|
|
|
The black ones they sent back From the Telegraph, a perfect and equable example of preserving genetic interests:-
Well, let’s be clear. For my parents’ generation illegitimacy carried a stigma scarcely conceivable among the dozy and reproductive today. Lives were completely ruined by it. But ... for tens of thousands of girls the American military man was just too glamorous and exciting, and too much fun in some very grey times, to ignore. It wasn’t as if there were thousands of English boys around anyway. Even so, giving oneself to a negro - American or otherwise, soldier or not - brought into focus a swathe of other, painful moral issues. Irrespective of the elitist sensibilities of the Whitehall official with his Herrenrasse fears, the public had what might be termed a “direct” understanding of negroes. As understandings go, it was a rather better and more honest one than the so vibrant, so-so enriching official bilge that gets pumped at people today. It was also too implacable to be blown away by a few cries of “racism”. For the family to rally round a daughter who produced an illegitimate white baby was one thing. It was completely another if that baby was black. No tales of a loved father lost at sea or in battle far away could be spun to the curious and to the growing child. A black father meant one type of relationship only, with no thought in the moment the deed was done for self-respect or responsibility. It was simply too great a burden to bear through life if there was any half-acceptable alternative - and, it transpires, there was. In fact, the alternative was a very good one from a perspective of English genetic interests. In so far as was possible, thousands of carriers of African genes were distanced from the English genepool, while English genes travelled back to the segregated negro population of America. I am, though, intrigued by the Home Office statement that runs: “Provided it is clear that ... there is a reasonably satisfactory home in the US ...” Did the British government fund orphanages in America? Did they pay American couples to adopt the children? How were these reasonably satisfactory homes secured? We are not told. But it is interesting to reflect on what can be achieved when the political will exists, as one suspects it must exist again some day. Comments:2
Posted by Prozium on Wed, 06 Feb 2008 00:00 | # Potential Frolic! I was wondering where you disappeared to. 3
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 06 Feb 2008 00:19 | # PF, I have done little of value for some time due to family committments. Coincidentally, though, there is a bigger piece on the stocks now. Stick around for a day or so and let me know what you think of it. I’ve received your reply to my mail, btw, and will respond. 4
Posted by Cato the Elder on Wed, 06 Feb 2008 00:25 | # The fact that so many English girls were willing to get ****** by some negro means that the country was already half way into the toilet. Would Victorian women have done the same - with a Negro of all things? I think we know the answer to that. As a white American male, I find the very fact of any sex between black soldiers and white girls in England in the 1940s astonishing. In the US, such a thing would have been inconceivable back then, even in the North. In the South this would have led to horrific violence. A woman of any non-black race who sleeps with a negro is a whore in my opinion. What is it about the negro that is alluring? He is stupid, phenotypically repulsive and is looked down upon by all. Ergo, the things that attract a woman, who isn’t negro herself, to the negro male are the lowest of all the low things. Is this not correct? I have yet to meet a negro who would make a good father or husband. They are either criminals or affirmative action types. Anyway, our prejudice didn’t help us either. We are in the same toilet with you. We deserve it. We are paying the price for fighting against the Germans in the Second World War. We asked for it and we thoroughly deserve what we are getting now. 5
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 06 Feb 2008 00:44 | # Cato, We are paying the price for Hitler’s Liebensraum. As for negro male sexuality, I don’t think all women are equipped to comprehend that term. Many, at the height of the chase, can think only in terms of male sexuality. Self-confidence and sexual assertiveness are key markers for the alpha male, and these the negro exhibits strongly. Fred Scrooby has a good line on this. 6
Posted by Cato the Elder on Wed, 06 Feb 2008 01:10 | # We are paying the price for opposing the only regime that could have stopped what is happening today. I am not a Nazi but it seems to me that too many racists are still stuck with post-war propaganda in their minds. Churchill and Roosevelt certainly thought nothing of aligning themselves with history’s second greatest mass murderer in the name of democracy. But leaving that aside, the simple fact is that if the Germans had won the war, the world would be a different place. The females that succumb to the negro are sluts. Your description of jungle warfare in our civilized environs doesn’t wash. I have been to many countries around the world and the one constant in almost every one from Korea to the Middle East is the dislike of the negro. In most countries in that zone, no woman would like to be seen dead with a negro arm in arm. That is natural and normal. Their “alpha male” virtues certainly don’t seem to work there. If they really are that good, they should have as much success in those countries as they do here. But they don’t. 7
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 06 Feb 2008 01:51 | # One of the subjects we have covered in our threads has been the build up to the Tiananmen Square protests. You may be surprised to learn, they were preceded by a rough-house reaction among male Chinese university students to the usual African male behaviour on campus. Apparently, the Chinese government liked to educate Africans. It seems that Chinese girls had no difficulty in measuring up what the Africans had to offer, and the rest you know. It’s no secret among white males living in East Asian countries that they, too, possess fundamental advantages over the little local guys. I’ve heard that EA forum threads are full of male angst about the preferences of their girls. The relevance of WW2 to the subsequent racial onslaught on the West is an extremely interesting - and complex - subject. Maybe we should look into it again. 8
Posted by Blue Balls on Wed, 06 Feb 2008 02:29 | # Well, that’s what friends are for. What a partnership we have and what a friend we have in Jesus. Why do the Jews get all the good stuff from both of us?
Britain secretly supplied Israel with plutonium during the 1960s despite a warning from military intelligence that it could help the Israelis to develop a nuclear bomb, it was disclosed last night. The deal, made during Harold Wilson’s Labour government… http://politics.guardian.co.uk/politicspast/story/0,,1727978,00.html 10
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 06 Feb 2008 03:31 | #
WW II was fought to make the world safe for race-replacement. 1930s German National Socialism was standing in the way so had to be, first, goaded into war and second, savagely beaten down and taught a lesson neither it nor any onlookers who might harbor similar thoughts of resisting race-replacement would ever forget. (No, in case anyone was wondering, the people pushing race-replacement are no shrinking violets.) “Fascist” doesn’t mean what everyone thinks. It means a white who hesitates to warmly embrace forced race-replacement of whites. You don’t have to hesitate long — a microsecond will do. A microsecond’s hesitation will earn you the epithet. 11
Posted by Prozium on Wed, 06 Feb 2008 04:11 | #
It doesn’t surprise me. I have made several posts about this over the years. During WW2, there were race riots in Britain amongst American GIs over blacks openly fraternizing with local white women. French women were even more eager to jump in bed with negroes. This was also a problem in the Great War. Racial attitudes have always varied considerably throughout the West. 12
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 06 Feb 2008 05:14 | # I can understand white females wanting to hop into the sack with blacks. As Scrooby has stated before, women just don’t see race. They can be taught to, but they do not naturally see it. Women are much more into confidence and aggressiveness than they are looks. Men have problems understanding this since we’re so oriented toward physical beauty; we see blacks and are repulsed, but women don’t see, they feel. What I can’t understand is how white males, collectively, have abdicated our role as arbiters of “the line.” 13
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 06 Feb 2008 05:15 | # Said “line” being relatively easy to maintain, and women being relatively eager to respect, btw. 14
Posted by Bret Ludwig on Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:46 | # My experiences with the Japanese girls (which I fooled around with before I was a WN) were that to them there were only two races, per se, Nihojin (Us, Japanese) and Gaijin (Them, non-Japanese). It’s my assessment that Japanese men have the smallest penises of any group in the world. This is borne out through the size of Japanese condoms (famously tight on even modestly endowed white men), from my assessment of photos of non-porn-connected and presumably average Japanese men, and from the testimony both of Japanese girls I was with sexually and of the “working girls” I have known, from my work activities and socializing, who had experience with Japanese men. Now, Japan is an enormously sex-obsessed place in general and enormously penis obsessed in particular. Japanese men and women alike know all about penis size. I have never had the experience but know many Western men who have been crotch fondled by Japanese women on trains and in crowds. Japanese girls were usually very willing to copulate with gaijin up until the late 80s or early 90s, until the specter of AIDS and other venereal diseases became apparent to the Japanese consciousness. Now, despite the fact young Japanese copulate like rabbits amongst themselves, they stay strictly in their own race for the most part. A gaijin man can still get laid in the larger cities but it’s no longer so easy. When I asked Japanese girls about the differences between whites, blacks,and non-Japanese Asians, they said blacks were the least pleasant to be around but the most sexually athletic and generally had the biggest penis. Part of the attraction for them was the big gaijin penis. They hated being around blacks because they were generally boorish, smelled bad, unclean and often not very smart. 15
Posted by Blue Balls on Sat, 09 Feb 2008 12:57 | # Thanks Andy, for another gift from Britain. Supermarkets, just what we need. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080208191656.ggd6ubof&show_article=1 16
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 09 Feb 2008 14:25 | #
Sounds like the place Birch needs to be. Hey can someone e-mail that to him? He’ll naturally want to rush right over there.
Ooops!!!! ... I didn’t see that! ... Hey DON’T e-mail that part to him, OK? ... Or if you, just make sure to tack this part onto it:
(That last bit is very important — it’ll keep him from backsliding into his pills and alcohol ...) 17
Posted by VLC on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 03:33 | # ‘Thousands’ of english women spreading their legs before ‘thousands’ of niggers ...in the 1940s ? Notice how vague the reporter is about the quantity of mixed race babies. ‘Thousands’ could be 1,000 to 10,000 or more but he just says ‘thousands’ and in the first paragraph only, an indication that the real number is perhaps much less than he wants the readers to believe. If the newly released documents contains precise figures why didn’t he say how much exactly ? If they don’t how did he came to the conclusion that it was ‘thousands’ ? The press lies every day and covers up the truth most of the time so why are some of you so ready to accept what they tell you is true ? You should ask for more details, i.e. how many exactly and how do we know. I’ve searched for the e-mail address of Graham Tibbetts but couldn’t find it
18
Posted by Bret Ludwig on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 03:54 | # From all accounts, American military men in England sired a very considerable number of children during WWII. One explanation I have read, and which some inquiry backs up somewhat, is that the British men were much more reluctant to have sex with their women because fathering a child meant marriage, usually to a less than desireable partner or under unfavorable economic circumstances, or ostracism, so the girls weren’t as reluctant to “go all the way” as American girls. When the Yanks got there they were making out like crazy. Given the total number of US personnel there and the high rate of GI-sired illegitimacy, the idea of 1000 black babies sired by black troops is not utterly outrageous. Given blacks’ greater sex drive, the novelty factor, the impressive equipment of some blacks, and the often higher sperm counts…anything is possible. Still, exporting the problem made perfect sense from the British standpoint in every way. The young mothers would never have to worry about their indiscretions coming back to haunt them, the Brits got their genes in the US black population rather than the other way round, and they could mollify themselves that it was in “the best interest of the children”. 19
Posted by GT on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 05:17 | # Just posting information from Heretical. Not trying to hurt anybody’s feelings: “Of the 5.3 million British infants delivered between 1939 and 1945, over a third were illegitimate – and this wartime phenomenon was not confined to any one section of society.” http://heretical.com/costello/13gleftb.html “The main sexually motivated wartime violence in Britain, however, arose not from jilted Canadians or even clashes of GIs and resentful British husbands, but between white American soldiers and their black comrades over Englishwomen who refused to subscribe to the colour bar that was enforced in the US Army. “Complaints about the bigotry and feuding between the black and white American soldiers resulted in the Prime Minister being asked in the Commons to ‘make friendly representations to the American military authorities asking them to instruct their men that the colour bar is not the custom in this country.’ A Home Office letter of September 1942 made this official policy clear in a circular sent to all chief constables. But the Secretary of War found himself on a ‘razor’s edge’ over the issue after a US general in Southern Command issued orders that, ‘White women should not associate with coloured men. They should not walk out, dance, or drink with them.’ Many British women objected strongly to the discrimination. A NAAFI counter lady explained, ‘We find the coloured troops are much nicer to deal with in canteen life and such, we like serving them, they’re always so courteous and have a very natural charm that most of the whites miss. Candidly, I’d rather serve a regiment of the dusky lads than a couple of whites.’ “Barbara Cartland wrote from her experience as a WAAF moral welfare adviser: “It was the white women who ran after the black troops, not vice versa. Approximately one thousand five hundred coloured babies were born in Britain during the war, bat I am prepared to bet that if the truth were known it would prove in nearly every case the woman’s fault.” 20
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:07 | # My take: The Negroes were being extremely polite around Brit women because back home if they were otherwise there might be a rope waiting for them. The Brit women however, not understanding this, took it for greater gentlemanliness in the Negro soldiers as compared to the cheeky white U.S. soldiers, so stuck up for the former and preferred them for an evening out. What else would they see in the Negroes that would make them so receptive to them? Surely not their looks and with all due respect to Bret Ludwig one highly doubts they were after the Negro “equipment.” 21
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:12 | # Let’s also not forget Simon Sheppard’s brilliant analysis of what makes white women take Negro boyfriends: some of those motivations were certainly at work then. 22
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:14 | # (I’ll see if I can hunt up the link to the Sheppard piece.) 23
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:19 | # Here. This article is a classic, in my opinion, and the man who wrote it brilliant. 24
Posted by Bret Ludwig on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:12 | # Mr. Scrooby brings up a good point. The black troops were on their best behavior, and in general, the blacks in the ETO were a higher than average grade since there was no great drive to enlist all possible blacks and most blacks went to stevedore and service battalions. People whose primary experience with blacks is based on those in the military get a somewhat rose-colored view of blacks in general, because military discipline keeps them more in line than in the civilian world, and also, the ASVAB and the training regimen weed out many marginal ones. Indeed, the US enlisted ranks are heavily larded with the smartest blacks. Roughly 40% of blacks are not smart enough to enlist, several sources say. I greatly enjoy Simon Sheppard’s excellent work. BTW on the subject of black equipment, there is enormous variance (no pun intended) on a tribe-by-tribe basis in Africa and consequently among blacks in the United States. Apparently in some tribes-but not in others-hot climate or whatever has promoted nudity and perhaps due to differential copulation rates based on status, the large males developed a reproductive edge and the men tended to be very large. Since American blacks are a melange of West African tribes some are normal and some are freakish. 25
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:41 | # Bret, May I suggest you read Rushton. Sheppard should have done the same. 26
Posted by name on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:10 | # May I suggest you read Rushton. Sheppard should have done the same. Why? Bret seems to be doing fine propagating similar ideas, using evidence (or lack thereof) at least as flimsy as Rushton’s. the impressive equipment of some blacks, I’m aware of no evidence for significant differences in erect penis size between whites and American negroes (or Africans, for that matter. but the existence or non-existence of “freakish” tribes in Africa is irrelevant to this discussion). See, e.g., here:
The “ethnographic” data Rushton cites consists of observations of a single “French Army surgeon” published in 1898. and the often higher sperm counts This is a new one for me. Where do you get this idea? In fact, according to data cited by Coon in Racial Adaptations, white men have larger testes than black men. (Conversely, black women have heavier ovaries than white women). 27
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:23 | # Rushton has withstood Gould. Who are you but a McCullough babe? What is your ethnic heritage? 28
Posted by Bret Ludwig on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 23:19 | # Partly from high school gym class, partly from talking to former"working girls” (I have found retired former high class CGs to be some of the most interesting and informative people in the world, and not just about sex matters) and partly from the photographic evidence (Mapplethorpe et al.). I question the above data, or at least, the quality of the statistical base, which may be highly selected. I also submit that a properly conducted study in, say, the Dominican Republic (Dominicans have a fair amount of distributed Negro blood, but more interestingly, the tribes from which those Negroes came may be a much more limited subset than of the American blacks) would likely yield astonishing results. My father was in the Dominican Republic in the 1970s to purchase the remaining stock of P-51 parts from their Air Force, and years later when the subject of Porfirio Rubirosa (a notorious “playboy”, in the pre-Hefner sense, who was killed in the late 1960s) came up my father commented that he was probably not unusual in the DR. Apparently in Paris restaurant the large pepper grinders are still referred to as “Rubirosas”! 29
Posted by name on Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:10 | # Rushton has withstood Gould And? Rushton is worth reading. He is not, however, infallible, and the Mongoloid<=>Caucasoid<=>Negroid rule should not be treated as an axiom. In particular, I believe Rushton exaggerates white-black differences in testosterone and penis size and ignores contradictory evidence (e.g., data on testes size mentioned above). My ancestry is colonial American (primarily English by way of New England), German, and Scandinavian. Bret, Anecdote is no substitute for scientific data. Partly from high school gym class As mentioned above, blacks may have an advantage in “flaccid length”. I believe evidence for this is also mentioned in Baker’s Race. The difference does not, apparently, translate into the erect state. 30
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:26 | # “I believe Rushton exaggerates white-black differences in testosterone and penis size” Yes, you said. By coincidence I was this evening reading Peter Frost’s blog. His post of 10th Feb titled Origins of black Africans is interesting, and contains the following:-
From memory, Rushton claims differentials in ST “favouring” blacks by 3% to 20% depending on age and body mass. Do you accept Rushton’s IQ findings, or is that all suspect too? 31
Posted by name on Fri, 15 Feb 2008 01:42 | # Do you accept Rushton’s IQ findings, or is that all suspect too? Racial differences in IQ are well-established and have been debated for the better part of a century. Likewise on the question of heritability of IQ. The contrast with alleged black-white differences in testosterone levels (much less penis size) could not be starker. Yet we have someone like Steve Sailer claiming to not yet be convinced any part of the black-white IQ gap is genetic while he freely promotes the idea that blacks have innately higher T levels, etc., where the evidence is much less strong. I don’t expect that blacks and whites have absolutely identical T levels. There is some evidence levels are higher in blacks. But the difference is usually much closer to 3% than 20%. Rushton’s 3% number comes from a large study on Army personnel. The 20% number comes from smaller studies on college students. I find it unlikely the latter samples are representative, considering, among other factors, that a much larger fraction of the blacks were likely only in college due to being recruited for athletics. How significant is a 3% difference? How large an effect on behavior is this difference supposed to produce? Does Rushton provide any evidence? Not that I recall. Is there any evidence the difference is genetic? None that I’ve seen. Does the difference hold up when other factors are controlled for? Not in this study:
Diet, physical activity, marriage, even things like whether a sports team you support wins or loses a game have been shown to affect circulating testosterone levels. Most factors like these are not controlled for in black-white comparisons. Another study:
At the very least, you must acknowledge the picture is not as clear as Rushton makes it out to be. I don’t dispute greater black criminality, etc. I do dispute that racial differences in circulating testosterone are the causal factor. 32
Posted by name on Sat, 16 Feb 2008 02:00 | # Salivary T levels markedly lower in African than “Western” males No significant difference in mean fundamental vocal frequencies of black and white men 33
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 16 Feb 2008 09:43 | # Since I’m not a queer living in a multicultural paradise, the “picture” is unlikely ever to be clear to me - except, of course, through the unimpeachable agency of science. But as with IQ and heritability, science can be impeached in the service of differing ends. In a few minutes I could pick half-a-dozen gaping holes in that “voice level” article, and you know it. You could do the same, if you wished to. It’s all very sad. One is forced to look at the arguments and at the agenda of the people who make them, and then at life itself, and draw what conclusions one can. Truth is a wreck, and it is so because bad faith invades so much of its pursuit. Anyhow, the conclusions I draw from life are that Bantu-origin males and females manifest a masculinity that can be alarmingly outside the European or East Asian norm. It is phenomenally unsubtle. Compared to the Han Chinese I know through my business life, talking to a West African man or woman for a few minutes can be like standing in front of the psychological equivalent of an electric grill. They don’t know it, of course. Assertiveness is blind. So I would probably conclude that you are wrong and selective with your evidence, and you are so for some covert but perfectly honourable, racially-protective purpose of your own. But then I would ponder why you attack Rienzi at every opportunity and with such venom? I would begin to wonder what’s going on. 34
Posted by name on Mon, 18 Feb 2008 05:34 | # In a few minutes I could pick half-a-dozen gaping holes in that “voice level” article, and you know it. Try it. I would probably conclude that you are wrong and selective with your evidence The evidence: Two papers from the early 1980s, by the same pair of researchers (using the same sample of blacks), claiming a lower F<sub>0</sub> in blacks than had been found by others in whites. A paper from the 1970s coauthored by one of the two researchers above makes a similar claim. From 1994 to 2000, three papers from three different sets of researchers directly comparing blacks and whites fail to detect a difference. See if you find anything else. Unlike Rushton, I don’t need to cherry-pick. The claim black men have (significantly) deeper voices than white men is implausible on its face to anyone with working ears. (Black speakers generally are, of course, easily distinguishable from whites speakers, due to vocal characteristics that have nothing to do with F<sub>0</sub>.) Some of Rushton’s evidence holds up. This piece does not. Anyhow, the conclusions I draw from life are that Bantu-origin males and females manifest a masculinity that can be alarmingly outside the European or East Asian norm. Undoubtedly there are black-white (and Asian-white) differences in personality. But I don’t believe “masculinity” is the best axis on which to describe these differences, or that black behavior can be explained by (innately) high T. I would ponder why you attack Rienzi at every opportunity and with such venom Autosomal SNP clustering studies suggest those Poles whose exit from your island you (rightly) celebrate are genetically much more similar to you than is someone like Rienzi. Rienzi is a genetically distinct minority member in my (historically NW European) country who has at times taken a hostile posture toward the majority (though this has become more subdued over the years). I have every right to respond with “venom”, though that’s not how I would describe most of my interactions with Rienzi. In general, I don’t feel the need to cheerlead. I’m not Fred Scrooby. If I take the time to respond, it’s usually because I have some point of disagreement or see a need for clarification. 35
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 18 Feb 2008 06:04 | #
In general, I don’t feel the need to be sullen and morose or to snap constantly like a nervous insecure dog. I’m not Northerner. 36
Posted by Prozium on Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:52 | #
We have been around this issue many times before. Racial attitudes have traditionally varied significantly across the West. The sort of racial consciousness that once existed in parts of the United States was the exception, not the rule. Even in Britain, the color line was inoperative in the 1940s. The fate of Emmett Till is an instructive comparison. The major reason that Europe fell so hard for anti-racism is because of its lack of experience with race consciousness. Inductivist has a new post up that shows a similar phenomenon at work within the United States. The negro is something of a novelty in the lily white states of the Pacific and Mountain West. Voting for Obama for them is like identifying with a “hip black friend.” They can believe all the nonsense about racial equality because they are so insulated from it. 37
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:40 | # They can believe all the nonsense about racial equality because they are so insulated from it. It doesn’t explain Illinois and Massachusetts. Mass is about 88% white and 8% black yet went for Clinton. Illinois is about 66% non-Hispanic white and 16% black but went heavily for Obama. The ethnicity of Democratic voters in the two states differ. Mass is Irish (23.5%), Italian (13.5%), French/French Canadian (or Franco-American) (12.9%), English (11.4%), German (5.9%). Illinois is German American (19.6%), African American (15.1%), Irish American (12.2%), Mexican American (9.2%), and Polish American (7.5%). In the exit poll for both states Catholics favoured Clinton. However, the non-Hispanic Catholic vote in Illinois less so because of the greater proportion of German Catholics. The Inductivist wrote: The General Social Survey asked respondents if they think about social and political issues as Americans or as members of an ethnic group. The obvious choice is blacks, right? Well yeah, there’s no news there. Listed below are the percent who answered ethnic group: 1. Blacks 43.5% Those states with big Northern European populations are less ethno-centric therefore liberal voters are more likely to choose Obama. Even Georgia showed this pattern with 40% of the white going to Obama. Georgia is 60% non-Hispanic white. White 18-29 in Georgia gave Obama 58% of their vote. 47% of White 30-44 voted Obama. Black 18-29 91% Obama, blacks 30-44 96% Obama. Massachusett Democrats are 85% white. 58% of their vote went to Clinton. Catholics are 39% of the Dem vote and 67% went to Clinton. Those Catholics are of course Irish (23.5%), Italian (13.5%), and French/French Canadian (or Franco-American) (12.9%) mostly. 38
Posted by Prozium on Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:52 | # I don’t see how you are using the Democratic primary as a proxy of racial attitudes. Clinton and Obama are a wash on affirmative action, civil rights, immigration, etc. The post by Inductivist that I was referring to broke down the United States on a regional basis and directly analyzed how “warm” whites were to negroes. 39
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:17 | # Northerner et al, It’s vain and stupid to deny the obvious. Presumably, you do it because you can’t abide the notion that your in-all-things-supreme Nordish (ridiculous little word - sounds like a salad vegetable) has less manhood between his legs than the slow-witted Bantu. Grow up, frankly ... at least enough to deal with the world as it is, and not to have to predicate arguments on foundations as thin as these little studies. That’s right, I’m being harsh on you. You see, the issue with you isn’t about your McCulloughism, which can be debated like any other idea. It’s about your character ... about the way you protect your darling delusions and, particularly, about how you behave towards other nationalists. That behaviour is offensive, and it reduces you from the knowledgeable and well-meaning man of the right that you should be to a petty tyro striding up and down the threads on the look-out for signs of Nordish backsliding and treachery. It’s a huge waste of talent, actually. The challenge that confronts you, Northerner, is to advocate an ethnically divisive ideology without a trace of the emotional divisiveness that you seem to love to create. If you could manage that, I would gladly give your McCulloughism a greater airing here, in the same way that I have given other minority opinions a run. My current assessment, however, is that you can’t. 40
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:56 | #
Exactly. Reading through Desmond’s statstics-rich comment, at every line I winced at the thought that readers might not be keeping in mind these are DEMOCRATIC primaries! For any non-Americans, Hillary and <strike>Obama</strike> Hussein are running solely in what are called Democratic primary elections to determine who will be the candidate of the Democratic Party. (It’s true that in some states voters who aren’t officially registered as Democrats or Republicans are allowed to vote in the respective primaries, so there is indeed some hanky-panky going on, as with one or two of McCain’s victories where it’s alleged Dem voters crossed over and voted in the Republican primary expressly to help the most left-wing GOPer to become the candidate, but by and large the outcomes for the Dem primaries will reflect Dem-Party mentality.) Citing these statistics as some sort of reflection of racial attitudes of various U.S. ethnic groups is flat-out 180-degrees wrong. Can you imagine the kind of, let’s say under-50-years-old, Euro individual a person has to be to still be an enthusiastic, primary-voting registered Democrat in a state like Georgia or South Carolina in this day and age, with all that’s going on? These individuals are, among Euros, the most way-out-there left-radical baying-at-the-moon lunatics, malcontents, 18-year-old clueless unwed moms raised with no dad in the home to explain race to them, and so on — hardly legitimate to cite as any reflection of racial attitudes of the group as a whole. The mere fact of voting in primaries by itself subtracts a whole category of Euro: during primary season many years ago — must’ve been during the Clinton years — I was watching a then-prominent Southern political analyst being interviewed on TV when the topic of “the Bubba vote” in the South came up, and the host put some complicated question as to how that vote would go in the primaries, and the Southerner replied laconically, with his Southern accent, “Bubba don’t vote in primaries,” which left the whiny Northern host no choice but drop that topic and switch to another subject. 41
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:57 | #
Is McCulloughism the word for it then? I’ve been calling it Desmondism, for lack of an official term (or so I thought). I didn’t know there was an official body of thought along those lines, having already an offical name. But yes, I for one would like to learn more about McCulloughism, whether from Northerner or anyone else. But Northerner has to stop sullenly snapping at people he doesn’t like. Here’s where I stand on this topic: I knew about “nordicism” — but I gather it’s not exactly the same as this other (what I call Desmondism)? Or is it? By “nordicism” I refer to the thing where it’s claimed Nordics (meaning Scands and peoples immediately adjacent, such as Latvians and Anglo-Saxons — correct me if I’m wrong) are who’ve made Europe great both the Græco-Roman Europe of Antiquity and Europe since, the Meds, Dinarics, Atlantoids (or whatever they’re called, have I got that right?), and to an extent the Alpines, not having contributed all that much. I don’t know what to make of that claim, never having looked into it. (What interests me is giving each Euro race a fighting chance to survive this largely Jewish-hatched-Jewish-pushed-and-imposed race-replacement crisis, coming out still in one piece at the other end and recognizable as what they were. I’m not that interested in looking into hierarchies of relative worth among the different Euro races. Although I agree that’s an interesting topic, for me it’s secondary.) I’m satisfied with Dienekes’ many demonstrations, in opposition to this Englishman, Kemp, that the Ancient Greeks were not Nordics (not Scands, in other words, or Finns, Anglo-Saxons, Latvians, and so on). But my unshakable sense is they also weren’t wholly modern Greeks, these seeming to have something more of the dagoe in them than those Greeks back then had. This business of the ancient Greeks having been close to the ancient Iranians and ancient Armenians sounds about right. So I disagree with the Nordicists on that, but I for one don’t get into the North-vs-South stuff too much. Where I do agree totally with the Desmondists and the Notherners, and for that matter the Flemings, the Padanians, the Ansonians, the Basques, the Bretons, the Bohemians, the Moravians, the Serbs, the Germans of each and every tribe (Swabians, Saxons, Thuringians, Alsatians, Pomeranians, what-have-you), the Lithuanians, the Poles, the Slovaks, the English, and all the rest is they have a sacred right to be themselves unmixed with other Euro tribes or races and to survive into the future in that condition. Right around here in the conversation, the low-IQ congenitally-mentally-retarded set among the Euros — a person like David B for example — generally pipes up with something like, “It’s been shown genetically that Euros, along with everyone else, are still evolving, so a race can’t stay what it was: it’s constantly changing, Euros of today aren’t genetically the same as Euros of antiquity or even Euros of the Middle Ages, and cannot remain the same genetically into the future: it’s an impossibility.” The answer to that, of course, is, “Fine. Let those forces work on each group to change that group as they must, so that each group becomes the future version of itself. But each has a right to expect to become only the future version of itself, not the future version of some other group. So stop forcing mixture on the groups.” As for Prozium’s view, nordicist in spirit, that “white” should be reserved for northern/northwestern Euros — so that Frenchmen, for example, aren’t “white” — I like that, even though according to it, I’m not white. I like it because I prefer the stricter racial definitions to the looser. Looser means extinction. Stricter means survival. I like racial survival. I dislike racial extinction. As for me personally? I fit theoretically into whatever group I fit theoretically into: that subject doesn’t concern me in the slightest. (For the record: as I see things, underneath the “American” ethnicity all white Americans have, my own underlying ethnic identity is German. That’s very definitely the Euro group I identify with — always has been, for myself and my siblings, simply because that was the predominant familial influence on us.) 42
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:30 | # For non-Americans, I should explain that “ethnic” Americans — Americans who aren’t Anglo-Saxon in origin, such as myself — don’t grow up thinking of themselves all the time as “of this or that ethnic origin.” They don’t particularly think about it, growing up. They grow up thinking of themselves as Americans and adopt the Anglo-Saxon cultural identity of the country’s pervasive “matrix identity,” and are totally comfortable doing so. There are exceptions: Jews retain a strong sense of being different, and some “ethnic” Euros also, if their families stress it, such as probably lots of Greeks for example, maybe lots of Italians, and some others. Ukes in Canada apparently are like that, from what I gather from many of Desmond’s postings. Armenians certainly do (I’ve known quite a few). As Desmond points out in his statistic-laden comment above, Germans don’t. But growing up in the U.S. everyone at least sort of knows his ethnic identity, and knows that it underlies “the fact of his being American” — knows it’s what his family originally was. That’s how they think of it in most cases. In my own case my sense of German identity, which I always had growing up but which was strictly secondary to being “American,” suddenly strengthened exceedingly around a couple of years ago upon learning “the other side” to the whole Nazi/World-War-II/Holocaust story. I suddenly learned that “other side” thanks to one web-site I attended for several months. It completely changed a huge portion of my views. 43
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:53 | # (I got IP-banned from that web-site, by the way, and they still refuse to let me back on, even just to read it without posting comments. Ironic for me, considering the influence that site had on me!) 44
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:22 | # There’s a little bit of discussion of the topic here, posted yesterday at Prozium’s. 45
Posted by n on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 02:26 | # GW, Stick to accountancy. Your pop-psychoanalytic skills are weak. If science established negroes all have 10 foot dicks, I would lose no sleep “abiding the notion”. As it stands, what evidence exists shows no appreciable difference between Northern Europeans and West Africans, and I don’t like watching people engage in sloppy thinking based on incorrect premises. (Incidentally, historical/anectdotal claims for great negro penis size tend to point at Nilotes—not Bantu—but modern scientific evidence on that score is nil, and one might bear in mind that Nilotic height has often been exaggerated.) I’ve previously mentioned the Kinsey data, which shows a tenth of an inch difference between black and white men in America. In PubMed, I locate two studies on Nigerians. The former (N=320) finds “average [hopefully flaccid] length of the penis (81.6 +/- 0.94 mm); circumference of the penis (88.3 +/- 0.02 mm)”. According to the latter (N=115), “mean [stretched] penile length was 13.37 cm with a median of 13 cm”. I apologize if these facts get in the way of your thought process while cowering before negroes. By the way, I am not a follower of “McCullough” [sic], and I do not use the word “Nordish” without quotation marks. 46
Posted by silver on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 02:30 | #
So is Fred Scrooby. The amount of time he wastes cheerleading and resorting to and inventing inflammatory epithets (“mystery meat”, “‘loids, ‘groids, ‘toids” etc) here could be spent doing much more useful work.
I don’t know who McCullough is but a certain Richard McCulloch has laid out his views at theracialcompact.com. You haven’t read it? Personally, I respect the man because he cuts to the chase and avoids much of the duplicity prevalent in racialism—eg, whining about Italians [Greeks, Mexicans, Blacks] not having assimilated and simultaneously wiping your brow phew, thanking God they haven’t.
Yet you took for yourself a nordic wife, as I understand it. Sure, you only stole a candy bar and didn’t loot the whole store. Still… Furthermore, you listed ethnicities, not races. Ethnicities are already quite mixed. You might have said you respect their sacred right to prevent further admixture. 47
Posted by n on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 02:34 | # re: an earlier thread of this discussion I have posted an excerpt on “Testosterone and Dominance in Men”, which offers a plausible non-Rushtonian explanation for elevated T levels in American black men (where they exist). 48
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 02:52 | #
I can’t take credit for inventing those. (I wish I could, though — they’re very funny!) 49
Posted by Kubilai on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 04:54 | # Cute. Northerner and his little echo, the self-hating “Serb”. Maybe Northerner overlooked this little tidbit from HIS link regarding the Kinsey data… You should consider this a tentative hypothesis rather than a Not exactly a “representative cohort”, if I must say so myself. Neither is the 300 Nigerian med student sample either. Sheesh. Let’s see, who shall we believe? Rushton and a plethora of sluts, prostitutes and skanks around the world who state black shlong is long or Northerner? 50
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 05:38 | #
Excuse me, I meant to put Ausonians, not “Ansonians.” 51
Posted by VLC on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:36 | #
52
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:49 | # The same patterned played out in Wisconsin amongst Democratic voters. The five largest ancestry groups in Wisconsin are: German (42.6%), Irish (10.9%), Polish (9.3%), Norwegian (8.5%), English (6.5%). The largest denominations are Roman Catholic, Missouri Synod, Wisconsin Synod and ELCA Lutherans. Wisconsin, with many cultural remnants of its heavy German settlement, is known as perhaps the most “German-American” state in the Union.
Liberal whites, with the exception of the over sixty crowd, went to Obama. White Catholics, in this case, went to Obama 50/49. Why the difference from New Jersey or Massachusetts? Once again depite the Irish Catholic and Polish presence, more Catholics are of German origin. Texas will be tight because there may not be enough Mexicans to balance the Northern European liberals movement to Obama. The largest reported ancestry groups in Texas include: Mexican (25.3%), German (10.9%), African American (10.5%), English (7.2%), and Scots-Irish (7.2%). Descendants from some of these ancestry groups is underreported. Pennsylvania will stay with Clinton. The five largest ancestry groups self-reported in Pennsylvania are: German (27.66%), Irish (17.66%), Italian (12.82%), English (8.89%) and Polish (7.23%). Roman Catholic: (53.43%) Ohio appears to be sticking to Clinton, despite the demographics, so it may be the state the destroys the hypothesis. 53
Posted by n on Fri, 22 Feb 2008 05:25 | # VLC, I have little interest in discussing this issue further, but for the record: (1) From what I recall, Kinsey’s fraud consists mainly of passing off results from samples overweighted with deviants and prisoners as typical. Even if the samples under discussion here are skewed in such a manner (and I don’t know that they are—I seem to recall the white sample is made up of college students), it should make little difference. Bigger issues are that the data are self-reported, and the black sample is relatively small. (2) When Rushton cites WHO condom standards in support of his theory, he is merely indirectly referencing the Kinsey data (plus a sample from Thailand, and one from Australia). WHO did no original research. Their sole “African” sample is the American black sample from Kinsey. 54
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:19 | # Further to my comment above where I said,
someone asked, “Won’t Negroes evolve into whites?” No, they’ll evolve into future Negroes. Negroes can become white-like but not white, as porpoises can become fish-like but not fish and bats bird-like but not birds. Evolution doesn’t work that way — doesn’t go sideways like that, only straight ahead (or straight backwards, what happens when you give women the vote). 55
Posted by Jennifer on Sat, 26 Mar 2011 14:05 | # Wow, I’m lmao of how intent you white men are about penis sizes lol. Since I’m a woman I can certainly speak from experience and not care what the “White American male survey” says lol. Many of my friends, my sister and I all married men from Guinea west Africa because of many things but mostly penis size! When my sister married one, the news hit us all White women like wildfire and we wanted to test drive that negro penis! Color did not matter, but the size of that monster penis did! Also it is easier for us to handle these men, they are very submissive to our needs and wants. I was nervous of having a baby by my husband at first but I thought about the next generation of White women in need of real pleasure! So I’m willing to make a lighter close to whiter baby with my African Mandingo in hopes my fellow White women wont have to suffer the boredom in the bed with our White males. Oh and for the record, we’ve all measured our stallions and Susan’s husband is the “King of penis” so far with 9 in and 6.5 girth! **eyes popping** and my lovely stallion is not doing bad at 8in and 5.5 girth! The average of our husbands is 8.5 and 5.5 girth! I’ve never seen a White man with anything close except in a porn video lol and look we all have it daily! So sorry White men, so sorry dad and most so sorry for mom! Post a comment:
Next entry: Delphi Primaries
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by formerly pf on Tue, 05 Feb 2008 23:48 | #
Hello Papa Guess,
Great article. Im pleased to see MR being mentioned on some other websites like American Renaissance and other places in the blogosphere. Networking, building connections, etc. The stuff they ran on American Renaissance probably gained you a few more readers, Im sure!
Anybody know the song “Hersham Boys”? Hersham boys, hersham boys, laced up boots and cordoroys, they call us the cockney cowboys!.
Now Im off to secretley read the articles you’ve wrote over the last few months, Guessifer! There might be an email sticking in your spam filter,one never knows, does one? lol.
regards
formerly pf