However, read down further and this sentence appears:
''The scientists discovered that white men prefer the facial features of Asian women while white women go for the faces of black men.''
So supposedly White people of both sexes prefer outlanders to their own. If this is true, then how on earth have White people survived as a distinct race all this time? Why have they not been absorbed into the much more numerous Others? Of course the media and those whose views they inculcate into the unthinking public wish for such an outcome; we can all see how they are working overtime on it for the past few decades especially.
The claim made by the article is certainly supported by reading many of the comments at sites like AmRen and other such blogs.
And despite the constant complaints by many male commenters at such sites about White women outmarrying, statistics show
''...while East Asian women statistically prefer East Asian men for marriage, they show no discrimination against White men, causing Asian women/White men pairings to consistently become the prevalent form of interracial dating & marriage in the United States.''[Emphasis mine.]
Further,
''...25 percent of married Asian American women have Caucasian spouses, but 45 percent of cohabitating Asian American women are with Caucasian American men—higher than the percentage cohabitating with Asian men (less than 43 percent).''
Not so surprisingly, the Daily Mail article uses as an illustration a picture of John Lennon with Yoko Ono. I wonder about their choice of a photo in which the couple are wearing identical unisex jeans and black pullover shirts, and sport identical unisex cropped haircuts.
In the photo, Lennon with his hooded eyes appears rather Asian. What is the message here?
The people who dominate the media and who decide on the overriding message that we are fed every day seem absolutely obsessed with the idea of racial blending and mixing, and they are on a campaign to wear down any remaining resistance to the idea among the younger people. One of the claims made by those who are avidly advocating outmarrying is that peoples need to outmarry to keep from being 'inbred' and passing on birth defects (including 'idiocy' as it used to be called) to their descendants. This idea is greatly overemphasized by those who propound it, but it seems to have caught on, judging by the frequency with which the uninformed pro-miscegenists repeat it.
Some months back I blogged about the apparent advantages of cousin marriage -- between cousins who are not of the closest degrees, of course. It's reported here also, which surprises me, given the leftist bias of psychologists generally. But it appears that marriages within a certain degree of cousinship are more fertile. From that article:
George Darwin, Charles's eldest son and a fine mathematician, did the first known surveys of the supposed deleterious results of (first) cousin marriage and, despite sharing his father's concern about his own marriage, found them to be exaggerated and even found a lower incidence of insanity in cousin marriages. He was also the first person to find that close-cousin marriages were more fertile than others, but that this was offset by a slightly higher infant mortality rate. (See Kuper) No studies since have shown close cousin marriages to be more than slightly more risky than the marriages of unrelated people; they pose about the same risk as a woman having children after forty. Nevertheless, the idea persists that such marriages always lead to defective and diseased offspring, and 30 US States forbid first-cousin marriage to this day. The stereotype of the inbred idiot fostered by such films as Deliverance is still predominant.''
And even if the vast majority of us are very unlikely to marry a cousin, even, say, a fourth cousin, (though our ancestors did so) there is still no reason to believe that we have to outmarry or produce idiot children or defectives, or that we will 'stop evolving' as some idiot implies on the Daily Mail thread. We need not marry our cousins but even less do we need to marry people genetically distant from us in order to ''evolve'' or 'improve the stock' or any such nonsense.
The rising rates of outmarriage, though trumpeted and touted by the media and our lords and masters are probably due in some part to the apparent alienation between the two sexes among our people, due in great part to the manipulation of people's minds over the past couple of generations at least. Yet the message keeps being repeated that this rising rate is a sign of 'progress' toward harmony, or a decline in 'bigotry and hate' or above all, that it is inevitable, and we have to join the trend or be found on the 'wrong side'.
As for the Daily Mail article, it's heartening that the majority of comments openly scoff at the claims made and the multicult agenda so obviously on display. So perhaps not everybody is buying it; one can only hope that the people out there will have finally had enough of this stuff and rebel against it. The powers-that-be are overplaying their hand very badly.
Time will tell -- and very soon -- whether human nature wins out, or whether propaganda is stronger than human nature.
