we were to take statement 1 as Anglo/'classical' racism and statement 2 as 'embranqueamento' theory/Latino racism (broadly speaking), does that mean that the second type of racism is actually worse than the first type? (Contrary to received opinion).

[TrueIndepence]

So if we were to take statement 1 as Anglo/'classical' racism and statement 2 as 'embranqueamento' theory/Latino racism (broadly speaking), does that mean that the second type of racism is actually worse than the first type? (Contrary to received opinion).

The problem is Anglo racism wasn't just about segregation and separation of races, it was pure White terrorism/exploitation against anything darker than them. If the "classic racists" were only about keeping distance from other races, I wouldn't give it much thought. I wouldn't even consider it a dangerous because it would not end with the genocide of the other race. The 'embranquecimento' practices could (potentially) mean the end of non-White races.

[Tooting Carmen]

The problem is Anglo racism wasn't just about segregation and separation of races, it was pure White terrorism/exploitation against anything darker than them.

True.


If the "classic racists" were only about keeping distance from other races, I wouldn't give it much thought. I wouldn't even consider it a dangerous because it would not end with the genocide of the other race.

Hmm. It would still be oppressive and semi-totalitarian though, even if it really were the case that each racial group had access to services of a similar standard (which never happened anyway).


The 'embranquecimento' practices could (potentially) mean the end of non-White races.

Except that humanity is much more complex than those 19th century theorists thought. Do you think that there is at least some truth to the idea of Latin America being a bastion of racial harmony and love (relative to other places), or that it is 100% bogus?

[Latinus]

Do you think that there is at least some truth to the idea of Latin America being a bastion of racial harmony and love (relative to other places), or that it is 100% bogus?

The question was not directed to me, but may I answer it?:cool:

Compared to the US and it's more segregationist and purist racism, Latin America was significantly less racist and with race having less of a cultural/identitarian bias, but it's not like every racial group here had/have the same oportunities and spent/spend their days dancing kumbaya together.

No, racism was/is also part of Latin America.

In Brazil:
>Most people that live in the slums are pardos/blacks, because after slavery was abolished, the government didn't care about them, prefering to rely on European immigrants.

>There were/are cases of incidents involving black people being barred from entering private rich areas, even when themselves were rich. In fact, the first law against racism in Brazil was created because a black woman from the US was denied service in an upper class place. https://aha.confex.com/aha/2017/webprogram/Paper20947.html

Police is also know here to target and be more opressive towards black people in a blitz.

>And while, like we discussed many times before, the link between race and social class can be very exagerrated by foreign eyes, it does exist. Looking rich/playboy here is usually a combination of caucasoid aesthetics/style, like these:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/xFnvaUJTsakElXwemW1EoA2bstz5FnAZ5Xn00uhsvuuKCNJWwq RqJNVFBe1eQ_U2E78xyDSm8IUMJj82yANVwYl6jotJWF_p0UAN _ALr1g8wDOCthsCZ1Zg2rhN4Am507bsbxcwl2aY
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oD4Jy4deYi4/VLLBcFBHbKI/AAAAAAABE4U/vkiEF9KpCEc/s1600/Erik%2BMarmo%2B.%2B3.jpg

>Brazilian media has always favorited whites over blacks/pardos. And it was a common stereotype to use black actors/actresses to play maids, poor, criminal people, in contrast with the rich ones, played by white. There is even a 2000 documentary about this avalaible on YouTube called: "A Negação do Brasil."

>Back in XIX and early XX centuries, Brazilian government endorsed racist eugenics thinkings, which wished to erase the black population and even limit/ban of the entrance of members of the yellow race in our territory.

...

[TrueIndepence]

Hmm. It would still be oppressive and semi-totalitarian though, even if it really were the case that each racial group had access to services of a similar standard (which never happened anyway).

It would be oppressive. I don't defend people being forced to live separately, only voluntarily. However, this totalitarian view is still more benign than encouraging non-Whites to commit mass suicide by mixing away. It is even worse when you think you need to kill the soul of a people for them to be willing to mix with another race in order to "improve their future generations". It's far more harmful than being forced to live in segregation, unless you are talking about the Black neighborhoods in the US South or the Jewish ghettos of Nazi Germany (And again, these are not simply examples of segregation, but rather terrorism, exploitation and genocide).


Except that humanity is much more complex than those 19th century theorists thought. Do you think that there is at least some truth to the idea of Latin America being a bastion of racial harmony and love (relative to other places), or that it is 100% bogus?

It's complicated. While I don't think every White Latin American is secretly trying to "weed out" the non-White DNA of the region by miscegenation, there are elements of this type of thinking in practically every interracial relationship in Latin America (to varying degrees). Nothing else could explain why over 90% of successful football players in Brazil date and marry outside of their race. So no, Latin America is far from being a "bastion of racial harmony and love", there are multiple studies on the matter that prove this, as well as my personal experience. On the other hand, people do form honest bonds between one another as well. Whites who date outside their race in Latin America don't just pretend like nothing happened if they suddenly lose their non-White partners over death or cheating. I do not doubt the feelings of most people in interracial relationships, even if (in Latin America specifically) there are Historically racist and genocidal intents behind incentivizing these relationships to happen in the first place.
Latin America is a place where love is rarely a lie, but also rarely blind...

[Tooting Carmen]

The thing is though: at which point do people consider two ethnic groups to be so different that mixing between them makes them uncomfortable? Some might argue that even mixing a Swede with a Portuguese is a borderline form of 'race-mixing', and even more so a Japanese with a Malay, or a Somali with a Ghanaian.

[Tooting Carmen]

Also, while for a Mestizo, Arab, Chinese or Indian to say they would never date or marry a Black person is almost definitely right-wing(ish), would this necessarily be the same for one who would say they would never date or marry a White person? (Depending on the context and place).

[Andullero]

Also, while for a Mestizo, Arab, Chinese or Indian to say they would never date or marry a Black person is almost definitely right-wing(ish), would this necessarily be the same for one who would say they would never date or marry a White person? (Depending on the context and place).

I'd say yes, it's racial conservatism all the same. In this day and age, left wingism seems to be all about cosmopolitanism of any stripe.

[Tooting Carmen]

I'd say yes, it's racial conservatism all the same. In this day and age, left wingism seems to be all about cosmopolitanism of any stripe.

Allow me to not 100% agree. (And I am someone who doesn't entirely agree with the "White privilege" thesis, nor do I support the redefinition of racism as "prejudice plus power"). If the Arab/Chinese/Indian/Mestizo were to reject having White partners out of sheer nationalism, xenophobia or ethnic pride/chauvinism, then yes that'd be right-wing in a traditional sense. If, however, they were to construe it as a rejection of assimilationism or White supremacism (whether real or perceived), particularly if they were living in the West, then there is a case for it to take on a (pseudo)-leftish slant.