Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 31 Jul 2010 03:43 | #

Good article.  Gets down to the brass tacks, namely this isn’t all just “happening” but is being knowingly pushed, is being done to us by individuals with a very specific agenda, that of eliminating the white race through the strenuous encouragement of race-mixing, among other things.  It remains to find out exactly who the individuals are who are pushing this agenda.  They of course are keeping their role in it as private as they can, so we’re obliged to do a lot of surmising and educated guessing — a lot of dot-connecting, in other words.  That’s OK, I think we can dot-connect pretty accurately, at least as regards the broad outlines, in the sense that if we can’t always narrow it down to precise individuals we can to precise groups, I believe.  There are people who don’t like when others engage in dot-connecting.  I understand that.  And I’m certainly not going to refrain on that account.  Not in a billion years.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 31 Jul 2010 04:33 | #

Let’s give credit where credit is due. At least they gave the baby a fitting name: Picture of God.

Posted by ronery asian guy on Sat, 31 Jul 2010 05:32 | #

How can they be sure that the child wasn’t just an albino?

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:09 | #

Asian guy is smart. But, to depict God as an albino is just plain ornery.

Posted by JC on Sat, 31 Jul 2010 11:27 | #

“How can they be sure that the child wasn’t just an albino?” - ronery asian guy. To answer you’re question the baby had straight hair, a caucasoid trait. If it were a black albino it would of had kinky/curly hair. It’s an extreme rarity for this to occur.

Posted by Des Nilsen on Sat, 31 Jul 2010 11:59 | #

JC,
    Ronery Asian Guy is right.Nigerians have the highest rate of albinism in the world, but most native Nigerian albinos don’t survive very long due to the toll of the tropical sun on unmelaninated skin and the fact they are shunned.
  Check out the web for some pictures of fraky looking African albinos.
New-borns have very distinctive facial characteristics - foetal characteristics - that are meaningless as they disappear with growth very quickly.All negro new borns have what appears to be ‘straight’ hair, but really is just foetal hairLikewise all negroes are considerably lighter skinned when born than in later life.The combination of foetal characteristics and albinism has conned many of the gulible with shit like ‘ancient regressive characteristics atavising’ or even as the poster of this piece had suggested hybridism with a White - White genes are ALWAYS BUT ALWAYS ‘swamped’ (ie light hair NEVER expresses) with the f1 negro cross.
The parents from the photo are fully black Nigerian African.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:44 | #

That Prof Sykes is a real shithead. Typical white: very smart, accomplished, cordial, and cowardly about race to the point of mendacity. Please - there are many straightforward possibilities. Hospital baby-mixup? Or, as LaForce correctly surmises, white baby-daddy (which would be rather interesting, as usually those cases produce an Obama)?

However, it is certainly the case that sometimes there are whites who are ‘passing’, even if they don’t know it themselves. A great grandfather was a black rapist of a white female; the baby was kept in the white family, it grew up very light skinned, say, and then married a pure white, whose offspring also married a pure white ... and then out comes the black. Rare, but impossible?

This reminds me of another aspect of our plight which should be investigated, though it is truly sensitive: is there a modern need for Nurenberg style laws or at least requirements re who is really white? For the moment this still may not be too much of an issue in Europe, but it is a touchy one in the US. For example, I have a couple of adult, natural blonde cousins whose mother is a super-Old Stock American, descended from the Jamestown colony (I think; anyway, early 17th century Virginia). She has always claimed some Indian blood (in certain circles in America, starting in the early twentieth century, having a bit of ‘Injun’ began to be considered a source of pride: it meant you were Old Stock, or pioneer stock - usually to be contrasted with the hordes of European ‘newcomers’ flooding the country in the late 19th and early 20th centuries). Indeed, when I was a kid I used to make fun of the older, male cousin for having Chinese eyes. despite being the whitest-looking white guy, there really is something just slightly Asiatic about his eyes. The family stories probably have some truth to them.

So who is white? Where should we draw the line? I have a Greek (white supremacist) friend who looks extremely Asian, despite being able to trace his Greek ancestry on both sides going back centuries. I have an Old Stock Anglo-Saxon friend who looks decidedly mixed-race Asian (family has had a long presence in Hawaii, and they do have a tiny bit of Hawaiian blood; of course, they are as WASP-living people as you will ever encounter). I have half-Jewish/white friend who is a hard-core “white man”, as he likes to say, with the battle scars to prove it. I have several white supremacist full-Jewish friends. I have a militantly Zionist Jew friend whose daughter (of a pure Jewish mother) is much blonder than most white kids, especially these days.

What about famous people? Is Tom Hanks really white? I bet he has something else in him. Ditto for many others of suspicious looks, who are nevertheless classified ‘white’. What about pure Iberians? Is Penelope Cruz white? I’ve known several Latinos who are visually as white as she is. Even real Spaniards often have some Arab blood. Sicilians have a bit of African (remember Big Pussy on The Sopranos? Tell me that Italian actor didn’t have Negro in him).

At some indeterminate point we will have to deal with genetic ‘boundary’ issues, and move from genetic to cultural interests.

Posted by Gorboduc on Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:26 | #

It’s worth reading through the illiterate comments that appear at the foot of the original press article.

Can’t provide documentary proof for this one, as I’m not a subscriber to the Jewish Chronicle archive: but in about 1981 there was a sensation in Israel. Beautiful Jewish girl marries nice Jewish boy: result, one black baby.  Gnashing of teeth, rending of garments: husband and his family display every sort of aggrievement and really act quite pissed.
Weeping mother protests total fidelity and undergoes all sorts of ordeals which end in her tearful protestations being accepted: at last the dreadful truth comes out, which is, it was the mother’s mother who’d been inseminated by a black man, so the mother herself had black blood without its being particularly noticeable.
Despite wife’s faithfulness, husband still pissed: wife dragged before halachic court and through no fault of her own is declared non-jewish, her baby inhuman, pair cast out into Talmudic darkness, and probably ritually cursed as well.
Note that Jewishness is supposedly passed through mother, not father, so on the face of it mother is still kosher. LOL.

Posted by Notus Wind on Sat, 31 Jul 2010 20:35 | #

Unspoken message of the Sun’s article:  Race is mostly a social construct and to the extent that it exists it shouldn’t matter because Africans can give birth to White babies.

This is what propaganda for the proles looks like.

Posted by FB on Sun, 01 Aug 2010 05:59 | #

Since this kid has African DNA, he’ll have Negro offspring.

Posted by Mark_7784234 on Sun, 01 Aug 2010 15:55 | #

THE FRAUD OF JEWISH GENETICS MEDIA REPORTING.

This is a great article.  Though the Judaists try to downplay other races, they brag about their own.  Though they claim there are no genetic differences between races, they are now using a new scam—using questionable genetic research to try to set themselves apart. 

I will focus on this new scam they are running.

It is a common practice to announce research purporting to proving Jewish interrelatedness every so often.  It gets printed ad nauseum in the mass media.  The ulterior purpose appears to be for the Judaists (people who believe they are “Jews”) to deceive themselves and the public that the Jewish people are unique and different from the other, the goyim.  Few people in media understand genetics and even fewer understand statistics to realize that these studies are seriouly flawed and prove no such thing.

Using common sense and reading the Old Testament and Jewish history, this much is obvious:  The original Jews as described in the Old Testament were black, given the Egyptian and African nature of its places, people and myth.  The fair-skinned Ashkenazim must have converted to Judaism sometime later.  Due to Jewish tradition of intermarriage, the White Ashkenazi genes intermixed with their Middle-Eastern counterparts producing the modern mix.  Due to the fact that there are fair-skinned Ashkenazim and black skinned Ethiopian Jews and other groups in between, it is obvious that the modern Jewish people are not one people but disparate groups.

Therefore, no study can ever prove that all the Jews are genetically related to each other and distinct from all non-Jews.  All statements in the media to the contrary are sheer lies.

Unable to find a single gene unique to Jewish people and absent in others and having failed in proving much using Y-chromosome haplogroups, these newer studies use autosomes and convoluted mathematical models that lose their basis in reality.  At most, they have proven what common sense already tells us—that Judaism started in the Middle East, Whites (Ashkenazim) converted and endogamy is common.  They have told us no more.

Most of these hyped-up studies newer studies are seriously flawed and prove little, if any, of the tall claims made in the news.  First of all, they ignore the black Jews, the people who can most claim to be the real “Jews.”  That itself invalidates most studies.  Then they use other tactics.  For eg., one well-known study had a strong selection bias as it took Judaists whose all 4 grandparents were from the same community!  In the old days, people did not travel far, married locally and so people from the same were more likely be somewhat related already!  Another study ignored data that did not fit, claiming it was an “outlier.” Another study was reported in the media as showing a small “genetic distance” (an ill-defined concept) between different Jews compared to host populations, but on reading the data, there was no difference!

Use of chromosomes other than Y-chromosomes and maternal-DNA in population genetics is seriously flawed because autosomes have many mutations.  SNP-based PCA analysis for genetic studies is also seriously flawed.  Genes are literal data, not numerical data.  So each SNP is assigned a separate dimension.  Since there are tens of thousands of genes and even more SNP’s, this produces as many dimensions, which are then processed using Principal Component Analysis (PCA).  However, the eigenvector of the covariance matrix thus has tens of thousands of dimensions, each of which may capture just a few percent of the covariance.  The researchers then choose two (that barely capture a small percent of the covariance) that appears to best produce a picture that clusters the Ashkenazim from Whites,  and then falsely announce that they have “found” what their rich Jewish sponsors asked them to prove—that Judaists are related to each other and unrelated to non-Jews.

As stated on the site that follows, “the different methods of extracting out useful patterns give somewhat different results, and these results themselves are to a great extent human constructions which map only approximately onto the shape of reality.”

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/06/genetics-the-jews-its-still-complicated/

  As shown on the above site, a newer study in Nature, despite having used the same questionable techniques as above, could at most prove that the Ashkenzim have a wide genetic overlap with many Caucasoid groups, such as the Armenian and Georgian, the precise location of the Khazar kingdom!  This is obvious in the picture on that web page.

  Even if a study happens to prove that many Jews have a certain genetic pattern and other groups have other genetic patterns, so what?  The Arabs, the Basque, the Druids, the Kurds, etc. have their own genetic patterns due to intermarriage, so what is so unique about Jewish ones?  Nothing.  And neither does it prove that all “Jews” are “related” to each other only and unrelated to all others.

Also See:

“The Fallacy of Biological Judaism”, By Robert Pollack, on:

http://www.forward.com/articles/9406/

See the book:  The Myth of the Jewish Race, by Patai.

  I guess the ulterior motive of this research and especially the subsequent media hype might be to build up group solidarity and the myth of Israel and a “Jewish people”, reinforce the delusion of superiority and chosenness, foster nepotism and rationalize the talmudic exploitation and hatred of others who could then be looked down upon as genetically different.

Posted by Andrew Yeoman on Mon, 02 Aug 2010 00:08 | #

That story is incredulous.  I’d like to see a picture of the milkman.

Posted by Statistics on Mon, 02 Aug 2010 03:28 | #

With 6.5+ billion people on Earth and still counting, there are bound to be genetic freaks such as this every now and again out of sheer chance alone.

Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 02 Aug 2010 04:09 | #

A story cannot be incredulous. Perhaps you mean incredible.

Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:33 | #

Of course if the story is discredited later on, we’ll never hear about it.

100 years ago such claims would have assured this kid a carer with P. T. Barnum.

At any rate, that the story garnered attention in the first place and “baffled genetic experts” should be seen as a rather glaring testament to the fact that race is a genetic reality.

.
.
.
Now, if the black parents have a Chinese baby next, well….

Posted by Wolf on Tue, 03 Aug 2010 03:24 | #

English Woman Speaks Frankly About Difficulties of Having Mixed-Race Baby with Man from India

Lowri Turner

Daily Mail, UK, 13 July 2007

“She’s getting very dark, isn’t she?” This is what one of my friends recently said about my much adored - 12-week-old daughter.

She didn’t mean to be rude. But it was a comment that struck me with the force of a jab to the stomach.

Immediately, I was overwhelmed by a confusion of emotions. I felt protective, insulted, worried, ashamed, guilty, all at once. The reason? My lovely, wriggly, smiley baby is mixed race.

Now, I think of myself as pretty ‘right on’. My home is on the border of the London Republic of Hackney. I’ve been to the Notting Hill Carnival, even if I found the music a bit loud. Yet now I realise what a ‘white’ world I inhabit.

I am white and I have two sons from my first marriage who are both milky complexioned and golden haired. My twin sister, who I spend a lot of time with, has a Danish partner. As a consequence, she has two boys who are also pale skinned and flaxen haired.

Into this positively Scandinavian next generation, I have now injected a tiny, dark-skinned, dark-haired girl. To say she stands out is an understatement.

My colouring and that of my children has never really been an issue before. However, three years ago I met the man who became my second husband and who is the father of my daughter.

Although born in the UK, his parents came from India in the Sixties. This makes him British-Asian and our daughter mixed race.

There is another more PC term for the plump little bundle I strap to my front. She is ‘dual heritage’. It’s a bit trendy, but I quite like it. It implies a pride in coming from two cultures, rather than the less attractive connotations of ‘mixed race’.
The usual time something is labelled ‘mixed’ is when it’s a packet of nuts and they’ve bulked out the luxury cashews with cheaper peanuts. I’m not sure I want my daughter to be regarded as an adulterated version of some pure original. Still, it is the most accepted description.

The truth is, whatever the label, the fact there is a label proves that my daughter’s conflicting parentage matters.
At the more frothy end of the scale, mixed-race children are regarded as pretty dolls ? white kids with a nice tan.
When I was pregnant and people asked me about the child I was having, and I explained her father was Indian, they would often coo something along the lines of: “Ooh, she’s going to be beautiful!” as if I was discussing a new rose, made from an exotic cross-breeding programme.

On a less benevolent level, mixed-race children can receive a hostile welcome from both white and black communities. Being neither one thing nor another may get you on the cover of Vogue, but it isn’t an easy way to make friends.
But this is 2007, surely things are more enlightened than that? I hope so, but I fear not.

One reason for my fear is my own mixed reactions to my daughter. Don’t get me wrong, I love her. She is the child I didn’t think I’d have after my first marriage broke up. She is the only granddaughter in our family and we all dote on her.
But when I turn to the mirror in my bedroom to admire us together, I am shocked. She seems so alien. With her long, dark eyelashes and shiny, dark brown hair, she doesn’t look anything like me.

I know that concentrating on how my daughter looks is shallow. She is a person in her own right, not an accessory to me. But still, I can’t shake off the feeling of unease.

I didn’t realise how much her looking different would matter and, on a rational level, I know it shouldn’t. But it does.
Evolution demands that we have children to pass on our genes, hence the sense of pride and validation we get when we see our features reappearing in the next generation.

With my daughter, I don’t have that. Do black fathers who marry white women and then have paler-skinned children feel my sense of loss? Or maybe Chinese mothers or Middle-Eastern grandparents grieve when they see a child they know to be their own, but whose features don’t reflect that?

I worry that, as my daughter doesn’t look like me, people will assume she is adopted. After all, it’s all the rage in showbiz circles.

Madonna famously scooped up a black child when she wanted to be a mother again and Angelina Jolie appears to be assembling a ‘pick ‘n’ mix’ of kids from different countries. It’s all very United Colours of Benetton, isn’t it?
In the real world, I fear for my daughter’s sense of self. She has a tiny foot in two cultures. How will she negotiate a path between the two? I worry that my sons will feel less of a kinship with their sister because she is different, although there is no sign of that.

As for myself, there is an inescapable status issue to address. White women who have non-white children are stigmatised as ‘Tracy Towerblocks’ living on benefits, most of which they spend on lager and fags.

Even if I don’t fit this profile, my daughter’s difference definitely points out the fact that my children come from two different fathers.

If I wanted to pass us off as a nice, neat nuclear family, she would blow my cover at once.

But it is more than that. I am frightened, frightened of others’ reactions to her, as well as my own. I didn’t think of myself as racist and yet my daughter has shown me a side of myself about which I feel deeply uncomfortable.

Even admitting to having mixed feelings about her not being blonde and blue eyed, I feel disloyal and incredibly guilty.
I know the obvious comment is that I must have known how a child of our union would look when I married an Indian man, but it is a wise woman who thinks that far ahead when she falls in love.

I didn’t think about any of this before I got pregnant. I wanted to have a baby. Her colour and culture were immaterial then.

But self-flagellation is not useful. I have more pressing concerns. I am now the mother of a ‘black’ child, even if she is more the hue of weak tea than espresso.

This is a role for which I am utterly unprepared. Part of me thinks I should be playing sitar music to her in her cot, mastering pakoras and serving them dressed in a sari, but that would be fantastically fake coming from me.

When she was born, pale but with lots of dark hair, I asked the midwife if her eyes would stay blue. ‘Asian genes are very strong,’ she said in what I took to be an ominous tone.

No more Brady Bunch kids for me. The midwife has been proved right and every day my baby’s eyes get a little darker.
Even so, when she looks up at me as I feed her, my heart melts. My love may not be colour blind, but hers is, and that is truly humbling.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-467787/I-love-mixed-race-baby—does-feel-alien.html

Posted by Fr. John on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 14:56 | #

“But, to depict God as an albino is just plain ornery.”

Hardly. Because Christian and O.T. theology depict Adam as made ‘in the image and likeness of God’ then it behooves every European to understand that the Hebrew word, “Adam” means ‘Fair, rosy, ruddy, able to [visibly] blush.’ Check Strong’s Concordance of the KJV/AV to see I’m being serious.

Christ, ( as Adam’s son and heir) is also of that racial pigmentation, which means that “God” (either Christian, or Mosaic- but NOT talmudic!) is White. As the image, so the likeness.

http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/ur-of-the-anglos/

http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/cain’s-groaning-and-tears-–-a-symbol-for-lent/

http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/of-what-race-are-abraham’s-seed-gal-329/

There is no option on this one. Europe knew it for 1900 years. The Deicides and the Bolsheviks know it also. That is why they are at pains to obliterate it- both via immigration, noachide laws, as well as purging it from the collective consciousness….

But 700 have not bowed the knee to Baal. Those who are the ‘eretz B’nai B’rith’ - true Sons of the Covenant.