Majorityrights News > Category: Race realism

LONDON (AP): Liam Neeson says he’s ashamed to admit he had violent thoughts about killing a black person after learning that someone close to him had been raped.

Neeson says that after being told the attacker was black, he “went up and down areas with a cosh [stick or truncheon]” hoping a black person “would come out of a pub and have a go at me about something, you know? So that I could kill him.”

THE GAME IS OVER. THE PATRIOTS LOST: Though I cannot recommend Matt Parrott for his foolish and unwarranted misdirection away from and against the platform here, he is clever enough to turn a good phrase, as in this article, where the issue isn’t too deep for him. However, for one thing, he needs to understand that the Christards are playing a suckers game in line with propositional nationalism, and being beaten badly for it as well.

Since the time in the late 80’s when I prioritized racial interests over the entertainment of sports and music, when I do observe race mixed sporting events or statistics, I root for the individual performance of White players and against individual black players.

Over at Amren, Paul Kersey entitles an article, “Root for the Patriots in the Superbowl”

Although there is something to be said for the Patriots success while using White players in positions usually associated with black skills, as rather an expression of White selection and identity, betraying negrophila some along with its taken for granteds, the teams are still mercenary, not particularly representing a place or race. Thus, I can’t agree with his conclusion that Whites should feel ok about rooting for mixed race teams as it perpetuates the idiot cuckoldry of White fandom and support of the race mixing agenda through one of its most seductive means - visually exciting sports, adulation of athletic skills beyond merit, way beyond real world value and just reward, while ensconced in the deceptive, soothing pretext of passive objectivity.

Kersey writes:

The white quarterback, Tom Brady, along with white wide receivers Julian Edelman and Chris Hogan, white tight end Rob Gronkowski, and white running backs Rex Burkhead and James Develin, are an anomaly in the “vibrant” NFL. They have a vast overrepresentation of skilled white players who not only excel, but dominate.

[...]

With all this whooping about diversity, an anomaly does not go unremarked: the whiteness of the New England Patriots during their historic run under Tom Brady. For this year’s Super Bowl in Atlanta, all eyes are on Mr. Brady, the 41-year-old quarterback, who will be playing in his unprecedented ninth championship game in 18 seasons (this will be his third consecutive shot at the Lombardi Trophy, and Mr. Brady holds a 5-3 record in the Super Bowl).

With that, he suggests:

Root for the Patriots in the Superbowl

It’s OK to be white.

On Sunday, more than 110 million Americans will huddle around their television sets and watch the 53rd Super Bowl, a matchup between the Los Angeles Rams and New England Patriots.

After two seasons marred by black NFL players taking a Colin Kaepernick-style knee or raising a ‘Black Power’ fist during the National Anthem, television ratings slightly improved during the 2018 season.

[...]

So even if you are not a fan of the NFL, or don’t like the antics of black players who knelt during the National Anthem, there’s nothing wrong with rooting for the New England Patriots and Tom Brady to win Super Bowl 53. In a league where 72.6 percent of the players are POC, there’s nothing wrong with cheering for a team that looks a little more like you.

It’s the white thing to do.

He supplies one good reason NOT to root for the Patriots or any NFL team, here:

Ibid. That year, largely because of pressure from the owners of NFL’s 32 franchises, the league saw only a handful of black athletes—who account for 69.7 percent of the players—take a knee during the anthem. A recent poll of NFL fans shows only 24 percent of white fans strongly support the anthem protests, while 59 percent of blacks do (47 percent of white fans and 7 percent of black fans strongly oppose them). Though the kneeling stopped, the owners did create an $89 million fund for the players to hand out to “improve social justice and racial equality in our country.

Related at Majorityrights:

Seduction of NFL Films, Appeal of L.A. Rams 60’s, 70’s, dodging legacy of sports-fan cuckoldry

Our football coaches weren’t Marxists imposing black integration

UK: More than Half under 18s in Jail Nonwhite, Quarter are Muslim

New Observer, 29 Jan 2019:

A photograph taken inside the prison at HMP Feltham “Young Offenders Institute,” during an abortive attempt to teach the inmates “entrepeneurship” skills.

More than half of all the under 18s currently in jail in Britain are nonwhite, and a quarter are Muslim, despite nonwhites allegedly only making up 13 percent of the population, new official figures from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons has revealed.

According to the report titled “Children in Custody 2017–18 An analysis of 12–18-year-olds’ perceptions of their experiences in secure training centres and young offender institutions,” more than half the under-18s held in young offender institutions in 2017–18 were from a “black or minority ethnic background” (BME).

This figure is a three percent increase on the previous year, when it stood at 48 percent. The figure has been growing steadily ever since the HM Inspectorate of Prisons began carrying out the analysis in 2001—a figure which is perfectly explicable by the growth in the nonwhite population.

6.5164_HMIP_Children-in-Custody-2017-18_A4_v3

The report’s key findings include:

In relation to [secure training centers] STCs, our survey findings during 2017–18 show that:

– 42% of all children in STCs identified as being from a black or other minority ethnic background;

– 8% of children identified as female;

– one in eight (13%) children identified as Muslim;

– the proportion who said they were from a Gypsy, Romany or Traveller background was 11%, which compares with estimates of 0.01% in the population as a whole;

In relation to [young offender institutions] YOIs, our survey findings during 2017–18 show that:

– over half (51%) of boys identified as being from a black or minority ethnic background, the highest rate recorded through our surveys in the secure estate;

– the proportion of boys who had experienced local authority care was 39%;

– nearly a quarter (23%) of boys identified as Muslim;

– almost one-fifth (19%) of boys reported having a disability;

– fewer than one boy in 10 (6%) identified themselves as being from a Gypsy, Romany or Traveller background.

In addition, half of the “children” (50%) “reported that they had been physically restrained in their establishment”—in other words, were so violent that they could not be left unshackled.

It took no time at all for whites to be blamed—as usual—for the nonwhite crime statistics. A report in the Daily Mail quoted black Member of Parliament David Lammy as saying that “We are not only failing to make progress to address these racial inequalities; things are getting significantly worse. From childhood right through to courts and adult prisons, our justice system entrenches and exacerbates the divides in our society.”

In other words, it is not the nonwhites’ fault that they commit more crime, but rather it is the “fault” of white society in general. This is the standard excuse use whenever statistics show that nonwhites commit more crime than whites: it is never their fault that they get arrested more, it is always “racist police,”; and it is never their fault that they get sent to prison in larger numbers, it is always the “racist judicial system.”

This is the same sort of logic that claims that nonwhites do poorly academically because of “racist teachers”—and similar excuses heard ad infinitum all over Europe, America, and Australia.

This endless “blame whitey” is, of course, founded on the essential problem of race-denial by the liberal establishment. Until that issue is resolved, and race is acknowledged as a biological reality and is taken into account in the structuring of states, the current situation will continue.

United States Border Patrol at Algodones Sand Dunes, California, USA. The fence on the US-Mexican border is a special construction of narrow, 15 feet tall elements, that are movable vertically. This way they can be lifted on top of the ever shifting sand dunes (image Public Domain, Wikipedia).

Lest there be any misunderstanding, the position here is that the matter of a United States Southern border wall, fence, whatever, as any requirement of border control, is very important.

Border control there is particularly illustrative of a central matter, which is that border control is crucial to the management of populations in human and pervasive ecology; issues which include territorial carrying capacity - hence, at this border, the particular demographic is a secondary matter; salient there is the matter of Mexico’s massive population - Mexico City being among the most overpopulated cities in the world.

Nevertheless, the demographic and rule structure of The United States is already on a disastrous trajectory for Whites, will remain so, even with a wall on the south border.

While border control is essential at any rate, the worst case scenario of its instantiation would be that it will be used to lull complacency of propositional conservatism - “we Americans all being in the same relatively taken-care-of boat” - and further close us in and galvanize us into mulattoization; furthering the trajectory of those who left us susceptible for the Cartesian rule structure of the constitution and to the Jewry which weaponized it against our necessary discrimination both at the border and within the borders.

...galvanizing us with the demographic upshot of this manipulation unfortunately against a population that does have some warrant as native American behind them and which, for their nature, is highly ethnocentric. It is a demographic thus, which has been effective against integration with blacks, against integration with Whites, indifferent to Jewish violin playing; as such, in the most optimistic scenario, could be allied with other Asians and Whites against black power, Jewish supremacism and Islamic imposition over human ecological coordination (agreed, getting Mestizos to cooperate in ecological management is no small trick; perhaps Asians proper could help reason, coordinate and enforce such management).

Failing that is a default “alliance” by contrast in sudden, “conservative” implementation against Meztiso populations that looks suspiciously in line with Jewish interests against an Asian, Mestizo, White alliance as it would resist continued instigation of the Mulattoization of the broad mass of American Whites, while allying Jewry with increasingly rare White sell-out elites; whose precarious situation would be more and more prone to interbreeding with Jewry or the Mulatto mass.

James Watson won the Nobel Prize in 1962 along with Francis Crick for discovering the double helix structure of DNA.

New York Times, 1 Jan 2019:

      “James Watson Won’t Stop Talking About Race”

The Nobel-winning biologist has drawn global criticism with unfounded pronouncements on genetics, race and intelligence. He still thinks he’s right, a new documentary finds.

“Decoding Watson,” a new film about Dr. James D. Watson explores the gulf between his scientific brilliance and his views on race.

It has been more than a decade since James D. Watson, a founder of modern genetics, landed in a kind of professional exile by suggesting that black people are intrinsically less intelligent than whites.

In 2007, Dr. Watson, who shared a 1962 Nobel Prize for describing the double-helix structure of DNA, told a British journalist that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says, not really.”

Moreover, he added, although he wished everyone were equal, “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.” Dr. Watson’s comments reverberated around the world, and he was forced to retire from his job as chancellor of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, although he retains an office there.

He apologized publicly and “unreservedly,’’ and in later interviews he sometimes suggested that he had been playing the provocateur — his trademark role — or had not understood that his comments would be made public.

Ever since, Dr. Watson, 90, has been largely absent from the public eye. His speaking invitations evaporated. In 2014, he became the first living Nobelist to sell his medal, citing a depleted income from having been designated a “nonperson.’’

But his remarks have lingered. They have been invoked to support white supremacist views, and scientists routinely excoriate Dr. Watson when his name surfaces on social media.

Eric Lander, the director of the Broad Institute of M.I.T. and Harvard, elicited an outcry last spring with a toast he made to Dr. Watson’s involvement in the early days of the Human Genome Project. Dr. Lander quickly apologized.

“I reject his views as despicable,” Dr. Lander wrote to Broad scientists. “They have no place in science, which must welcome everyone. I was wrong to toast, and I’m sorry.’’

And yet, offered the chance recently to recast a tarnished legacy, Dr. Watson has chosen to reaffirm it, this time on camera. In a new documentary, “American Masters: Decoding Watson,’’ to be broadcast on P.B.S. on Wednesday night, he is asked whether his views about the relationship between race and intelligence have changed.

“No,’’ Dr. Watson said. “Not at all. I would like for them to have changed, that there be new knowledge that says that your nurture is much more important than nature. But I haven’t seen any knowledge. And there’s a difference on the average between blacks and whites on I.Q. tests. I would say the difference is, it’s genetic.’’

Dr. Watson adds that he takes no pleasure in “the difference between blacks and whites’’ and wishes it didn’t exist. “It’s awful, just like it’s awful for schizophrenics,’’ he says. (His son Rufus was diagnosed in his teens with schizophrenia.) Dr. Watson continues: “If the difference exists, we have to ask ourselves, how can we try and make it better?”

[...]

“There are powerful methods for studying the genetic and environmental origins of individual differences, but not for studying the causes of average differences between groups,” Dr. Plomin he writes in an afterword to be published this spring in the paperback edition of his book, “Blueprint: How DNA Makes Us Who We Are.”

Whether Dr. Watson was aware of any of this science is unclear. In the film, he appears to have grown increasingly isolated. He mentions missing Francis Crick, his collaborator in the race to decipher the structure of DNA.

“We liked each other,’’ Dr. Watson says of Dr. Crick. “I couldn’t get enough of him.’’

As history now knows, the duo was able to solve the puzzle in 1953, with their hallmark models of cardboard and metal only with the help of another scientist, Rosalind Franklin, whose X-ray photograph of the DNA molecule was shown to Dr. Watson without her permission.

The tools of molecular biology unlocked by their discovery have since been used to trace humanity’s prehistory, devise lifesaving therapies, and develop Crispr, a gene-editing technology that was used recently, and unethically, to alter the DNA of twin human embryos.

And Dr. Watson became perhaps the most influential biologist of the second half of the 20th century. His textbook, “Molecular Biology of the Gene,’’ helped define the new field. First in a laboratory at Harvard and then at Cold Spring Harbor, he trained a new generation of molecular biologists and used his star power to champion such projects as the first sequencing of the human genome.

“You knew when you heard him that you were at the start of a revolution in understanding,’’ Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studied with Dr. Watson in the 1960s, says in “Decoding Watson.’’

“You felt as if you were part of this tiny group of people who had seen the light.’’

Complete story at New York Times

Related at Majorityrights: James Watson Doesn’t Exist.

Nordic episode: penchant to confront Augustinian, natural challenges, exposes naive susceptibility to invasive, viz. Manichean species?

An illustrative episode in which:

A Nordic woman expresses her nature to confront the Augustinian (Augustinian devils = natural devils, e.g., the cold), and anthropomorphized as such, indicates her natural inclination’s potential naivete and susceptibility to invasive, human species, particularly those of a more Manichean, trickster nature (Manichean = human, trickster devils, that can change the rules).

Augustinianism would be an evolutionary adaptation by those people confronted primarily with natural challenges (such as in the cold north), while Manicheanism would be an increased evolutionary adaptation by those confronted primarily by inter-tribal challenges (as in the Middle East)

- Observation by DanielS

READ MORE...

Civil War in American Judaism /

Synagogue Massacre Aftermath

Ending Birth-Right Citizenship is inherently important, but at this point, is it a sedative injection for America’s already baked-in Mulatto supremacist trajectory?

Is it just tossing a bone to right wing sell outs - a bone picked clean of loyal White interests? - for the Zionist quid pro quo?

Wall Street Journal, 30 Oct 2018:

“Trump Wants to Curb Birthright Citizenship, Escalating Immigration Debate”

Legal scholars dismiss the idea, saying a president lacks standing to do it on his own

WASHINGTON—President Trump said he wants to sign an executive order that ends the automatic right to citizenship for anyone born in the U.S., ratcheting up his election-season remarks on immigration with a proposal many legal scholars said is unconstitutional.

In an interview published Tuesday morning, just ahead of next week’s midterms, Mr. Trump said he planned an executive order to end what is known as birthright citizenship, bypassing Congress and waving off the belief of many legal scholars that such a move would require a change to the Constitution.

“It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t,” he told Axios. “It’s in the process. It’ll happen, with an executive order.”

Born in the U.S.Since 2007, the number of births to unauthorized immigrants has declined. Source: Pew Research Center

Constitutional scholars dismissed the idea, saying a president has no legal standing to end birthright citizenship with an executive order. “It’s basically saying the president is above the Constitution,” said Laura K. Donohue, a senior scholar at the Georgetown Center for the Constitution.

The White House didn’t further explain Mr. Trump’s assertion that he alone could make the move, and it didn’t provide further details about the scope of the proposed executive order or the timing.

“We will let you know when we have an announcement,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said.

Birthright citizenship is a pillar of U.S. immigration law and is protected by the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which, among other goals, was designed to grant full citizenship to former slaves. But some conservatives who favor more restrictive immigration laws have opposed the policy, saying it improperly rewards the children of people in the country who lack proper documentation.

Mr. Trump’s proposal is the latest in a string of pronouncements as he seeks to invigorate GOP voters ahead of the midterms. He recently suggested a middle-income tax cut that appeared to surprise both his staff and lawmakers. Last week, he said he would seek to cut prices that Medicare pays for some prescription drugs, but that wouldn’t go into effect until late 2019 or 2020.

READ MORE...