Bias!  Bigotry!  Racism!  Color Prejudice!

Posted by On Holliday on July 09, 2006, 05:30 AM | #

“The woman has NO identifiably African features at all.  I at first took her for an Italian, she is so light-skinned and European in features. “

The only picture at the link was the same as the one at the post.

Let’s see.  Brown skin, thick lips, a rounded, somewhat broad nose, almond eyes…no, nothing African there at all, is there?

Hey, maybe she’s an “Aryan?”

She in fact has no identifiable European features at all. 

What then to expect from a guy who believes that South Asians are merely dark whites, who thinks that Amerind-faced mestizos with light skin are “pink-skinned” whites, and who thinks that anyone with blue eyes is racially European.

I assume this post is in response to the blue-eyed Jews thread: when unable to defend an absurd thesis on one post, just go ahead and create an equally absurd new one.

It is no surprise that a person who has no interest in racial preservation also has no idea whatsoever about the genetic or phenotypic characteristics about the races in question.

Posted by john ray on July 09, 2006, 08:37 AM | #

I am sure I could keep the “blue eyes” thread going until the comments reach 100.  I have done so before.  But I am trying to make contributions to the blog of broader interest at the moment.  As usual, I am putting up most of the posts.  We wouldn’t want to bore readers, would we?

Posted by Guessedworker on July 09, 2006, 09:04 AM | #

Well, John, this manager of a “white site” doesn’t think black or half-black or any degree of black is beautiful.

Regarding JW’s point, do you acknowledge that a shared genetic interest (for example, in terms of maximisation of genetic spread, protection of genetic integrity, preservation and extention of living space) obtains among peoples who are sufficiently genetically similar?  Do you believe this young lady’s genetic interests are synonymous with those of any European people?

It is, I believe, a personal tragedy for those living among us who are neither one race nor another (and let’s be clear, not many are living in Africa - the issue is a European one).  But Brazilianisation is chiefly a living hell for Europeans.  If we wish to stay who we are, and not have ourselves substantially changed into something different which we did not elect to become, we must be counter the zeitgeist and re-state what once was known to and understood by all: black, in any degree, is by white lights never beautiful.

Posted by On Holliday on July 09, 2006, 09:57 AM | #

“As usual, I am putting up most of the posts.”

In what way is that consistent with your promise to GW to post less, and with greater discretion?

Oh wait, it IS consistent, because every single time you have promised something to GW - either in public or private - you’ve broken that promise within several days, haven’t you?

Tell us why you dislike, and have such profound disrespect for, GW that you cannot keep your word to the man for more than half a week.

Posted by On Holliday on July 09, 2006, 10:06 AM | #

“I am sure I could keep the “blue eyes” thread going until the comments reach 100.  I have done so before.”

Sure you can.  By making juvenile, moronic, semi-retarded comments that others have to answer.

Never by actually answering the refutations that other make, you mendacious turd.

The failure of “peace” can go in both directions.

Posted by Steve Edwards on July 09, 2006, 10:23 AM | #

On Holliday, the truth is this: unless GW starts acting like a man, there shall be no reason for anyone to treat him as one. I now hold GW in mild contempt - or perhaps “pity” is more accurate (of course, I have a rather volatile temper, so there are no guarantees on this one). But at least he knows where he stands with me.

John Ray demonstrably holds GW with total contempt - while pretending to be his friend and ally. This is called “duplicity”, or, less elegantly, “backstabbing”. John Ray is a dishonest two-faced knave, and GW is a witless dupe for allowing himself to be suckered into supporting a proven enemy. That’s the most generous interpretation.

The less generous interpretation is that GW actually endorses John Ray’s material, and is himself, like JR, an active disinfo agent and a bait-and-switch merchant, who has concealed his true intentions from day one.

Posted by Steve Edwards on July 09, 2006, 11:20 AM | #

Naturally, GW can interpret this this however he likes - I’m not throwing any concrete accusations in his direction (like I have, and will continue to do, vis-a-vis John Ray), but simply laying out the multiple potential explanations for some of the mystifying decisions that have been taken around here.

I really do hope that this is actually a genuine site, and not some conscious effort to “channel” concerned citizens towards dead-end establishment-friendly solutions. But given that John Ray has just been allowed to mount apologetics for the Islamisation of Britain (and I can’t believe he did that), I’m not so sure anymore.

So which is it, GW?

Posted by Guessedworker on July 09, 2006, 11:53 AM | #

Steven,

A little less youthful testosterone is in order, I think, and also some knowledge of your own sphere of action.  It would be a miscalculation on your part to suppose that the blog can be steered as you have, over the last few days, attempted to steer it.

John is a libertarian, which means he is a liberal.  If I understand that why can’t you, who calls himself a libertarian - but acts like a Stormfronter.

Learn to be patient and allow the wheel to turn.

Posted by Steve Edwards on July 09, 2006, 12:08 PM | #

“If I understand that why can’t you, who calls himself a libertarian - but acts like a Stormfronter.”

Oh, sure, GW, ‘cos I’m just the preeminent racialist on the blogosphere. Unlike John “negroes are trouble and Jews are politically pernicious” Ray.

As both I, and my confederates, have made abundantly clear, this internecine conflict is only tangentially related to ideology (if at all). I’d rather hang out with an honest Marxist (as, in fact, in real life, I do several) than a dishonest “conservative” (or whatever it is JJR is pushing).

And the fact is, JJR is guilty of flagrant duplicity. His word ain’t worth a penny, GW, and he thinks you’re a joke. He treats you like utter dirt, and I’m only one of many who has noticed as much. Why do you allow him to get away with it?

Posted by Daedalus on July 09, 2006, 12:30 PM | #

At first, I thought Steve was going a bit over the top with his criticism of JJR, but it is now clearly apparent from his latest series of posts that he trying to be intentionally provocative. JJR yearns to be the center of attention and seems to be positively enjoying thumbing his fellow bloggers in the eye and throwing torches at commentators. He knows very well that his trolling is causing problems for the blog, but doesn’t seem to care.

Posted by Steve Edwards on July 09, 2006, 12:39 PM | #

“A little less youthful testosterone is in order, I think, and also some knowledge of your own sphere of action.”

I will tell you what my sphere of action has been, and is going to be, and it is two-fold. One, an honest interlocuter who will state upfront his motivations at all times. Two, a shameless agitator who will continue to unleash hell until, and not a moment before, JJR discontinues his crimes (which are well documented) against Majority Rights.

My motivations are nothing if not crystal clear and I am prepared to deploy as much scandalous abuse as is necessary in order to carry out my personal vendetta.

Posted by Guessedworker on July 09, 2006, 12:57 PM | #

Daedalus,

John admits he has a teasing compulsion.  He is apt to treat his inter-actions here as a game, and doesn’t seem to realise that for many they are a genuine act of aggression and disrespect.

It is true that I have asked him to post to MR less frequently and with more serious content.  You may form a view from the evidence todate that this request is not being met, and you may be right.

However, to the chagrin of some and at a cost to my own reputation, I will extend him more time to struggle with his teasing demon.

But ... it is becoming ever clearer that the debating gain which arises from John’s contrarianism (and there is one - I never intended MR to be a WN echo chamber) comes at the price of repeated public difficulties, and these are not indefinitely sustainable.

Steve,

I guess I am not as bright as I think I am, and not as dumb as you think I am.

Posted by EC on July 09, 2006, 01:09 PM | #

GW, I can confidently state that most, if not all, frequenters of this site have the utmost respect for you.  Including Steve Edwards.  Without rehashing the same old, same old and pushing the “comments over 100”, you know what the issues are.  As I stated on the Pollyanna post…

I proffer someone like a Mark Richardson or Martin Hutchinson to be our guides towards a more “moderate” view and to prevent us from going off the cliff of extreme rightism/racialism.  Those two are intelligent and argue in good faith

Posted by Daedalus on July 09, 2006, 01:28 PM | #

GW,

JJR is rather mild compared to some of the people I put up with on my free speech forum. I enjoy the back and forth myself that comes with ideological diversity, as a good site needs to be both entertaining and informative to draw an audience, but it seems many of your best contributors are not as thick skinned as I am.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on July 09, 2006, 02:10 PM | #

Ray, if you’re going for the senility defense this was a wonderful way to make it:

The woman has NO identifiably African features at all.  I at first took her for an Italian, she is so light-skinned and European in features.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 09, 2006, 03:22 PM | #

The rights of the majority involve far more than the race-replacement issue and John is with us on virtually all the others. 

Furthermore, immigration or no immigration, race-replacement can only gain a toe-hold if there’s a whole slew of oppressive, outrageous, intolerable governmental laws, directives, rules, and regulations that guarantee its gaining a toe-hold instead of withering on the vine as it would do naturally as a result of the natural relative advantages, disadvantages, unconstrained legitimate prejudices, etc., which govern outcomes when one race finds itself in the midst of another having different abilities and so on. 

As On Holliday pointed out in another thread, race-replacement can’t occur in the absence of excessive incompatible immigration no matter what the indigenous birth rate is.  But it also can’t occur—hasn’t a prayer of going to completion but instead will reverse itself naturally once begun and dwindle to nothing all on its own—in the absence of an entire program of laws, directives, and so on designed to guarantee its success—designed to force it on people. 

These strange races aren’t just being brought in then left to fend entirely for themselves in the hope they will swamp and race-replace our people.  They are being brought here simultaneously with a whole host of programs, laws, propaganda, and so on, designed to guarantee they can’t fail to do the job they were brought here for—to race-replace us. 

That whole host of programs, laws, propaganda, and so on, John opposes and if he had his way they’d be rescinded and canceled, making it impossible for race-replacement to go to completion. 

If you inject a germ into a person’s bloodstream he can fight it off and not necessarily succumb, but he’ll be guaranteed to succumb if you inject at the same time a substance that will incapacitate his immune system.  John Ray is not against the injection of the germ, that’s right—but he IS against the injection of the substance that renders the victim unable to fight off that germ:  the laws, programs, directives, rules and regulations, propaganda, school brainwashing from the tenderest age, and so forth — which comes to the same thing because if there’s not all that, there’ll be no race-replacement, as those brought here will gradually fade away, wither, diminsh, melt, go back where they came from, spread the word back home that it’s not good for them here, and so on.  The demographic trends would gradually begin to tilt in whites’ favor as they’ve been tilting in non-whites’ favor the past fifty years.. 

If what John advocates were realized there’d be no race-replacement crisis right now because simply bringing strange races here, even in large volumes, isn’t enough to get us race-replaced—we also must be kept from fighting them off, kept from living our lives as we’ve always done instead of forced to sacrifice ourselves and our most cherished interests in order to show the stranger folk brought in to replace us a warm welcome. 

In that sense John is fundamentally on our side:  if we get what we want race-replacement can’t take place, and if he gets what he wants it can’t take place either.  Not that he would mind if it did—but who cares?  He wants things that are fundamentally incompatible with its succeeding.

Off that particular subject: 

The founder of Wikipedia is starting a political web site.  He says blogs and wikis are going to influence politics more and more. 

He’s right.

Posted by Steve Edwards on July 09, 2006, 03:57 PM | #

That’s a rather untimely comment from Fred, given JJR’s latest post is an apologetic for the Islamification of Britain.

Posted by Billy Joe Daniels on July 09, 2006, 04:11 PM | #

Whenever I’ve seen a post by Fred Scrooby, it seems to me reasoned and helpful. However, above he seems to be telling us what JJR really thinks, and it seems to me to be problematic for two reasons. Here is what I am writing about:

“John Ray is not against the injection of the germ, that’s right—but he IS against the injection of the substance that renders the victim unable to fight off that germ:  the laws, programs, directives, rules and regulations, propaganda, school brainwashing from the tenderest age, and so forth — which comes to the same thing because if there’s not all that, there’ll be no race-replacement, as those brought here will gradually fade away…”

First of all, I’ve never read JJR to advocate “against the injection of the substance that renders the victim unable to fight off that germ:  the laws, programs, directives, rules and regulations, propaganda, school brainwashing from the tenderest age…” I’m not sure where Fred Scrooby is getting that interpretation, and I think it is JJR’s job to explain if this is his position.

Second of all, this is reminiscent of an all-too-familiar narrative line in the USA immigration debate, a kind of neo-connish explanation that they are in favor of the unlimited movement of labor just as they are in favor of the free movement of capital across national frontiers. The only thing wrong, they argue, is that we must reduce those aspects of the welfare state that attract some of the freely moving laborers to our country, and especially serve to retain those who become unemployed.

Well, okay, but when do the neo-connish start to outline ways & means for accomplishing this second leg of the argument? The answer is never, rendering the entire line of argument null and void. No one in the USA who is pressing for unlimited movement of peoples, nations, and tribes across frontiers is also pressing in a serious way for reduction in other benefits that are powerful in retaining migrants who may have come for a job, but are not leaving once they lose the job.

It is a fraudulent argument. I’m not arguing that Fred Scrooby is advocating a fraudulent argument, he’s only restating what his perception of JJR’s argument is, but clearly if he has stated JJR’s argument correctly, he has exposed JJR as a fraud because the “reduce non-employment benefits” argument is not honest or sincere, and there is no agency with a constituency even as large as the majority rights movement that demands the repeal of “the substance that renders the victim unable to fight off that germ:  the laws, programs, directives, rules and regulations, propaganda, school brainwashing from the tenderest age…”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 09, 2006, 04:52 PM | #

It’s also possible John Ray doesn’t see racial features very well.  I too (see Svigor’s comment above my last one) was surprised at John’s comment that he couldn’t see any African features in the face in the photo and he took the woman for an Italian at first glance.  Most people would identify this woman at first glance as a (light-skinned) Negro and whoever wouldn’t say light-skinned Negro would say something like one of the Southeast Asian races or conceivably one of the South American Indian races—which most of those would amend on a moment’s further examination to light-skinned Negro.  If there’s a category of people who don’t see racial features very well and if John is one, that might explain part of his unconcern in regard to excessive incompatible immigration.

Posted by On Holliday on July 09, 2006, 05:22 PM | #

Fred, to be honest, I really don’t get your “John Ray is one of us” argument.  I seem to disagree with the fellow on most topics, especially the most important ones, and I don’t see him as falling within the subset of compatible political philsophies any more than does our current “President.”

You wrote:
“It’s also possible John Ray doesn’t see racial features very well.”

This is a very important point.  A person who exhibits complete ignorance on a subject forfeits the right to participate in politically-relevant decisions on the subject; in this case, race.

What’s next?  John telling us that Oprah Winfrey shows no sign of African features? Halle Berry?  Jesse Jackson?  Mike Tyson? 

Perhaps it is not John’s fault; possibly his amygdala has been damaged by chronic exposure to South Asian phenotypes.  Who knows?

But, just as one would not permit a blind man be an airline pilot or surgeon, we cannot let the “racially blind” contribute to decision-making processes concerning race.  The risk is too great that they will sacrifice precious genetic treasure simply because they cannot realize what is happening, that anything is being lost.

Posted by Guessedworker on July 09, 2006, 07:34 PM | #

EC, thanks for the vote of confidence.

Posted by JB on July 09, 2006, 10:52 PM | #

GW:

It is true that I have asked him to post to MR less frequently and with more serious content.  You may form a view from the evidence todate that this request is not being met, and you may be right.

However, to the chagrin of some and at a cost to my own reputation, I will extend him more time to struggle with his teasing demon.

can’t you just approve his entries before they get posted ? it must be technically possible.

How many other pointless and annoying JJR entries do you want ? He’s polluting this blog and he’s acting like a schoolboy.

Posted by Al Ross on July 09, 2006, 11:00 PM | #

As long as JJR remains a sufferer of Richard Cranium Syndrome, the blog’s embuggeration factor will continue to be unacceptably high.

Posted by Guessedworker on July 10, 2006, 02:46 AM | #

JB,

No, JB.  The blog has to operate editorially on a basis of trust.  But at the same time, obviously, that trust demands certain standards of the writers.

You should know that I receive mail supportive of John - or, to be precise, supportive of the debating opportunities he provides.  I quite expect John himself receives mail from further left supportive of all his tail-twisting, too.  But, clearly, we are at the stage when that latter has to stop.

Political breadth is very much to be prized.  But it calls upon the contrarian to exercise considerable self-discipline, and to always hold his readers in respect.  If they conclude - as, probably, most here have - that they are held, in fact, in contempt then it is the contrarian who must quite the field.

I am hoping John will adjust.  But we need now to see evidence of that in the form of constructive postings.

Posted by Alex Zeka on July 10, 2006, 06:20 AM | #

I’ve objection to the introduction of different viewpoints to this blog: indeed, I’d imagine that no two bloggers here agree on everything. However, JJR is simply spamming. Just look at some of his log entries: bull terriers, his hair, a comparison of himself to JC, a black woman identical to an Italian. This is just garbage.

I am not a Race Nationalist. I am a Conservative with classical liberal leanings. JJR, however, is a nonsense-monger.

Posted by Alex Zeka on July 10, 2006, 06:22 AM | #

I’veno objection, that should read.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on July 10, 2006, 11:07 PM | #

Too all; I’m just a guest on this blog,but it seems to me the invective against Dr.Ray has gone a little overboard.I have never seen him idividually attack anyone,as has been done to him,by several posters[and in very crude,personal terms].Is this a clash of intellects,academics,or egos ?

Posted by Al Ross on July 10, 2006, 11:34 PM | #

Nick,  JJR may be the world’s greatest anti-Leftist, but failure to address the mountain of evidence on the JQ leaves him in the same position as the world’s tallest midget.

Posted by Padanese on July 11, 2006, 06:39 AM | #

Italian what?

That lips and nose are too much even for the more arab looking sicilian or sardinian!

Also, please leave alone from your dreams about italians the Northern ones, who are overwhelmingly of gallic, dinaric or german appearance.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 11, 2006, 08:46 AM | #

To Padanese:

- Long live Free Padania!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 11, 2006, 08:08 PM | #

At least somewhat relevant to this thread is an interesting log entry over at iSteve.com, in which some aspects of a few of Steve Sailer’s and John Hawks’ ideas on inbreeding/outbreeding of ethnoracial groupings are briefly discussed.