Blondes still rule in “Hispanic” Chile

Posted by J Richards on January 16, 2006, 12:00 AM | #

Whoops, Johnny boy!

She is a fake blonde; her hair was brown before it started turning grey; darker than what you see below:

And, here are some words of wisdom from JW Holliday to haunt you again: a number of studies show that the seemingly-white upper class in Chile easily has upwards of 20% non-white ancestry; see here and here.

Now, for some real blondes:

Nobody should kid themselves that looks such as in the two women above can be retained if genes from non-whites start creeping into whites.

Posted by Kubilai on January 16, 2006, 12:30 AM | #

Do we really need to go through this again?  Does it really only take a bottle of “Nice n Easy” for JJR to claim success in this immigration and miscegenation fiasco?  This is ludicrous.

BTW JR, is JW still blogging or on sabbatical?  I have noticed he has been absent for quite a while now.

Posted by John J Ray on January 16, 2006, 04:19 AM | #

My point was of course that she looks thoroughy European and from the fair skin N. European.

“Chile easily has upwards of 20% non-white ancestry”

That is an average.  Many Chileans have wholly non-European ancestry.  But you know where they are on the socioeconomic ladder.

Posted by Guessedworker on January 16, 2006, 05:14 AM | #

Kub,

JW is fully committed in more sensible if prosaic matters than blogging, but remains in touch.  Indeed, just yesterday he contacted me with an extremely interesting idea for us to consider.  More on that later, perhaps.

Posted by Simon on January 16, 2006, 06:49 AM | #

Interesting that you would compare a 54 year old female politician to a couple of 20 year old models and claim that white is prettier.
Here are a few examples of white female politicians of the same vintage.
Bronwyn Bishop
Amanda Vanstone
Joan Kirner
Camilla Parker Bowles
Carmen Lawrence
I’d post their pics here, but really don’t know how to, so you’ll just have to do a google image search.

Posted by Guessedworker on January 16, 2006, 07:24 AM | #

Are you going to be a good boy, Simon?  If you start spamming you will be banned again.

Bronwyn Bishop is a fake or occasional blond.

Likewise, Amanda Vanstone, Joan Kirner, and Carmen Lawrence.  Camilla, always a blond, is not a politician.

Posted by JW Holliday on January 16, 2006, 07:43 AM | #

John,

You need to read a bit more carefully, my friend.  JR did not say that Chile was 20% non-white - why don’t you actually copy and paste what is there rather than inventing your own straw man to knock down?

The point IS that the upper class “white” elite of Chile may be up to 20% non-white, not that the entire population is 20% ... the percentage for the entire population is undeniably higher.  In addition, while it is true that this 20% is not evenly distributed and that some (likely a decided minority) upper-class Chilean “whites” are indeed of more or less unmixed European ancestry, the upper-class as a whole is substantially mongrelized.  One cannot tell from John’s quick inspection of dyed hair and fair skin whether or not a person or population is of European extraction or is mestizo.  Only genetic analysis can confirm.

I have to say as well, while it is true I have other things to attend to other than blogging, one major reason for my non-participation is John Ray’s unethical and time-wasting method of “argumentation” (sic). 

For example, this Chilean issue has come up time and time again.  It was made abundantly clear that the issue was of the upper-classes, as JR clearly stated here.  It was made abundantly clear as well that single phenotypic markers do not represent race.  John, in a very mendacious fashion, twisted our words to say that “white nationalists scorn fair skin” - while what we actually say is that fair skin, in and of itself, is not a definitive sign of European ancestry.

One can find “fair-skinned” mestizos throughout Latin America, and, mulattoes as well.  As an anecdote, I remember seeing one school-age child - very fair skin, very blue eyes, very blonde hair (and a 5 year old is not coloring the hair I am sure ) - with unmistakably Negroid facial features.  I couldn’t figure out what was going on, until I found out the child’s surname was clearly Hispanic, and that the locality in which I saw the child had a large Puerto Rican population.  Once the population is highly admixed, there can be a discordance not only between aspects of phenotype and ancestry, but between different aspects of phenotype themselves.  As well, one can find “fair-skinned” and ruddy Koreans; I do not consider them to be European.  On the other hand, many Europeans - including some NW Europeans as well - are not fair-skinned.

The point being, endlessly repeated, is that we are concerned with actual ancestry and actual race and genetic preservation, and, as JR makes clear, overall phenotypic preservation.  We are not interested in the fact that certain individualized phenotypic traits such as “fair skin” or any other traits exist in solution in a highly admixed population. 

How’s that “white elite” doing in Bolivia by the way?

Posted by af on January 16, 2006, 08:16 AM | #

That is an average.  Many Chileans have wholly non-European ancestry.  But you know where they are on the socioeconomic ladder.

Posted by John J Ray on Monday, January 16, 2006 at 08:19 AM

Ahh… I thought Hispanic underachievement has cultural causes! After all, aren’t Hispanics “basically Asians racially”?!

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on January 16, 2006, 09:49 AM | #

Hispanic underachievement in Chile, which we are going to see a lot of in the next 5 years, has primarily political causes. Ms Bachelet, blonde or not, is an evil leftist who will undo the last of the achievements of the great and much maligned Agosto Pinochet, while at the same time putting Pinochet on trial that is even more unjustified than Nick Griffin’s and far more serious.  Latin America is a cesspit of ineptitude, corruption and mendicancy, that stays that way because of the likes of Ms. Bachelet.

Posted by JW Holliday on January 16, 2006, 10:07 AM | #

This, actually, is classic John Ray.  First, the initial post completely disregards all of the extensive debate on this subject which took place on this blog months ago, including the material that JR linked to.  Who cares about blog continuity, right?

Then, in response to JR, John Ray alters JR’s quote from:-

“... a number of studies show that the seemingly-white upper class in Chile easily has upwards of 20% non-white ancestry ...”

to

“Chile easily has upwards of 20% non-white ancestry”

... which is completely different and an outright distortion.

John then states that his point was that the woman “looks European” to him, as if he doesn’t know that the entire point of much of the previous debate is that we are interested in what people actually are, rather than what John thinks they look like.

His post disregards ethnic genetic interests, which are optimized by a nation full of unmixed co-ethnics - not a racial caste system in which a small upper class lords it over an underclass, with the underclass genes percolating upwards.  The post disregards the profound socio-political differences between the western nations of the Northern hemisphere and Latin America, as if a Latin American situation were possible in the USA where even a white majority sees its interests ignored in favor of those of minority groups.

And how is the authoritarian Latin American caste system compatible with “libertarian” beliefs?  Never mind that Sailer has stated that this caste system is beginning to fall apart, as is shown in Bolivia, but of course some people “cherry-pick” from Sailer’s Latin American comments whatever they want to make their “case.”

Posted by friedrich braun on January 16, 2006, 10:55 AM | #

I have to say as well, while it is true I have other things to attend to other than blogging, one major reason for my non-participation is John Ray’s unethical and time-wasting method of “argumentation” (sic).

Frankly, if the choice comes between the lying and anti-White JR and the great JW Halliday…the decision is pretty obvious… that is if this site is still for the racial preservation of Europeans. JR’s dull, dishonest, and irrelevant contributions are a drag on this blog…Additionally, the man already has a dozen blogs of his own…why he still feels the need to spam MR with his stupid non sequiturs is a puzzle…and an even greater puzzle is why GW lets him get away with it.

Posted by Ethnocentrist on January 16, 2006, 12:22 PM | #

I have to say as well, while it is true I have other things to attend to other than blogging, one major reason for my non-participation is John Ray’s unethical and time-wasting method of “argumentation” (sic). 

I second that.

Posted by Voice on January 16, 2006, 12:47 PM | #

Amen Friedrich,

I agree completely.

Why is JJR allowed to spam this site?  We still have enough differing viewpoints to maintain a healthy debate.  His intellectual dishonesty, as proven here, makes one wonder that he is a few different moderate anti-PC types posting under the same name!

Just my 2 cents

Posted by Guessedworker on January 16, 2006, 01:18 PM | #

Not a few of the MR contributors and commenters have fallen foul of the eponymous webmaster whose notions of free speech don’t run much further than his own.  We, of all people, should understand the value of intellectual pluralism, for it underpins our own right to speak ... and that in an age when much normal, healthy political opinion is scarcely legal in many parts of the West.

Pluralism has other benefits.  It allows ideas to be tested.  It is, in a Dawkinsian sense, a healthy environment for the development and transmission of good ideas.  There are times, also, when it enables light to shine in to a room which, otherwise, might be shut up in darkness for too long.  Pluralism also defies labelling from without.  For a blog like this it attracts the widest possible variety of reader, many of whom would never come into contact with the likes of Friedrich otherwise!

Whether every diverse opinion expressed here is good and true is, in a sense, secondary.  We all do our (variable) best as political commentators.  Where we err, obviously we should be prepared to do our best as honest men to acknowledge and correct that.  But in the end I judge my friends here politically, not as moral exemplars.  I ask that they make us think, not that they inspire us to be less frail human beings.

They accomplish that task with some style, as indeed does our quite unique commentariat.

Posted by Voice on January 16, 2006, 06:05 PM | #

Guessedworker,

I still think JJR should be relegated to the forums in the future.  Why would Majority Rights give him a premier position of actually controlling debate on a blog for Majority Rights?

He has every right to soft peddle race replacement in the comments section or in the forums, but he has no right, IMO, to do this as a featured writer on Majority Rights.

He still has Free Speech but doesn’t get center stage.  We will have to agree to disagree.

Posted by Calvin on January 16, 2006, 06:41 PM | #

This sounds like the stirrings of a coup to me. John Ray is quite tolerant of the more extreme posters here. We need to calm down before we alienate the slightly more indoctrinated. John Jay Ray was making his academic work available on the web years ago, long before most of us “woke up”. Everyone was gleeful about the Sacrannie?Shirtlifter fallout. Lefty vistors will react with equal glee if a schism emerges on this site. JJR comes across as a cantankerous old bastard. I for one wouldn’t like him any other way.

Posted by JW Holliday on January 16, 2006, 07:36 PM | #

Calvin,

I speak only for myself here - my problem with our esteemed colleague John Ray is not, and has never been, because I disagree with his opinions.  It has been with his method of “argumentation”.  I have mentioned some things already.  How about the “argument” that Hispanic illegal immigration is good because some mestizo cooked JJR a tasty breakfast?  Things like that open the blog to ridicule.  The endless repetition of already-refuted arguments wastes our time and resources.

But I say there should be no “coup” here.  GW has made it clear that he values John Ray’s contributions, and it is his blog, and I respect that.  However, when posts are made that are so obviously wrong, illogical and silly they demand to be answered.

By the way, the hegemony of “white” elites in Latin America was established at a time of worldwide white dominance and colonialism, which has ended relatively recently.  I for one doubt that this hegemony will survive the global decline in white influence and the coming minority status of whites in the USA and western Europe.  In places with a large and highly distinct non-white population (eg, Bolivia and Brazil) the natives are already getting restless.  Some Latin American nations may see the “white” hegemony last a bit longer since the elites are able to exploit certain national myths to keep the darker elements in place (eg, all Costa Ricans are white; all Mexicans are evenly mixed “cosmic race” mestizos; as well, Mexico as a safety valve of immigration to the USA).  In the long run though, I see no reason the darker elements will continue to accept “white” dominance when they see what will happen in the USA.

And that’s the point.  In the USA, you have large, highly distinct and antagonistic racial groups, the non-whites of which are clamoring for more political power based on their growing numbers.  That American coloreds will accept a white hegemonic minority is highly unlikely.  Given that whites are already discriminated against as a majority, I doubt that a white minority will be in any positive position whatsoever.

And, why the experiment?  Whatever you think of Chile’s “elite”, there is no reason for white Americans to wish to emulate them, and accept minority status.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on January 16, 2006, 07:40 PM | #

She is a fake blonde; her hair was brown before it started turning grey; darker than what you see below

That much is obvious from the shade of her eyebrows in the pic on the front page.

Posted by Calvin on January 16, 2006, 08:04 PM | #

JW, I think that John Jay is wrong about some things too. I’m just taking into consideration that John Jay was contributing to the “cause” long before most of us. I don’t mean to denigrate your objections. I 100% agree with you that the rise of latin America’s non-Europeans has been inspired by the White stand down in the Anglosphere. If the non-Europeans feel confident enough to challenge us in countries where they are minorities, a cold wind is blowing for Whites in nations where they are the minorities. For latin American Whites it’s going to be Zimbabwe here we come. I can see beyond our problems. In the future there will be Anschluss, the global reunification of our race.

Posted by sfsgfg on January 16, 2006, 08:53 PM | #

How about the “argument” that Hispanic illegal immigration is good because some mestizo cooked JJR a tasty breakfast?

ROTF

Posted by Steve Edwards on January 17, 2006, 03:29 AM | #

Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador… it’s only getting started. Perhaps John Ray’s “cognitive elitism” will win the day sometime after every last European farm and business has been expropriated by the respective governments.

Posted by Simon on January 17, 2006, 06:29 AM | #

Bronwyn Bishop is a fake or occasional blond.

Likewise, Amanda Vanstone, Joan Kirner, and Carmen Lawrence.  Camilla, always a blond, is not a politician.

And all top sorts too. NOT!!!
Lets also throw in those other ugly white slags Maggie Thatcher, Madeline Albright, Angela Merkel & Queen Lizzie.

Michelle Bachelet looks a hell of a lot better than all of them.
In fact I reckon she looks better than the two heroin addicted call girls adorning this page, despite the 30 odd year age difference.
I just wonder if you’d be saying these things about her if she was a right wing christian instead of an atheist socialist.

Posted by Guessedworker on January 17, 2006, 06:58 AM | #

Erm ... we aren’t right-wing Christians.

Posted by JW Holliday on January 17, 2006, 07:01 AM | #

Calvin,

The problem is that John’s ‘cause’ is not my ‘cause’.  This is the problem I have with simplistic political labels like “rightist” and “leftist” which completely ignore issues related to ultimate (genetic) interests.  We’ll need a methodology for distinguishing these ‘causes’ from each other.

Posted by Steve Edwards on January 17, 2006, 07:33 AM | #

Indeed, as the latest survey of MR bloggers showed, there are actually very few “right wingers” around here, and perhaps half or less of the bloggers/commentators here are Christians. Simon is welcome to persist in his strawman-building, but he’ll be none the wiser for it.

Posted by friedrich braun on January 17, 2006, 08:16 AM | #

Amen Friedrich,

I agree completely.

Just so that there will be no misunderstandings: I don’t object to him posting on MR in the comments section…I deplore him being a featured writer and thereby monopolizing the discussion and giving MR a certain direction that runs counter to what most contributors want.  Additionally, if JR’s spamming of MR is behind JW Halliday’s semi-retirement from MR…then it seems to me that JR should be relegated to a less central position.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on January 17, 2006, 02:55 PM | #

Well, I tried.  I looked high and low for a pic of a sub-Saharan African with a blonde weave but to no avail.  I was going to post it with a blurb about how blondes rule Africa too.  Ah well, it seems no one has an interest in showing what I see every time I go to McDonald’s…

Posted by Calvin on January 17, 2006, 03:15 PM | #

I’m just thinking that it might be a good idea to get the wagon rolling before we argue about our ultimate destinaton, but being quite new here I really shouldn’t be shoving my oar in, so point taken.

Posted by Voice on January 17, 2006, 05:25 PM | #

Friedrich,

For the record, I stated the same position later in the thread as your reply.

He shouldn’t be center stage but on the forums.  It is distraction to the overall aims of the board,IMO, rather that a free speech issue

Posted by J Richards on January 17, 2006, 08:50 PM | #

Michelle Bachelet better looking than the blonde beauties that I have shown?  Simon, are you insane?

Posted by Whoha on February 04, 2006, 04:25 AM | #

She was actually born with blonde hair.

Posted by Nano on February 04, 2006, 04:33 AM | #

http://images.google.cl/imgres?imgurl=http://www.lasegunda.com/ediciononline/especiales/temaviernes/album/bach2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.lasegunda.com/ediciononline/especiales/temaviernes/index.asp&h=247&w=330&sz=41&tbnid=DknNIMks7brk_M:&tbnh=85&tbnw=114&hl=es&start=43&prev=/images?q=Michelle%2BBachelet&start=40&svnum=10&hl=es&lr=&sa=N