What are the main arguments against miscegenation/legality of interracial marriage?

submitted by Nasser from self.debatealtright

In the modern western world, race mixing is fully accepted and legal. I don't think (or know of) any serious White nationalist party wants to abolish or criminalize it. The vast majority of Whites marry and date within their own and it's not good optics or morally good to prohibit it. However a lot of more serious White nationalists oppose it with the common arguments I've seen relating to genetic issues with the mixed child or fears it will create a Brazil situation where the White population was diluted through race mixing.

I don't think either of these arguments would go over well with the moderate or basically anyone outside the nationalist right. Do you think race mixing is a threat to Whites? If so, what are your main arguments against it and how would you convey these arguments to moderate Whites?

all 7 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]IslamofascistDeath to America, Death to Israel, Death to The Ukraine 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Blacks are very likely to abandon mixed-race children. I mean, they are quite likely to abandon black children as well (something like 70% of American Negroes grow up without a dad), but for mixed-race relationships that number is even higher. Rates of abuse and violence are also much higher in interracial relationships. The fact of the matter is that xenophilia is a mental illness, especially when dealing with races very different from your own. I am sure that most white women in relationships with blacks have some sort of trauma or daddy issues. They also are very likely to have tattoos, for some reason.

[–]Nasser[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What about between Asians, Hispanics, Arabs, Indians etc?

[–]IslamofascistDeath to America, Death to Israel, Death to The Ukraine 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In general I think it's best to stick to someone who shares your ethnic background as well as your religion/values, with the latter being more important. But I also think it's a waste of time to police or legislate against interracial marriages. Some people will always marry outside of their own race, and it won't be the end of the world because of it.

[–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You see this?

https://phys.org/news/2023-08-ancient-ape-trkiye-story-human.html

A new fossil ape from an 8.7-million-year-old site in Türkiye is challenging long-accepted ideas of human origins and adding weight to the theory that the ancestors of African apes and humans evolved in Europe before migrating to Africa between nine and seven million years ago.

Flip side of the coin: evolving from vs. devolving to.

[–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The best argument to the uninitiated layperson is confused cultural upbringing and conflict between families and potentially between parents over race. Living in a stable, cohesive household is important to early development and even normies can see that.

[–]fuckthisshittysite 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There are no valid arguments really, because it's racist to say it's bad because of simple colour of skin.

[–]wristaction 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Any time you come upon one of these things where the problem seems to be that the argument for the rightwing thing doesn't seem likely to convince moderates, the test is to ask "since when?". You'll find that the answer is usually since WWII. Before WWII, it was aberrant to believe otherwise that miscegenation is wrong. So you don't have a quality of argument problem. You have an orientation of audience problem caused by jewish hegemony.