Author Topic: Reproductive decolonization  (Read 1994 times)


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7411
    • View Profile
Re: Reproductive decolonization
« on: November 19, 2020, 01:06:49 am »

So-called "princess" of formerly colonized country has as low self-esteem as the commoners:

Princess Haya Bint Al Hussein ran into the arms of her hunky bodyguard as her marriage to Dubai's billionaire ruler Sheikh Mohamed al Maktoum collapsed.

The princess embarked on a two-year affair with her close protection officer Russell Flowers behind the sheikh's back, which sparked the couple's £4.5billion divorce.

Family Court judge Sir Andrew McFarlane said the princess began an adulterous affair with the infantry soldier in 2017 and that her husband had been aware of the 'inappropriate relationship' for some time.

Then again, when both she and her husband (and, sadly, also their son, probably not by his own choice) wear Western clothes, why would we expect her to not be Eurocentric when it comes to sexual partners? This is why we also have this topic:

Such prideless "royalty" needs to be deposed ASAP and replaced with new royalty possessing actual dignity, or else decolonization will never succeed.


"One thing I noticed was that "non white" female Eurocentrists will only criticize the Eurocentrism of their male counterparts, and similarly "non white" male Eurocentrists will only criticize the Eurocentrism of their female counterparts."

This is merely a particular form of a common behaviour in which women will only criticize men for having high standards in choosing women, and men will only criticize women for having high standards in choosing men. From an economic perspective, the mediocrities on each side are trying to get a better deal out of their limited buying power. While undoubtedly hypocritical, it is usually harmless, and often amusing.

The only problem here is that high standards have become equated with Eurocentrism! This is what we are here to end. I myself have high standards (and proudly so), and I would prefer a world in which both men and women have higher standards than most currently have, but I assure you that no one whom I assess will ever receive a free score boost just for being "white", and I hope everyone else can follow my example.

Of course, this may take a while. Look at this ****:

We filled out our father’s name, his age, his county of death, his Social Security number. And then we reached Question 11: decedent’s race.

“White,” one of my sisters said. She said it quickly, as if it were a formality, a diversion from our steady progress toward Question 12: Was the decedent ever in the U.S. armed forces?

Wait, I thought. What part of our father—who was born, in 1932, in Cairo, Egypt—was white?
“I’m pretty sure that nobody ever thought he was white,” I said.

We looked at the form again. My mother pointed to its text. “Check one or more boxes to indicate what the decedent considered himself to be,” she said. She smoothed the fabric of her jeans. The gold tassels of her rings struck each other as she worked her hands back and forth. “It’s what he thought he was,” she said. “Isn’t it?”

I found it difficult to look at my mom. “Maybe he would have wanted to be listed as Arab-American,” I said.

Even as I said it, I knew I was lying. Although Egypt had declared its independence from the United Kingdom ten years before my father was born, the vestiges of British and French colonial life had marked his adolescence. In Cairo, he’d attended Le Collège de la Sainte Famille, a French-language school run by Jesuits, and this had given him a sense of apartness from the society in which he lived. He was from a branch of the family that had converted to Catholicism in the nineteenth century, and he grew up within a narrative of cultural difference. He was exceptional in Egyptian society, the priests of Sainte Famille told him. Specially chosen. Dad’s experience was not unusual. When Jean-Paul Sartre said that colonialism “selected adolescents, branded the principles of Western culture on their foreheads with a red-hot iron, and gagged their mouths with sounds, pompous and awkward,” he was largely pointing to the upper-middle class of North Africa. “Every effort is made to bring the colonized person to admit the inferiority of his culture,” Frantz Fanon warned, at the Congress of Black African Writers, in 1959. He might as well have been talking about my family.
Neither my father nor I would have been welcomed in America before the twentieth century. In 1876, the Supreme Court declared that immigration was under the authority of the federal government, and, from that point forward, for decades, the House and Senate passed laws limiting admission to the country according to race. President Chester A. Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Act into law in 1882; the Senate floor debate for that bill astonishes me every time I read it. “They are parasites, like those insects which fasten themselves upon vegetables or upon animals and feed and feed until satiety causes them to release their hold,” Senator George Graham Vest, of Missouri, said. In a letter published in the New-York Tribune, Senator James G. Blaine, a Republican of Maine, wrote, “If as a nation we have the right to keep out infectious diseases, if we have the right to exclude the criminal classes from coming to us, we surely have the right to exclude that immigration which reeks with impurity and which cannot come to us without plenteously sowing the seeds of moral and physical disease, destitution, and death.”
Barred from entry to America, would-be immigrants appealed again and again to the country’s judicial branch. Residents of Burma, Japan, Mexico, Syria, Armenia, India, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Korea, and the Arabian Peninsula pleaded their cases at the state and national levels. Known as racial-prerequisite cases, the fifty-two rulings that resulted add up to a gradual, inexorable, legal construction of whiteness. Applicants who were ruled white were allowed to immigrate.
The story of the Syrian national Costa Najour is particularly poignant. In 1909, Najour’s suit for naturalization was rejected on the basis of his skin color. He appealed. Later that year, on a viciously cold December day in Atlanta, Najour appeared before the circuit-court judge William T. Newman. In the course of four hours, Najour’s attorney presented an extensive argument as to why his client was a “free white person.” The government attorney sat at his table. He waited. When it was his turn to speak, he had a simple request. Would Najour please remove his clothes, and show the court the color of his body? Najour—in what emotional state the historical record does not reveal—rose out of his seat and began to comply.
Perhaps it’s also not surprising that my father married two women of European descent: his first wife, an Irish-American, and then my mom, a Latvian refugee. In his children, he created what he yearned to be.

This is what low self-esteem looks like.


Twitter was the end-stage of Dad’s politics. “I’ve joined the Tweeter,” he told me, in January, 2012. His handle was @truthlovin, and his bio described him like this: “Retired teacher, M.A of Education U of W, In U.S. since 1946. 7 wonderful grandchildren. D. Trump will make America great again tweets are my personal opinions.”


The night before my father’s funeral, our family gathered for the vigil of the open-casket rosary. I arrived early, and stood alone in the room with Dad’s body, looking down at him. He was wearing a suit.


I’m Darker Than My Daughter. Here’s Why It Matters.

Breaching colorism with my little girl sent me reeling back into my childhood shame.
Some 35 years earlier, after being teased by white classmates because of my brown skin, I ran home from school crying inconsolably and pleaded with my mother: Why am I not white? Can I be white, like them? Her laughter is all I remember from our exchange.

Growing up in 1950s Mexico, among the calcified disdain for its Indigenous past, left my mother without the skills and necessary self-reflection to guide me through the maze of color consciousness.
“What’s wrong with my skin color, honey?” My hue is raw almond-like in the winter, darkening to an unpeeled macadamia nut shade by summer’s end.

“It’s ugly,” she blurted.

What spilled from my mouth next was false, though I wished it wasn’t: “I love the color of my skin.” I desperately wanted her to believe me, and maybe even a little more than that, I wanted to believe myself. Yet having been silenced by laughter and left alone to process years of slights, by both white and Latinx individuals because of my color, I was submerged in shame.

The truth is: I have a fraught relationship with my brownness. Tortured, actually.
Seemingly repulsed, she scooted even further away. I inched closer. She stuck a stiff arm out to stop me, as if to protect her porcelain skin from my muddied shade. Could she smell my shame? I felt pulled to apologize for being ugly in her eyes, for being brown. I yearned to tell her I understood why she disliked the way I looked, and to share that I disliked myself sometimes too. I resisted.

All I wanted to do was peel my skin off, to hang it up for someone else to wear. Anything to avoid the absolute humiliation and reminder that my pigmentation made me untouchable in the eyes of someone I loved so much, someone I assumed would accept me in the same unconditional way I accepted her. Someone I made. Someone who could have looked like me but doesn’t.

You should not have reproduced. No one who worships "whiteness" should reproduce.

“What skin color do you think is beautiful?” Without pause, she chirped, “White! Like daddy’s belly.” She coveted the whitest part of his body, the color furthest from mine.

I repeated, “I love my skin color.” She said nothing. Her silence felt equal parts dismissive and contemplative. I was unsure if my words had seeped in.

Was I the only brown mother being shunned by her light-skinned preschooler?

Young children can effortlessly sense insincerity. You can say as many times as you want that you love your skin colour; your daughter knows as well as you do that it is not true. You were the one who chose her "white" father to reproduce with, after all! Your daughter will learn from your actions rather than from your words.

If your daughter finds us, we might be able to save her mind:

But even then we would advise your daughter to not reproduce, as she carries your Eurocentric blood.


There are a ton of these types of tweets:

"Something about the rope"
Think about this statement. The individual in question literally fetishizes her own slavery. She probably would have been the type of person to get raped by her slavemaster and enjoy it.



"L saw herself as the opposite of racist - someone working to build a world free of racism, of all the isms. She'd been raised by a working-class, single mom who'd emigrated from China. And L was proud to be Chinese-American. She was studying gender in college through an intersectional lens, learning about systematic oppression and white privilege. Plus, she was creating safe spaces online for other Asian-American women to process the racism and misogyny they had to deal with every day, so the call-out blindsided her."

"One thing, I started to realize - as I was swiping past faces - was that it was, like, almost this instantaneous thing where I would see, like, a black face or, like, someone who looked like Latinx and I would, like, almost instinctually start to swipe. I was unconsciously, like, rejecting people because of, literally, like, the color of their skin. I was literally giving white faces a chance that I was not giving black and Latinx faces."


We need similar comics ridiculing male Eurocentrists also.

But is ridiculing such behaviour alone enough to curb it? I am doubtful. Deeper countermeasures are required, which is what we are here to develop. Additionally, as the comics above highlight, being politically anti-racist does not inoculate against reproductive Eurocentrism. So the solution must be found elsewhere.

(Also, some of the research papers linked to from the subreddit may be worth reposting in our Human Evolution forum.)


Could we also expect to find fellow Aryanists there? In this thread, for example, several members express their discontent for PUA or "redpillers" as they find it simply too demanding of them to act aggressive:

However, there are other members on the thread who also oppose PUA but because it is not effective enough, so they would still be Eurocentrists.


"Could we also expect to find fellow Aryanists there?"

Unlikely. I have explained in the past that our attitude to relationships is not:

1) want to have a partner
2) find someone to fill the vacancy

but instead:

1) encounter an individual
2) want that individual (and no one else) to be your partner (and if unsuccessful, not wanting anyone else continues to apply)

whereas PUA from the outset presumes the former attitude. Therefore anyone who would even be interested in PUA is not one of us.


Now that I think of it, I was never really drawn to PUA either, although I didn't know why at the time. Probably because I was not interested in sexual relationships.


It should be noted that it is not only incels that consciously select for these traits. I have seen even parents of some people advise their children to discriminate in favour of these traits because it will afford their offspring high status.

Moreover, it should also be noted that preference for these traits often supersedes preference for wealth. For example, a "non-white" female Eurocentrist would relinquish economic prosperity by refusing to marry a wealthy "non-white" individual and choosing to marry a poor "white" person instead, thus proving that Eurocentrism trumps economics.

A more pertinent example of this phenomenon that I have observed is several "non-white" female Eurocentrists choosing to fit in with their social clique of "white" friends, rather than aspire towards success and monetary wealth, the latter of which would generally be expected to be the case if her reproductive choices were motivated purely by economic reasons and not Eurocentrism.


The most ironic part of this is that, in turning down monetary wealth, they sincerely think of themselves as motivationally purer(!) than the "mere" gold-diggers. This is how screwed up Eurocentrism is.


Are you aware of the LMS (looks, money, status) theory? At the end of the day, I think that looks and money are ultimately not valued in and of themselves, but rather as a means to obtain status. For example, monetary wealth is valued only insofar as they allow the woman to rise in the social hierarchy, while "looks" are only valued insofar as they approximate Eurocentric phenotypes, which again would afford more social status.

What I'm getting at is that nowadays attractiveness is purely judged based on materialistic criteria, such that "looks" have become synonymous with "whiteness", and "wealth" has become synonymous with money. As such, I think that those who evaluate their  prospective partners based on such "standards" should be discarded altogether in any serious discussion of aesthetics/economics.


"At the end of the day, I think that looks and money are ultimately not valued in and of themselves, but rather as a means to obtain status. For example, monetary wealth is valued only insofar as they allow the woman to rise in the social hierarchy, while "looks" are only valued insofar as they approximate Eurocentric phenotypes, which again would afford more social status."

This may be the case for some individuals, but I would caution against general claims. If your claim is generally true, it would imply that a woman who already possesses securely high status would be unconcerned with a man's looks and money. Is this consistently the case? More obviously, how do you account for married women cheating, which is a risk to status in societies which frown on extramarital affairs?

""looks" have become synonymous with "whiteness""

That's taking it a bit far. If you show Eurocentrists two "whites", they will still find one better-looking than the other according to their other standards. It is only when comparing "whites" with "non-whites" that Eurocentrists toss all their other standards out of the window.


I kept hearing how white foreigners are treated in some east asian countries, and how the girls here have the hots for white guys. I ended up trying tinder and my god the matches kept rolling in I felt like royalty. So I decided to come here to do my graduate schooling. In the states I dated a few girls and I think For reference I'm 29 years old decent looking athletic body 5'9" so it wasn't for a lack of interest back home. But coming here opened up pandoras box for me, its just TOO **** EASY. Like, dangerously easy. Before this corona business I was meeting a new chick almost every other day and all it took was a couple of drinks between us before we were back in her or my place. Didn't even matter I barely spoke her language (Japanese) somehow everything I said was funny and it felt I couldn't do anything wrong


I (19F+Latina) recently learned I really love race play during sex. I had a hookup with a white guy and he called me a "beaner ****" and that I belong to him and I actually really liked it. I ended up exploring more with that and I absolutely like it. How do I bring it up to guys I date without scaring them away??

First tell them you do not plan to reproduce, so that at least they will not be scared of creating offspring with low self-esteem inherited from you.