I apologize for drifting off topic, but I’m surprised there’s been nothing here (or at VDare or AltRight) on Henry Louis Gates’ “Faces of America”, wherein various celebrities and pseudo-prominent persons have their genetic and ancestral history revealed to them by Gates. I watched the first (I believe) episode, and oh boy. The subjects represented an unrepresentative, multicultural rainbow (of course) of hues and backgrounds. Not surprisingly, nearly all of their ancestral histories had a lesson to teach about white oppression and evil, and the viewer was treated to multiple paeans to our being a “nation of immigrants”. You should have seen the disappointment when subjects discovered they had more Euro blood than they suspected. Meryl Streep was devastated that she’s 100% European, and that instead of Indian chief ancestors she had to settle for a founder of Virginia. Eva Longoria was quite put out that she’s 70% European – she was also hoping for more Amerindian. My favorite was black “poet” Elizabeth Alexander, who suffered multiple indignities. First, she found out that was 70% European. As if that wasn’t shameful enough, instead of finding glorious African tribal chieftains in her past, she had to settle for such comparatively worthless and inconsequential ancestors as King John Lackland and Charlemagne. Poor thing.
PS
Anyone here watch Justified yet? Thoughts vis a vis its portrayal of southerners in general and WNs in particular? About what I expected.
She is an investigative genius: Alternative Right is really a religious blog!
” Arianism is the theological teaching of Arius (ca. AD 250–336), a Christian presbyter from Alexandria, Egypt, concerning the relationship of the entities of the Trinity (‘God the Father’, ‘God the Son’ and ‘God the Holy Spirit’) and the precise nature of the Son of God. Deemed a heretic by the First Council of Nicaea of 325, Arius was later exonerated in 335 at the First Synod of Tyre[1], and then pronounced a heretic again after his death at the First Council of Constantinople of 381.[2] The Roman Emperors Constantius II (337-361) and Valens (364-378) were Arians or Semi-Arians.”
From time to time, I wonder to myself whether I made the right decision when I rejected schooling in favor of education and rejected degrees in favor of certifications. This is not one of those times. An educational system which would bestow a doctorate and a “Suma Cum Laude” on somebody who writes at that level is one which has entirely abdicated its responsibility to maintain the most basic standards.
This article is a damning indictment of America’s neoconservative movement and America’s educational system. I don’t even know how one would go about addressing the content. There doesn’t appear to be the slightest obligatory nod to her being a Republican. It’s a conceptual ransom note of hackneyed cliches pasted at random by a semi-literate benefactress of a broken spoils system.
We’re going to wipe out those Trinitarians yet!
I don’t know about you guys, but I am sick of light-skinned partly-white negroes like Gates, Obama, Holder, and this woman lecturing me on race and alleged “racial superiority.” I will not put up with them and their contrived “moral superiority.”
It’s the most lazy reductio ad Hitlerum argument I’ve ever seen!
Great comment, BTW, Mr. Parrott. Especially the last sentence.
Excerpts from article:
“I will never forget the Friday afternoon when a fellow graduate student (female) would not initially acknowledge my hello. As an after thought, she told me that none of the other students were permitted to speak with or to study with me.”
[…]
“What followed me, subsequently, into the workplace as well as into my private life was racial harassment to the extent that I resigned both my full and my part-time jobs…”
—
BS meter is pegging! This is yet another manufactured charge of racism concocted in the mind of a paranoid. It’s amazing the length negroes will go to explain away their failures. Anybody with any experience whatsoever in the real world working around negroes knows the situation she describes is pure fantasy. The reverse is invariably the case…that being: whites bend over backwards to accommodate blacks, both socially and economically. Too, employers go to great lengths in order to find or attract and retain competent — or even marginally competent — black employees. If she had a problem keeping a job, then it’s either a reflection on her incompetence, or more likely, her fucked-up nigger attitude…or both!
Ditto, Kievsky. A parade of mulattoes, masquerading as Negroes, while harping about “racism”. Another face of the anti-White ambuscade. Incidentally, the libtards & race-mixers now have a ‘coffee party’, purportedly launched by a googly-moogly named Park, set up to counter the ‘tea party’ crowd. It’s here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/o2/tea-party-coffee-party
Matt Parrott:
“I wonder to myself whether I made the right decision when I rejected schooling in favor of education and rejected degrees in favor of certifications. This is not one of those times.”
Take it from a guy with 12+4+4+3+2 years of schooling – you did it right.
“It’s a conceptual ransom note of hackneyed cliches pasted at random by a semi-literate benefactress of a broken spoils system.”
LMAO. This is a timeless quote. Thanks, Mike
I’m sure UC Davis was a hotbed of white supremacy in the 90s. Give me a break. Her writing is mediocre and she seems filled with grievances. I also don’t know why she’s so sure she wasn’t an affirmative action admit; all blacks are, even if they could have possibly been admitted on some other basis. Did she compare her GREs with those of all her peers. Give me a break.
Here in America the most common for of racism, practiced right out in the open as we see from that Faces of America thing, is anti-White racism.
We have anti-White affirmative action which randomly discriminates against White people in govt. and corporate hiring, university admissions and scholarships, not to mention the anti-White curriculum. The despicable Bill Gates, a billionaire thanks to White peoples money, rewards them by excluding them in his scholarship program. We have anti-White hate crime laws, when ironically White people should be a “protected class” considering how much they are victims of interracial crime. When Whites are victims of interracial crime the media seems disinterested, as if the lives of White people have less value.
We have White people demonized and ridiculed when they gather in groups to protest (Tea Parties). We see White men portrayed as metrosexual buffoons on television. Lack of diversity anywhere in society always means too many White people, as if an abundance of White people is a bad thing, hinting that ethnic cleansing of Whites is the end goal.
We have the Congressional Black, Hispanic, and Asian caucuses, all groups looking out for the interests of their people, yet it’s shocking, appalling and racist if Europeans ever even hint at being concerned for their people. We have countless racial organizations of all types except for White groups. Even if White people talk on a blog or website about issues affecting them, like the mild Alt Right, they are demonized and called a hate group.
We are told race is a social construct, or that the concept of race is so flawed it doesn’t really exist, yet suddenly it does exist when when governments and societies want to discriminate against people of European ancestry.
And then we see Faces of America, where people express actual disappointment that they have too much European blood. This is racism in it’s purest form.
#13 Swedish Fish:
This is with reference to this remark, “…it’s shocking, appalling and racist if Europeans ever even hint at being concerned for their people.”
You’re right about a lot of your points, but we white Americans have not been silenced by abuse when we use our white voice in white-centric issues. And every issue under the sun can be talked about in a white-centric way.
Here’s an example of an ad we placed in a local paper to bash our large daily paper in June 2008:
We attracted a lot of favorable attention as well as a spike in attendance at our seminars, and you will notice the text is almost purely in our white voice and about a white-centric issue.
The moral panic to which you allude is not about our speaking out, it’s about how we speak out. It’s true that great latitude is allowed to other demographics, and that we have to be more refined and deliberate in our remarks. But it is still true that any issue affecting the white Americans can be discussed in public and in such a way as to model how to speak to other white Americans.
The most detestable creature for me is the guilty white liberal like Meryl Streep and the rest of the Hollywood hypocrites. They live in their huge mansions in gated White communities and visits the joys of diversity when they’re in the mood. They know they can always escape diversity on a whim. Do any of them live in the Mexican parts of California?
They’re just soooo non-racist and try to shove it in your face, and feel morally superior to people who have committed the crime of not being saddled with White guilt. They’re so condescending and phony, it’s obvious when they go overboard on their praise for someone like that big black women in that movie Precious, or that Sandra Bullock movie The Blind Side. It should have been called The Guilty White Side, because pathetic Whites love movies like that, it temporary eases their guilt to see a black man do good (I didn’t see it, is it any good?).
I had to laugh when I realized that in a span of a few months, we had the Golden Globes, Screen Actors Guild awards, Directors Guild Awards, and the Academy Awards. These filthy rich and privileged assholes gather together with expensive clothes and jewelry and give each other awards and applaud each other, and make grandiose speeches as if they accomplished something worth a damn. You pretend on a set. Then after the awards show they go to parties and congratulate themselves some more. Why do we put these undeserving, narcissist people on a pedestal? We fail.
Matt,
I’m in the midlle of mistakenly pursuing a degree.
My Peruvian professor, in a barely intelligible accent, lectured us on the history of Banking in America:
“In 1832 Andrew Jackson vetoed the re-charter of the 2nd bank of the United States. I theenk he was a Congressman or sometheeng.”
“Important banking acts were passed during the Ceevil War, sometime in the Eighteen-Feefties or Eighteen-Seexties.”
This is a 300 level economics course, at a university founded before the Declaration of Independance was signed.
I feel like I’m living in Alex Kurtagic’s book “Meester”.
Silencing – that ad is great I applaud you for your work.
The moral panic to which you allude is not about our speaking out, it’s about how we speak out.
That sums it up. Things are getting better, I see more and more White people breaking their silence.
Hi De!
Glad to see you here.
I personally think Mulattoes are crazier than Negroes. The genetic mix is way to unstable.
Silencing @ #14?
I have three words for you…Cancelled AmRen Conference?
#19 The Man
Regarding “The Man’s” question at #19, if he will state clearly the purpose(s) of the conference, I will tell you how such a conference could go on. We used to have annual conferences at big San Jose hotels with nary a quibble — the topics were explicitly about white interests and concerns. We talked about ourselves as a demographic. There is nothing that cannot be spoken in our white voice so long as it is white-centric.
CLEO O BROWN IS AN IDIOT.
I only scanned the first few paragraphs and found the following. Someone take a screen shot of Cleo’s post before she corrects the grammar (if she even knows how).
Cleo: “Suma Cum Laude”
That’s Summa Cum Laude (two m’s, Cleo).
Cleo: “The UC Davis Campus”
You need not capitalize the or campus.
Cleo: “the Caucasian students on campus always thought that I had been an affirmative action admit”
That should be ‘admittee’.
Cleo: “to speak with or to study with me”
You only need one ‘with’.
Cleo: “Since, however, my complaint included charges of gender discrimination, which was more difficult to prove, I had lost.”
The complaint came before losing, so the complaint should be in the pluperfect.
Cleo: “children into an automobile, and moved permanently”
Unnecessary comma.
Cleo: “Although these protections, as they are currently in place, protect not only African-Americans and Hispanics but also Caucasians, Asian-Americans, and others , Weissberg in his mistaken belief that African-Americans and Hispanics need to be professionally neutered see as expendable those Whites and Asians who stand to gain from tougher discrimination regulations and laws.”
Weissberg is singular. Verb should be ‘sees’.
I had to stop after a few paragraphs. It was too painful to read. Cleo needs to get a job cleaning toilets and stop pretending she knows English.
I know, everyone makes mistakes when writing. I make careless mistakes — but not every other sentence. And Cleo is claiming she is a “sophistimicated” negro? She has an MA in Afro-American Studies. Is Law Skoo next?
Eva Longoria was quite put out that she’s 70% European – she was also hoping for more Amerindian.
Longoria is the Texas equivalent of Goldstein or Cohen. She should have expected close to 100% Sephardic ancestry.
I think Eva Longoria must tan often. Without her tan, she’s a lighter skinned mestiza. It’s odd that she tans, though, because most female Hispanics not only avoid the sun, but many use skin bleach, to appear as light-skinned as possible (or as “light-skinded as possible” as Cleo would say).
From Steve Sailer:
“Moreover, the Brazilian geneticists whom Lund cites came up with the exact same explanation in 2007 as I did in my 2002 article for why racial admixture levels in America are much more dichotomous than in the Latin American world.
I wrote in 2002 in “How White Are Blacks? How Black Are Whites?:”
Advocates of the popular idea that race is merely a “social construct” with no biological reality point to the artificiality of the “one drop” rule as evidence for their view. Yet, it’s possible that the “one drop” rule itself helped to construct the genetic reality that Shriver has uncovered.
Latin cultures, which lack the one drop rule, create more evenly blended populations, as Shriver has helped document among Mexican-Americans. He and his colleagues found that Hispanics in certain New Mexico and Colorado locales averaged 58 percent white ancestry, 39 percent New World Indian, and three percent African.
In contrast to the “bimodal distribution” of blacks and whites in America, Mexican-Americans clustered around their average admixture level of 58 percent European.
For centuries, however, American whites defined anyone with visible black ancestry as ineligible to marry a white. (It wasn’t until 1967 that the Supreme Court overturned the “anti-miscegenation” laws that were then still in force in 19 states.) This meant that mixed race people could seldom marry white people.
Unless, that is, they were white-looking enough to pass for white, and were willing to pull up their roots and move to a different part of the country where they could assume a white identity. This happened not infrequently in American history. For instance, one of the slave Sally Hemmings’ one-eighth black sons (who, according to geneticists, was fathered by either Thomas Jefferson or one of his relations) moved to Madison, Wis., after he was freed and founded a family of socially identified whites. Nonetheless, Shriver’s data suggests that well over 90 percent of the African genes in Americans are still found in people who call themselves black.
Over the generations, mixed-race lineages would tend to either pass into the white population and become more white with each generation’s marriage to a white person, or stay in the African-American population. If the latter, the families would normally become more genetically African over time as their offspring married African-Americans.
Thus, the “one drop” rule helped make African-Americans and European-Americans into two social groups whose members — despite sometimes being highly varied in ancestry — are perhaps more distinct on average in their family trees than the arbitrariness of the “one drop” would lead you to initially assume.”
From Steve Sailer:
“Among self-identified whites in Shriver’s sample, the average black admixture is only 0.7 percent. That’s the equivalent of having among your 128 great-great-great-great-great-grandparents (who lived around two centuries ago), 127 whites and one black.
It appears that 70 percent of whites have no African ancestors. Among the 30 percent who do, the black admixture is around 2.3 percent, which would be like having about three black ancestors out of those 128.
In contrast, African-Americans are much more racially mixed than European-Americans. Yet, Shriver’s study shows that they are less European that was previously believed.
Earlier, cruder studies, done before direct genetic testing was feasible, suggested that African-Americans were 25 or even 30 percent white. Shriver’s project is not complete, but with data from 25 sites already in, he is coming up with 17-18 percent white ancestry among African-Americans. That’s the equivalent of 106 of those 128 of your ancestors from seven generations ago having been Africans and 22 Europeans.
According to Shriver, only about 10 percent of African-Americans are over 50 percent white.”
“Over the generations, mixed-race lineages would tend to either pass into the white population and become more white with each generation’s marriage to a white person, or stay in the African-American population. If the latter, the families would normally become more genetically African over time as their offspring married African-Americans.
Thus, the “one drop” rule helped make African-Americans and European-Americans into two social groups whose members — despite sometimes being highly varied in ancestry — are perhaps more distinct on average in their family trees than the arbitrariness of the “one drop” would lead you to initially assume.”
It’s important to note, though, those whites who do have a small percentage of African ancestry often have certain suppressed [African] alleles. In other words, what makes an African an African is missing from the DNA of these supposedly part-black people.
Even Frank W. Sweet has written:
“The only American families accepted into the White endogamous group have been those whose African admixture just happened not to include the half-dozen alleles for dark skin (or the other physical traits associated with “race”). Since those particular alleles were sifted out of the portion of the White population that originated in biracial families, the relative percentage of the remaining, invisible, African alleles in this population cannot affect skin color. That skin-color does not vary with African genetic admixture among American Whites, despite their measureably recent African admixture, demonstrates and confirms that physical appearance has been an important endogamous group membership criterion throughout U.S. history. It has resulted in genetic selection of the White U.S. population for a European “racial” appearance, regardless of their underlying continent-of-ancestry admixture ratio.”
That said, I’d take Henry Louis Gates’ book with a grain of salt. There are different ways to interpret ancestry from DNA – some of which make people appear more multiracial than they really are. I don’t know what methodology Gates’ people used, but I suspect they used a very liberal one to make people appear to have more multiracial ancestry than they actually do.
Among self-identified whites in Shriver’s sample, the average black admixture is only 0.7 percent.
We must also recognize error rates with these tests, and compared to African ancestry in European countries white America is at the low end and in line with Britain. In other words we are no different from our European ancestors who came here. Understand that Europe itself is not 100% white in DNA. There are no pure races, but there are pure individuals.
Since those particular alleles were sifted out of the portion of the White population that originated in biracial families, the relative percentage of the remaining, invisible, African alleles in this population cannot affect skin color.
It does effect the phenotype and behavior in more subtle ways. A guy I knew whose family looked white otherwise, had stiff, wavy hair and had some similar personality traits.
Many people are just simpletons, they’re racially challenged, they have very low awareness, for them race is all about skin color.
Given only several examples I have noticed that girls, shall we say, colored girls, have married men that were far more African then they are. In the same way I have seen several cases where the mixed race sons were interested in white women.
If this behavior is common it is a poison cocktail for white people.
Do we know much about how mixed race children mate?
“Over the generations, mixed-race lineages would tend to either pass into the white population and become more white with each generation’s marriage to a white person, or stay in the African-American population. If the latter, the families would normally become more genetically African over time as their offspring married African-Americans.
Even 2.3 percent black in a person who looks visually White will generally still have noticeable traces of African ancestry. I know this woman from work who looks White in all respects other than her frizzy hair and peculiar body shape. It’s rare for someone with trace African DNA to exhibit traits common to Northern Europeans like blue eyes or blonde hair.
We must also recognize error rates with these tests, and compared to African ancestry in European countries white America is at the low end and in line with Britain. In other words we are no different from our European ancestors who came here. Understand that Europe itself is not 100% white in DNA. There are no pure races, but there are pure individuals.
Really, Britain, with their history of Empire and involvement with the Slave Trade is at the ‘low end’ of possible African ancestry, huh?
Sounds more like wishful thinking than anything else.
Why are you so surprised at her “academic skills”? Didn’t you see that her degree was in “African-American studies”? ‘Nuff said…
You folks really get too worked up by this. Black people don’t even pay HHRs any attention. I think all this unnecessary rancor limits your appeal as your image becomes anti- Black instead of pro- West(white)
I apologize for drifting off topic, but I’m surprised there’s been nothing here (or at VDare or AltRight) on Henry Louis Gates’ “Faces of America”, wherein various celebrities and pseudo-prominent persons have their genetic and ancestral history revealed to them by Gates. I watched the first (I believe) episode, and oh boy. The subjects represented an unrepresentative, multicultural rainbow (of course) of hues and backgrounds. Not surprisingly, nearly all of their ancestral histories had a lesson to teach about white oppression and evil, and the viewer was treated to multiple paeans to our being a “nation of immigrants”. You should have seen the disappointment when subjects discovered they had more Euro blood than they suspected. Meryl Streep was devastated that she’s 100% European, and that instead of Indian chief ancestors she had to settle for a founder of Virginia. Eva Longoria was quite put out that she’s 70% European – she was also hoping for more Amerindian. My favorite was black “poet” Elizabeth Alexander, who suffered multiple indignities. First, she found out that was 70% European. As if that wasn’t shameful enough, instead of finding glorious African tribal chieftains in her past, she had to settle for such comparatively worthless and inconsequential ancestors as King John Lackland and Charlemagne. Poor thing.
PS
Anyone here watch Justified yet? Thoughts vis a vis its portrayal of southerners in general and WNs in particular? About what I expected.
I haven’t heard of this. What can I find it?
Right here:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/facesofamerica/
Laugh out loud.
She is an investigative genius: Alternative Right is really a religious blog!
” Arianism is the theological teaching of Arius (ca. AD 250–336), a Christian presbyter from Alexandria, Egypt, concerning the relationship of the entities of the Trinity (‘God the Father’, ‘God the Son’ and ‘God the Holy Spirit’) and the precise nature of the Son of God. Deemed a heretic by the First Council of Nicaea of 325, Arius was later exonerated in 335 at the First Synod of Tyre[1], and then pronounced a heretic again after his death at the First Council of Constantinople of 381.[2] The Roman Emperors Constantius II (337-361) and Valens (364-378) were Arians or Semi-Arians.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
From time to time, I wonder to myself whether I made the right decision when I rejected schooling in favor of education and rejected degrees in favor of certifications. This is not one of those times. An educational system which would bestow a doctorate and a “Suma Cum Laude” on somebody who writes at that level is one which has entirely abdicated its responsibility to maintain the most basic standards.
This article is a damning indictment of America’s neoconservative movement and America’s educational system. I don’t even know how one would go about addressing the content. There doesn’t appear to be the slightest obligatory nod to her being a Republican. It’s a conceptual ransom note of hackneyed cliches pasted at random by a semi-literate benefactress of a broken spoils system.
We’re going to wipe out those Trinitarians yet!
I don’t know about you guys, but I am sick of light-skinned partly-white negroes like Gates, Obama, Holder, and this woman lecturing me on race and alleged “racial superiority.” I will not put up with them and their contrived “moral superiority.”
It’s the most lazy reductio ad Hitlerum argument I’ve ever seen!
Great comment, BTW, Mr. Parrott. Especially the last sentence.
Excerpts from article:
“I will never forget the Friday afternoon when a fellow graduate student (female) would not initially acknowledge my hello. As an after thought, she told me that none of the other students were permitted to speak with or to study with me.”
[…]
“What followed me, subsequently, into the workplace as well as into my private life was racial harassment to the extent that I resigned both my full and my part-time jobs…”
—
BS meter is pegging! This is yet another manufactured charge of racism concocted in the mind of a paranoid. It’s amazing the length negroes will go to explain away their failures. Anybody with any experience whatsoever in the real world working around negroes knows the situation she describes is pure fantasy. The reverse is invariably the case…that being: whites bend over backwards to accommodate blacks, both socially and economically. Too, employers go to great lengths in order to find or attract and retain competent — or even marginally competent — black employees. If she had a problem keeping a job, then it’s either a reflection on her incompetence, or more likely, her fucked-up nigger attitude…or both!
Ditto, Kievsky. A parade of mulattoes, masquerading as Negroes, while harping about “racism”. Another face of the anti-White ambuscade. Incidentally, the libtards & race-mixers now have a ‘coffee party’, purportedly launched by a googly-moogly named Park, set up to counter the ‘tea party’ crowd. It’s here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/o2/tea-party-coffee-party
Matt Parrott:
“I wonder to myself whether I made the right decision when I rejected schooling in favor of education and rejected degrees in favor of certifications. This is not one of those times.”
Take it from a guy with 12+4+4+3+2 years of schooling – you did it right.
“It’s a conceptual ransom note of hackneyed cliches pasted at random by a semi-literate benefactress of a broken spoils system.”
LMAO. This is a timeless quote. Thanks, Mike
I’m sure UC Davis was a hotbed of white supremacy in the 90s. Give me a break. Her writing is mediocre and she seems filled with grievances. I also don’t know why she’s so sure she wasn’t an affirmative action admit; all blacks are, even if they could have possibly been admitted on some other basis. Did she compare her GREs with those of all her peers. Give me a break.
Here in America the most common for of racism, practiced right out in the open as we see from that Faces of America thing, is anti-White racism.
We have anti-White affirmative action which randomly discriminates against White people in govt. and corporate hiring, university admissions and scholarships, not to mention the anti-White curriculum. The despicable Bill Gates, a billionaire thanks to White peoples money, rewards them by excluding them in his scholarship program. We have anti-White hate crime laws, when ironically White people should be a “protected class” considering how much they are victims of interracial crime. When Whites are victims of interracial crime the media seems disinterested, as if the lives of White people have less value.
We have White people demonized and ridiculed when they gather in groups to protest (Tea Parties). We see White men portrayed as metrosexual buffoons on television. Lack of diversity anywhere in society always means too many White people, as if an abundance of White people is a bad thing, hinting that ethnic cleansing of Whites is the end goal.
We have the Congressional Black, Hispanic, and Asian caucuses, all groups looking out for the interests of their people, yet it’s shocking, appalling and racist if Europeans ever even hint at being concerned for their people. We have countless racial organizations of all types except for White groups. Even if White people talk on a blog or website about issues affecting them, like the mild Alt Right, they are demonized and called a hate group.
We are told race is a social construct, or that the concept of race is so flawed it doesn’t really exist, yet suddenly it does exist when when governments and societies want to discriminate against people of European ancestry.
And then we see Faces of America, where people express actual disappointment that they have too much European blood. This is racism in it’s purest form.
#13 Swedish Fish:
This is with reference to this remark, “…it’s shocking, appalling and racist if Europeans ever even hint at being concerned for their people.”
You’re right about a lot of your points, but we white Americans have not been silenced by abuse when we use our white voice in white-centric issues. And every issue under the sun can be talked about in a white-centric way.
Here’s an example of an ad we placed in a local paper to bash our large daily paper in June 2008:
http://www.resistingdefamation.org/sub/metro.asp
We attracted a lot of favorable attention as well as a spike in attendance at our seminars, and you will notice the text is almost purely in our white voice and about a white-centric issue.
The moral panic to which you allude is not about our speaking out, it’s about how we speak out. It’s true that great latitude is allowed to other demographics, and that we have to be more refined and deliberate in our remarks. But it is still true that any issue affecting the white Americans can be discussed in public and in such a way as to model how to speak to other white Americans.
The most detestable creature for me is the guilty white liberal like Meryl Streep and the rest of the Hollywood hypocrites. They live in their huge mansions in gated White communities and visits the joys of diversity when they’re in the mood. They know they can always escape diversity on a whim. Do any of them live in the Mexican parts of California?
They’re just soooo non-racist and try to shove it in your face, and feel morally superior to people who have committed the crime of not being saddled with White guilt. They’re so condescending and phony, it’s obvious when they go overboard on their praise for someone like that big black women in that movie Precious, or that Sandra Bullock movie The Blind Side. It should have been called The Guilty White Side, because pathetic Whites love movies like that, it temporary eases their guilt to see a black man do good (I didn’t see it, is it any good?).
I had to laugh when I realized that in a span of a few months, we had the Golden Globes, Screen Actors Guild awards, Directors Guild Awards, and the Academy Awards. These filthy rich and privileged assholes gather together with expensive clothes and jewelry and give each other awards and applaud each other, and make grandiose speeches as if they accomplished something worth a damn. You pretend on a set. Then after the awards show they go to parties and congratulate themselves some more. Why do we put these undeserving, narcissist people on a pedestal? We fail.
Matt,
I’m in the midlle of mistakenly pursuing a degree.
My Peruvian professor, in a barely intelligible accent, lectured us on the history of Banking in America:
“In 1832 Andrew Jackson vetoed the re-charter of the 2nd bank of the United States. I theenk he was a Congressman or sometheeng.”
“Important banking acts were passed during the Ceevil War, sometime in the Eighteen-Feefties or Eighteen-Seexties.”
This is a 300 level economics course, at a university founded before the Declaration of Independance was signed.
I feel like I’m living in Alex Kurtagic’s book “Meester”.
Silencing – that ad is great I applaud you for your work.
The moral panic to which you allude is not about our speaking out, it’s about how we speak out.
That sums it up. Things are getting better, I see more and more White people breaking their silence.
Hi De!
Glad to see you here.
I personally think Mulattoes are crazier than Negroes. The genetic mix is way to unstable.
Silencing @ #14?
I have three words for you…Cancelled AmRen Conference?
#19 The Man
Regarding “The Man’s” question at #19, if he will state clearly the purpose(s) of the conference, I will tell you how such a conference could go on. We used to have annual conferences at big San Jose hotels with nary a quibble — the topics were explicitly about white interests and concerns. We talked about ourselves as a demographic. There is nothing that cannot be spoken in our white voice so long as it is white-centric.
CLEO O BROWN IS AN IDIOT.
I only scanned the first few paragraphs and found the following. Someone take a screen shot of Cleo’s post before she corrects the grammar (if she even knows how).
Cleo: “Suma Cum Laude”
That’s Summa Cum Laude (two m’s, Cleo).
Cleo: “The UC Davis Campus”
You need not capitalize the or campus.
Cleo: “the Caucasian students on campus always thought that I had been an affirmative action admit”
That should be ‘admittee’.
Cleo: “to speak with or to study with me”
You only need one ‘with’.
Cleo: “Since, however, my complaint included charges of gender discrimination, which was more difficult to prove, I had lost.”
The complaint came before losing, so the complaint should be in the pluperfect.
Cleo: “children into an automobile, and moved permanently”
Unnecessary comma.
Cleo: “Although these protections, as they are currently in place, protect not only African-Americans and Hispanics but also Caucasians, Asian-Americans, and others , Weissberg in his mistaken belief that African-Americans and Hispanics need to be professionally neutered see as expendable those Whites and Asians who stand to gain from tougher discrimination regulations and laws.”
Weissberg is singular. Verb should be ‘sees’.
I had to stop after a few paragraphs. It was too painful to read. Cleo needs to get a job cleaning toilets and stop pretending she knows English.
I know, everyone makes mistakes when writing. I make careless mistakes — but not every other sentence. And Cleo is claiming she is a “sophistimicated” negro? She has an MA in Afro-American Studies. Is Law Skoo next?
Eva Longoria was quite put out that she’s 70% European – she was also hoping for more Amerindian.
Longoria is the Texas equivalent of Goldstein or Cohen. She should have expected close to 100% Sephardic ancestry.
I think Eva Longoria must tan often. Without her tan, she’s a lighter skinned mestiza. It’s odd that she tans, though, because most female Hispanics not only avoid the sun, but many use skin bleach, to appear as light-skinned as possible (or as “light-skinded as possible” as Cleo would say).
From Steve Sailer:
“Moreover, the Brazilian geneticists whom Lund cites came up with the exact same explanation in 2007 as I did in my 2002 article for why racial admixture levels in America are much more dichotomous than in the Latin American world.
I wrote in 2002 in “How White Are Blacks? How Black Are Whites?:”
Advocates of the popular idea that race is merely a “social construct” with no biological reality point to the artificiality of the “one drop” rule as evidence for their view. Yet, it’s possible that the “one drop” rule itself helped to construct the genetic reality that Shriver has uncovered.
Latin cultures, which lack the one drop rule, create more evenly blended populations, as Shriver has helped document among Mexican-Americans. He and his colleagues found that Hispanics in certain New Mexico and Colorado locales averaged 58 percent white ancestry, 39 percent New World Indian, and three percent African.
In contrast to the “bimodal distribution” of blacks and whites in America, Mexican-Americans clustered around their average admixture level of 58 percent European.
For centuries, however, American whites defined anyone with visible black ancestry as ineligible to marry a white. (It wasn’t until 1967 that the Supreme Court overturned the “anti-miscegenation” laws that were then still in force in 19 states.) This meant that mixed race people could seldom marry white people.
Unless, that is, they were white-looking enough to pass for white, and were willing to pull up their roots and move to a different part of the country where they could assume a white identity. This happened not infrequently in American history. For instance, one of the slave Sally Hemmings’ one-eighth black sons (who, according to geneticists, was fathered by either Thomas Jefferson or one of his relations) moved to Madison, Wis., after he was freed and founded a family of socially identified whites. Nonetheless, Shriver’s data suggests that well over 90 percent of the African genes in Americans are still found in people who call themselves black.
Over the generations, mixed-race lineages would tend to either pass into the white population and become more white with each generation’s marriage to a white person, or stay in the African-American population. If the latter, the families would normally become more genetically African over time as their offspring married African-Americans.
Thus, the “one drop” rule helped make African-Americans and European-Americans into two social groups whose members — despite sometimes being highly varied in ancestry — are perhaps more distinct on average in their family trees than the arbitrariness of the “one drop” would lead you to initially assume.”
From Steve Sailer:
“Among self-identified whites in Shriver’s sample, the average black admixture is only 0.7 percent. That’s the equivalent of having among your 128 great-great-great-great-great-grandparents (who lived around two centuries ago), 127 whites and one black.
It appears that 70 percent of whites have no African ancestors. Among the 30 percent who do, the black admixture is around 2.3 percent, which would be like having about three black ancestors out of those 128.
In contrast, African-Americans are much more racially mixed than European-Americans. Yet, Shriver’s study shows that they are less European that was previously believed.
Earlier, cruder studies, done before direct genetic testing was feasible, suggested that African-Americans were 25 or even 30 percent white. Shriver’s project is not complete, but with data from 25 sites already in, he is coming up with 17-18 percent white ancestry among African-Americans. That’s the equivalent of 106 of those 128 of your ancestors from seven generations ago having been Africans and 22 Europeans.
According to Shriver, only about 10 percent of African-Americans are over 50 percent white.”
“Over the generations, mixed-race lineages would tend to either pass into the white population and become more white with each generation’s marriage to a white person, or stay in the African-American population. If the latter, the families would normally become more genetically African over time as their offspring married African-Americans.
Thus, the “one drop” rule helped make African-Americans and European-Americans into two social groups whose members — despite sometimes being highly varied in ancestry — are perhaps more distinct on average in their family trees than the arbitrariness of the “one drop” would lead you to initially assume.”
http://www.isteve.com/2002_How_White_Are_Blacks.htm
It’s important to note, though, those whites who do have a small percentage of African ancestry often have certain suppressed [African] alleles. In other words, what makes an African an African is missing from the DNA of these supposedly part-black people.
Even Frank W. Sweet has written:
“The only American families accepted into the White endogamous group have been those whose African admixture just happened not to include the half-dozen alleles for dark skin (or the other physical traits associated with “race”). Since those particular alleles were sifted out of the portion of the White population that originated in biracial families, the relative percentage of the remaining, invisible, African alleles in this population cannot affect skin color. That skin-color does not vary with African genetic admixture among American Whites, despite their measureably recent African admixture, demonstrates and confirms that physical appearance has been an important endogamous group membership criterion throughout U.S. history. It has resulted in genetic selection of the White U.S. population for a European “racial” appearance, regardless of their underlying continent-of-ancestry admixture ratio.”
http://backintyme.com/essays/?p
That said, I’d take Henry Louis Gates’ book with a grain of salt. There are different ways to interpret ancestry from DNA – some of which make people appear more multiracial than they really are. I don’t know what methodology Gates’ people used, but I suspect they used a very liberal one to make people appear to have more multiracial ancestry than they actually do.
Among self-identified whites in Shriver’s sample, the average black admixture is only 0.7 percent.
We must also recognize error rates with these tests, and compared to African ancestry in European countries white America is at the low end and in line with Britain. In other words we are no different from our European ancestors who came here. Understand that Europe itself is not 100% white in DNA. There are no pure races, but there are pure individuals.
Since those particular alleles were sifted out of the portion of the White population that originated in biracial families, the relative percentage of the remaining, invisible, African alleles in this population cannot affect skin color.
It does effect the phenotype and behavior in more subtle ways. A guy I knew whose family looked white otherwise, had stiff, wavy hair and had some similar personality traits.
Many people are just simpletons, they’re racially challenged, they have very low awareness, for them race is all about skin color.
“I turned from black to white: How a skin disorder changed a man’s identity and his place in the world” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1201841/I-turned-black-white-How-skin-disordered-changed-mans-identity-place-world.html
Given only several examples I have noticed that girls, shall we say, colored girls, have married men that were far more African then they are. In the same way I have seen several cases where the mixed race sons were interested in white women.
If this behavior is common it is a poison cocktail for white people.
Do we know much about how mixed race children mate?
“Over the generations, mixed-race lineages would tend to either pass into the white population and become more white with each generation’s marriage to a white person, or stay in the African-American population. If the latter, the families would normally become more genetically African over time as their offspring married African-Americans.
Even 2.3 percent black in a person who looks visually White will generally still have noticeable traces of African ancestry. I know this woman from work who looks White in all respects other than her frizzy hair and peculiar body shape. It’s rare for someone with trace African DNA to exhibit traits common to Northern Europeans like blue eyes or blonde hair.
We must also recognize error rates with these tests, and compared to African ancestry in European countries white America is at the low end and in line with Britain. In other words we are no different from our European ancestors who came here. Understand that Europe itself is not 100% white in DNA. There are no pure races, but there are pure individuals.
Really, Britain, with their history of Empire and involvement with the Slave Trade is at the ‘low end’ of possible African ancestry, huh?
Sounds more like wishful thinking than anything else.
Why are you so surprised at her “academic skills”? Didn’t you see that her degree was in “African-American studies”? ‘Nuff said…
You folks really get too worked up by this. Black people don’t even pay HHRs any attention. I think all this unnecessary rancor limits your appeal as your image becomes anti- Black instead of pro- West(white)