Serious The problem with ethnic mateguarding and gender balance

[AsiaCel]

I feel like not too many people have addressed this.

Every ethnic/religious groups do this. I'm only noting obvious cases that I have observed the most.

I do not support race mixing for placed that lack this mixed couples in significant numbers.

My post will mostly address non ethnic countries such as Singapore and USA.

The problem with certain ethnic and their mateguarding practice is that they operate asymmetrically and does not play by the rules.

Women are resources, just like everything else. When you import a woman, she will either go to yours or a local, it is called trade. When you only take and not give, then it is aggression and invasion.

Case 1# - Africans

Africa is known for sending exclusive young men, so that will upset the gender balance. For every African woman I see, I see 10 young men.

Case 2# Hindus/Muslims

These groups are absolutely fine with their men screwing local women, but mateguard the hell out of their daughters.

 

[GobidMujahid]

When you only take and not give, then it is aggression and invasion.

Yes, that's the point and I don't think there is anything hypocritical about it.

The following is an excerpt from The Contemporary Heretic's abstract of the book The Ethnic Phenomenon by Pierre L. van den Berghe.

Marxism
Van den Berghe synthesizes sociobiology and Marxism, arguing that class exploitation is disguised by an ideology that disguises exploitation as either:

1) Kin-selected altruism—i.e. king as father of the nation; or
2) Reciprocity—i.e. the social contract or democracy (p60).

However, contrary to orthodox Marxism, van den Berghe regards ethnic sentiments as more fundamental than class loyalty since, whereas the latter is “dependent on a commonality of interests”, the former is often “irrational” (p243).

“It seems a great many people care passionately whether they are ruled and exploited by members of their own ethny or foreigners” (p62)

“Blood runs thicker than money” (p243)

Moreover, while Marxists view control over the means of production as the ultimate factor underlying exploitation and conflict, Darwinians instead focus on conflict over access to what we might term the ‘means of reproduction’ (i.e. women):

“The ultimate measure of human success is not production but reproduction. Economic productivity and profit are means to reproductive ends, not ends in themselves” (p165).

Thus, Marx, for all his radicalism, was, in his emphasis on economics rather than sex, just another Victorian sexual prude.

Miscegenation
On these grounds, van den Berghe concludes:

“Marriage, especially if it happens in both directions, that is with both men and women of both groups marrying out, is… the best measure of assimilation” (p218)

Yet “concubinage is frequent in the absence of assimilation” and mostly involves dominant-group males taking partners from among subjugated females.

“Even when the conquest is relatively mild and not openly genocidal, the subordinate group… always loses more women to males of the dominant group than vice versa” (p75).

This, of course, reflects the fact that, in Darwinian terms, the ultimate purpose of power is reproductive success.

“[Whereas] the men of the subordinate group are always the losers... the women of the subordinate group... frequently have the option of being reproductively successful with dominant-group males” (p27)

“Hypergamy (mating upward for women) is a fitness enhancing strategy for women, and, therefore, subordinate-group women do not always resist being ‘taken over’ by dominant-group men” (p75)

By mating with dominant group males, women obtain access to both the greater resources they tend to possess and the ‘superior’ genes which facilitated the conquest.

This creates tension between the sexes within subordinate groups, an impediment to group solidarity (p76).

Modern American Intermarriage
Yet patterns of interracial dating in the US are anomalous.

Genetic data confirms that, historically, matings between white men and black women were more common than the reverse (Lind et al 2007).

But, today, black men are 2.5 times as likely to marry white women as white men are to marry black women (Fryer 2007).

Behavior geneticist Glayde Whitney concludes:

“By many traditional anthropological criteria African-Americans are now one of the dominant social groups in America—at least they are clearly dominant over whites. There is a tremendous and continuing transfer of property, land, and women from the subordinate race to the dominant race” (Race, Genetics & Society: p95)

But this is difficult to square with the continued poverty of many blacks.

The issue is inevitably emotive. As van den Berghe observes:

“It is no accident that the most explosive aspect of interethnic relations is sexual contact across ethnic (or racial) lines” (p75)

This is Darwinian conflict in its most direct form.

Thus, in the US, the Springfield, Omaha, Tulsa and Rosewood race riots were all ignited by rumors of interracial rape, while Britain’s first race riot, the Notting Hill riot, began with an argument among an interracial couple, and her most recent race riot, the 2005 Birmingham riot, was set off by the rumor that a black girl had been raped by Asians, while the 2005 Cronulla riot in Australia, and 2024 riot in Kirkby Merseyside, were provoked by rumors local girls were being harassed by Middle Eastern men.

As a character from a Houellebecq novel observes:

“What is really at stake in racial struggles… is neither economic nor cultural, it is brutal and biological: It is competition for the c*nts of young women (Platform: p82).

 

[DutchCel01]

I feel like not too many people have addressed this.

Every ethnic/religious groups do this. I'm only noting obvious cases that I have observed the most.

I do not support race mixing for placed that lack this mixed couples in significant numbers.

My post will mostly address non ethnic countries such as Singapore and USA.

The problem with certain ethnic and their mateguarding practice is that they operate asymmetrically and does not play by the rules.

Women are resources, just like everything else. When you import a woman, she will either go to yours or a local, it is called trade. When you only take and not give, then it is aggression and invasion.

Case 1# - Africans

Africa is known for sending exclusive young men, so that will upset the gender balance. For every African woman I see, I see 10 young men.

Case 2# Hindus/Muslims

These groups are absolutely fine with their men screwing local women, but mateguard the hell out of their daughters.

Whites should mateguard hard but alas its not gonna happen

 

[Trident]

ofc they want to get white women but refuse others to take their own women

 

[AsiaCel]

Yes, that's the point and I don't think there is anything hypocritical about it.

The following is an excerpt from The Contemporary Heretic's abstract of the book The Ethnic Phenomenon by Pierre L. van den Berghe.

Marxism
Van den Berghe synthesizes sociobiology and Marxism, arguing that class exploitation is disguised by an ideology that disguises exploitation as either:

However, contrary to orthodox Marxism, van den Berghe regards ethnic sentiments as more fundamental than class loyalty since, whereas the latter is “dependent on a commonality of interests”, the former is often “irrational” (p243).

Moreover, while Marxists view control over the means of production as the ultimate factor underlying exploitation and conflict, Darwinians instead focus on conflict over access to what we might term the ‘means of reproduction’ (i.e. women):

Thus, Marx, for all his radicalism, was, in his emphasis on economics rather than sex, just another Victorian sexual prude.

Miscegenation
On these grounds, van den Berghe concludes:

Yet “concubinage is frequent in the absence of assimilation” and mostly involves dominant-group males taking partners from among subjugated females.

This, of course, reflects the fact that, in Darwinian terms, the ultimate purpose of power is reproductive success.

By mating with dominant group males, women obtain access to both the greater resources they tend to possess and the ‘superior’ genes which facilitated the conquest.

This creates tension between the sexes within subordinate groups, an impediment to group solidarity (p76).

Modern American Intermarriage
Yet patterns of interracial dating in the US are anomalous.

Genetic data confirms that, historically, matings between white men and black women were more common than the reverse (Lind et al 2007).

But, today, black men are 2.5 times as likely to marry white women as white men are to marry black women (Fryer 2007).

Behavior geneticist Glayde Whitney concludes:

But this is difficult to square with the continued poverty of many blacks.

The issue is inevitably emotive. As van den Berghe observes:

This is Darwinian conflict in its most direct form.

Thus, in the US, the Springfield, Omaha, Tulsa and Rosewood race riots were all ignited by rumors of interracial rape, while Britain’s first race riot, the Notting Hill riot, began with an argument among an interracial couple, and her most recent race riot, the 2005 Birmingham riot, was set off by the rumor that a black girl had been raped by Asians, while the 2005 Cronulla riot in Australia, and 2024 riot in Kirkby Merseyside, were provoked by rumors local girls were being harassed by Middle Eastern men.

As a character from a Houellebecq novel observes:

High IQ. When you refuse to play by the rules, you're essentially declaring war on the locals.

 

[Spooky_Heejin]

Whites should mateguard hard but alas its not gonna happen

 

[femcelbreedingnig]

Whites should mateguard hard but alas its not gonna happen

There’s always an angry disaffected mayocel in power