July 26, 2010

"Jim Webb, the GOP, and The Sammy Sosa Solution"

An excerpt from my new VDARE.com column on "Jim Webb, the GOP, and The Sammy Sosa Solution:"
These rather striking photos of retired baseball slugger Sammy Sosa Before and After! he began using one of those lotions so popular in the Third World for bleaching skin got me to thinking (as usual) about the future of American politics

What's particularly ironic about these amusing Sosa pictures is this: I have been involved in dozens of discussions where some naive newcomer has asked, reasonably enough, "On what grounds do Hispanics get racial preferences? Are they a race?" Then, somebody familiar with the federal categories of legally protected groups will explain that, officially, Hispanics can be any race, such as, say, black. And the most frequently cited example of a black Hispanic has been, in my experience ... Sammy Sosa.

Yet, nobody asked Sammy if he wanted to be the face of black Hispanicity. Apparently, the Dominican ballplayer wasn't too happy about it. (Hey, powerful chemicals worked for Sammy before in challenging Mark McGwire for the home run record. So why not try some new ones?)

Weird and painful as it looks, this kind of thing happens all the time all over the world, although it’s usually women expensively bleaching their skin.

Watching foreign TV commercials can be eye opening. In India, leading cosmetic products have names like Fair and Lovely (you definitely must watch this one minute Indian TV commercial) and Fair and Handsome. In Thailand, Vaseline Healthy White Body is popular. ...

Why this near universal prejudice in favor of fairness among non-Europeans?

Fairer people tend to be of higher social rank in India, Mexico, the Philippines, the Middle East, and so forth. ...

Some of it has to do with indoor jobs typically being of higher prestige. And of course there are deeper roots, such as the prestige associated with whites in Latin America and India by their conquests. It’s not just the British influence on India. The Indian caste system, with its color prejudices, reflects, in part, the prehistoric conquest of South Asia by northerners. In general, over the course of human history, northerners have conquered southerners more often than vice-versa.

Yet why is fairness associated with higher social class even in never-colonized countries such as Japan? As anthropologist Peter Frost has documented, the "fair sex" actually is about ten percent fairer on average than their own brothers. Thus, lighter skin registers subconsciously as a slightly feminine trait. (That’s why Sluggin’ Sammy looks so creepy above. It's the increased contrast between cheeks and lips.)

Sexual selection then comes into play. Men of higher class are more able to choose wives they view as attractive. And thus the children of higher-class men and fairer women tend to be lighter-skinned than average. ...

There are of course endless individual exceptions to this pattern. But this general tendency appears to be part of the deep structure of human nature.

Let’s keep that in mind as we review the American conventional wisdom about the future of politics:

Unless the Republican Party leadership becomes even more obsessive than it already is about promoting amnesty and racial preferences, the GOP is doomed by immigration-driven diversity! (In fact, the GOP is probably doomed anyway no matter how many Bushes and McCains it runs for President, unless it purges, or at least silences, all its voters who don’t agree with its elites.)

After all, the GOP is the Party of White People. And, as countless American TV commercials inform us, what could be more shameful than being white? Voting is aspirational, and who would ever aspire to associate themselves with anybody as uncool as white people? Surely, nobody in Latin America, Asia, or Africa would ever aspire to be considered whiter! It’s a tribute to the nobility of spirit of immigrants that they deign to immigrate to a country built by whites at all!


However, when seen from a global perspective, this assumption that the Republican Party is doomed because immigrants view it as The White Party in an increasingly nonwhite America seems … parochial.

The real question in American politics might turn out to be: Can the Democrats of the Post-Obama Era thrive as The Black Party in an increasingly non-black America?

Of course, that real question won’t be asked much as long as the government continues to offer immigrants and their descendants money and prizes for identifying as non-white.

Amazingly, this policy was to a significant extent invented by appeasement-minded Republicans (see below).  In effect, Republicans have been practicing a long-term strategy that is the opposite of Divide and Conquer—namely, Unify and Surrender.

As a result, the immigrant ethnicities reason that, "Sure, everybody know it better to be light-skinned. But in this crazy country, my friend, the government pay you to tell them you aren't white!"

And, under the current system, the primary job of Hispanic and Asian leaders has become to defend and extend their groups' racial/ethnic privileges (including immigration policies that de facto favors them).

Not surprisingly, these leaders overwhelmingly identify with the Democrats, who are always going to be more enthusiastic than the Republicans about defending and extending affirmative action, disparate impact law and swamping the historic American nation with non-traditional immigrants

Case in point: while the percentage of Latinos who vote Democratic fluctuates over time, politically ambitious Latinos (with the exception of Cubans) are almost unanimously Democratic. A National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials study found that 91 percent of Latino officeholders who had been elected in partisan races were Democrats.

Read the whole thing to find out what we can do about it (along with your weekly allotment of Bush-bashing).
  

75 comments:

kudzu bob said...

Why not simply cut the Gordian Knot and give every minority in America a lifetime supply of Sammy's skin whitening cream? It'll be like "The Turner Diaries" crossed with "Extreme Makeover."

Anonymous said...

It won't happen Steve.
The combined mass of non-whites realize that the present set-up (ie the Republicans are the party of big business - and as some deluded fools think 'white people', and the Democrats are basically a rag-bag of anti-white male special interest groups - a rainbow coalition defined only by their desire to shake down white men*, suits them right down to the ground.In fact they couldn't think of a better system if they tried.
This political model gives them all they want (not just the enshrined *feudal* priveleges), but more importantly a mechanism for importing as many of their kinfolk as possible to the USA, thus boltering their ethnic genetic interest.
The key to this leveraged success is that whitey (soon less than 50% - a clear sign of the outstanding success of the strategy)is hopelessly and irredemiably divided - due to the dire awfullness of the two politicla choices foist on him.
From the ethnic genetic interest party of the Democrats, to the dumb big business brown-nosing chumps of the Republicans (who have presided over the pauperization of the white middle class through low wages mass immigration ad globalization whilst Republican benificaries, the top 1% ,got all the loot), whitey is stuffed.
Personally I blame Kennedy.

Benito Juarez said...

Today it's no longer about redressing historical injustices real, imagined or exaggerated. In the last 20yrs it's become all about "diversity".

For example, Hispanics and woman would fall off the radar in many elite positions without affirmative action. How small would the percentage of female hard scientists, professors and corporate executives shrink? How much smaller would the proportion of Hispanic doctors, lawyers and Ivy League graduates be?

A simple hybrid society of white male meritocracy and black AA seems grossly non-diverse in an America where both groups are a shrinking percentage. Hispanics are the fastest growing demographic. Women make up half the population, although far less than half of the hard charging, career-obsessed, take no prisoner types required of most elite positions.

Elbrac said...

I laughed and laughed and laughed reading this. Great work.

Anonymous said...

Sammy looks a little like Egypt's president-for-life Hosni Mubarak.

Anonymous said...

Democrats are definitely cozier with big business, champ. Check your political contribution numbers.

agnostic said...

Fair-skinned domination of the top of post-hunter-gatherer societies is probably due to lighter skin being associated with higher IQ and a more domesticated personality (being more introverted than a roaming h-g or pastoralist, for instance).

It's intelligence and a certain personality type that's being selected for among agricultural and capitalist elites, and the lighter skin is merely our version of floppy ears, curly tails, and piebald colorings.

The associations between skin color and IQ and personality aren't the most well documented facts out there, but there are data showing that. So we don't need to invoke sexual selection in this case, I don't think.

Anonymous said...

Steve, I read the long article. You make strong points, then you make a plea to kill favoritism for Hispanics and Asians, while keeping them for blacks and Indians. Won't happen, would be politically foolish, and isn't as fair as killing all govt racism. (It might even be more unfair than the current system.) Why such a good column with such a bad conclusion??

Anonymous said...

Surely lighter skin by itself can't be preferred among Africans and people of African descent? African features and White skin looks dreadful - like whitened Sammy - whereas the reverse looks good. Mixed-race actresses like Halle Berry and Thandie Newton, whose skin-color is more "Black" than their features, look great. A woman with African features and light skin obviously isn't going to become a famous actress, but Carla Bruni (recently promoted from Maitresse en Titre to Consort of President Sarkozy) was photographed with the wives of Francophone African heads of state last week. One was a very tall light-skinned woman with hair dyed bright red. Quite frightening. Sure the pres of wherever married her, but surely not for her looks.

Average Joe said...

Actually we should eliminate all racial preferences period. The reality is that blacks have benefited by getting out of that disease-ridden, violence-prone hellhole known as Africa. If you look at the statistics you will see that blacks in the United States outlive blacks in Africa. Therefore the biggest beneficiaries of slavery have been blacks themselves. Regarding the American Indians, the reason why whites were able to take the continent away from them was because the American Indians were too busy slaughtering each other to unite against the white man. White rule has resulted in the creation of law enforcement bodies that have stopped American Indians from killing each other. If whites were to leave tomorrow, the most likely result is that you would see a massive increase in violence amongst American Indians.

Immigrant Group Quintilingual said...

Apparently, proofreading is beneath a Real-American:

Sure everybody know it better to be light-skinned. But in this crazy country, my friend, the government pay you to tell them you aren't white!

Satire is best left to the real writers.

Yet why is fairness associated with higher social class even in countries never-colonized countries such as Japan?

Here’s what I think the GOP needs to do to as soon as it gets back into power save economic liberty (and itself)


Understandably, your standards for vdare are even lower.

I’ll go further and say we should probably keep legal privileges for American Indians, as the former owners of the land.

Unfortunately, your ecological fallacies are too numerous to enumerate.

Shawn said...

As usual your stuff is always interesting. My only complaint is that your article starts off going one way then seemingly switches to a different subject area, and then it happens again. I would have difficulty filling a column myself.

Shawn said...

I would be interested in hearing your take on the supposed tide of color which 'will' invade America in the 21st century & how this will pose a conflict with baby boomers.

Of interest:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cs_20100724_3946.php

Fred said...

"Democrats are definitely cozier with big business, champ. Check your political contribution numbers."

Political contribution numbers vary with which party is ascendant. If the GOP does well in November, expect their contributions from big business to rise again.

"Won't happen, would be politically foolish, and isn't as fair as killing all govt racism."

Steve's being pragmatic. His point is that it's more likely to ban non-black and non-Indian preferences because those aren't based on any legitimate grievances. That said, affirmative action may be unpopular enough that it can be opposed across the board by the GOP.

Also, sympathy for Indians doesn't seem to be too high these days either. Witness the unsympathetic reaction to that Indian lacrosse team that missed the tournament in Britain because the Brits wouldn't take their homemade Indian nation passports and the Indians didn't want to travel on U.S. passports.

RandyB said...

The key demographic for the Republicans to turn is probably white women. Currently, the Republican lineup is white males and their wives, and the Democrats have everyone else.

The medium-term strategy has to be breaking up the Diversity Coalition in which Blacks, Hispanics and women vote to take white men's jobs, while each individually claims oppressed status. The justification for removing women is that there's no family history of oppression to make up for -- they had one father just like any male does.

If we can break up Diversity into SEPARATE ISSUES on which the groups are not unified, one of them (most likely women) can be turned. But to do that, the Republican Party has to get rid of its rabidly anti-abortion fundamentalist wing.

sabril said...

"It'll be like 'The Turner Diaries' crossed with 'Extreme Makeover.'"

Cute, but possibly true. As cosmetic procedures become safer, cheaper, and more effective, it is likely that more and more people will choose to look more and more European.

I work in New York and lately I've noticed more and more dark skinned women who look vaguely Indian but have names like Tyesha. I am thinking they got plastic surgery to make their noses narrower and their lips smaller. Combine that with straightened hair and its a huge improvement in their looks.

Perhaps this sort of thing will be the solution to our racial problems.

Anonymous said...

I think this is a nuanced article with several layers of implications. Those who confidently say, Steve, it won't work haven't offered other alternatives for the survival of the GOP.

The Balkanizing of America has been great for Democrats. But it doesn't have to be this way. Indeed, the Supreme Court (as the NYT recently suggested) is tilting to the right and undoing many of the racial policies of the last 40 years. This is a good thing, and a first step toward citizenism. Now the political class needs to pick up where Justice Roberts has started.

Anonymous said...

one other thing. The fact that Jim Webb is urging the end of affirmative action is a good sign that some in the political class get it. Webb is the only candid supporter of Scots-Irish and Anglo Americans. Could a Republican says what he says? Sure, and get a lot more white votes than John McCain.

Anonymous said...

Sammy looked better as a black man; now he resembles an albino

David said...

Wonderful work. White is popular the world over, but someone has convinced cowardly whites (and some impressionable non-whites) that they are Evil. Huh, wonder who pulled that trick.

Anonymous said...

In 2008 the GOP in my flyover state near the Canadian border went all out to shmooze the Indian tribes, even appointing one dullard to serve as vice chair, and setting up meetings on the reservations. This gal speaks and it's like watching the paint peel. Indians have really different ideas about what is interesting.

Meanwhile Obama hit the state multiple times when usually we get no candiate action at all for our piddly electoral votes, and he gave at least one speech on a rez. Hilary and Edwards visited too, but McCain not at all. Naturally the Dems had no trouble keeping the Indian vote and the GOP's outreach to the tribes was all for naught.

I LOL'd.

David said...

Agnostic is right....

Anonymous said...

Immigrant Group Quintilingual - off you scamper back home then, so you won't have to worry about that sort of thing.

John Craig said...

Plese forgive the self-promotion, but tere's another aspect to the "creepy," drag queen-ish aspect of Sosa's appearance which is explained here:

http://justnotsaid.blogspot.com/2010/07/before-and-after.html

Anonymous said...

RandyB: Lets see, whites should keep their hegemony by continuing to allow abortion? Huh? How about all males unite and kick out the props for women of all races so that when they compete against men in traditionally male activities they are measured by the same exact standards as males, and eliminate ALL support for unwed mothers. And, while we're at it, cut funding for all the soft female dominated social (make) work for women who don't want to do their duty to perpetuate civilization. Over time, I think you would find overall greater contentment in men, more useful use of female talents than pole dancing, less pathologies in the young male populace, and fewer abortions. You have a greater percentage of happier families, and this divide and conquer strategy of everyone else by the elites using racism would grind to a halt.

OneSTDV said...

Here's my (pessimistic) response to Webb's op-ed:

Response to James Webb

Anonymous said...

"a more domesticated personality"

Does this really put you at the top of settled hierarchies? I wouldn't doubt settled people in general are all more "domesticated" and possibly even introverted* than nomadic hunter gatherers, but elites being more domesticated than the people they rule rather than more ruthless, socially dominant and willing to use violence goes against what I've heard about class.

I mean - Inductivist on social class - seems more like the orthodox position to me. Plus The Rich Are More Ruthless rings true. I can't imagine things were different in the opposite direction in the age before the bourgeois.

*they probably aren't more introverted - the tendancy is for larger scale societies to have more non-kin you could profit from engaging with, after all.

As for IQ, I'd think there's no way to find out without association studies in biracial populations (like African Americans). Association studies in European populations don't seem to have turned anything up yet, so variation in fairness there doesn't seem very promising.

Glossy said...

"In India, leading cosmetic products have names like Fair and Lovely and Fair and Handsome. In Thailand, Vaseline Healthy White Body is popular."

I remember seeing a woman reading an Indian newspaper on the NYC subway. I couldn't help but notice an English-language ad there for a product like that with the tagline "be fair to your skin." I just searched for that phrase on the Web, and this was the first hit.

"Called the Enlighten Skin Whitening Beauty Plan, this skin whitening regimen entails a simple, 5-step daily routine that can uncover clearer skin in weeks."

I do think that dark-skinned East Indian women can be pretty attractive though. I think that fine, delicate, feminine facial features are more important.

Anonymous said...

Surely lighter skin by itself can't be preferred among Africans and people of African descent? African features and White skin looks dreadful

Well, there are African Albino models...google image search. It's really just a question of being used to it, I think. We're probably more permissive with dark skinned folk with European features than the converse because West Eurasia (including India) gets fairly diverse in terms of skin colour, so we're reminded of people who live in India and North Africa, so it seems natural.

Having said that, you are functionally right that it does functionally look dreadful to most people. People are only interested in being the lightest of their population's natural range, not in looking like Michael Jackson (being unnatural is a bigger deal than being dark).

stari_momak said...

One flaw, as Steve is surely aware, is that there are now millions of blacks in the US who have no connection to US government sponsored slavery -- Obama, Holder, Powell, Kamilah Harris. Why would Hispanics or Asians give up their bennies if they see recent immigrant blacks benefitting from AA?

The only solution is an explicitly white political movement , and probably eventually a division of the US. Heck, just by eliminated the lower half of Texas and the Southern most SoCal countie (which would, alas, include my home county) we would get rid of tens of millions of Mexicans and their progeny.

josh said...

Sammy is reviled in Chicago by Cub fans with the same childish glee that he was embraced. After throwing a tantrum and leaving the Cubs' clubhouse early,one of the boys--paying homage to Jack Lemon's brilliantly realized Ensign Pulver in "Mister Roberts" perhaps?-- demolished his sacred boom box,from which he blasted salsa before and after every game to demonstrate his el jefe status.Personally I think the skin whitening thing shows that he is gay. He has a nice looking whitish/hispanic wife. As a millionaire superstar he doesnt lack for female company.Dudes gay.

Anonymous said...

Whiteness may be making a comeback at least in pro wrestling.
See Shamus
This guy is startling largely because he so fair. I imagine he, like Nicole Kidman, shuns the sun so as to maintain that look.

In one of your referenced columns you mention James Spader as a pale white actor who has been typecast as a villain. He has also been typecast as hyper intelligent. This is ironic since he was a high school drop out who only worked menial jobs before being discovered. He is quite candid in interviews about his inability to much of anything except act. Apparently being white connotes brains.

Will Smith on the other hand always plays a charismatic but not particularly bright hero (see "Independence Day"). So far he has avoided playing the super smart computer nerd who just happens to be black (see "Mission Impossible"). When Ving Rhames plays the brains behind Tom Cruise it rings very false. When he plays a street wise thug (see "Pulp Fiction") he comes across as powerful and believable.

Maybe instead of taking all those Actor's Studio lessons, young would be actors and actresses should just invest in some Sammy Sosa skin creme.


Albertosaurus

Whiskey said...

White women form the backbone, politically, as the swing force behind AA.

Not only do they benefit, personally, but the "smart people" aka Celebrities, people on the left, and so on push AA. My latest post delves into that a little. Women love princesses, nobility, aristocracy (look at the vampire novels with aristocracy/hierarchy in all of them) and this banishing of upward White male mobility is catnip for women. It makes "find the Alpha easy."

Moreover, Women mostly prefer darker skinned guys, who are viewed as more masculine, more dominant, more well endowed. Getting rid of the annoying White guy two cubicles over who checks them out with a dominant darker skinned man is a plus for White women.

Far more politically practical IMHO is a message of pure racial spoils solidarity to White women -- stick together to create racial quotas or you will get screwed out of your own position. Its a message suited to limiting losses in a downwardly spiraling economy not maximizing upside which the current Black-Hispanic-White Women AA message has been.

Svigor said...

Hey, they haven't destroyed the UK version of Google images yet.

Does anyone know a way to make the our version of Google images revert to the old version?

joe6 said...

I have a friend who has visited Thailand, Vietnam and Philippines. Just the other day I was asking him about skin color in Thailand. He said the whiter people rule the roost there. He described Thailand as having not just Thais but other neighboring Asians have immigrated there. The darker you are the poorer you will be. Those are the strong tendencies

You also have a lot of darker "hill people" in Thailand. I doubt those yokels are using parasols

Anonymous said...

Mr. Sailer, I wonder, do you ever feel ashamed about playing host to so much White aggrievement?

For a group who enjoys every advantage in this country, you folks do an awful lot of whining.

Wanderer said...

RE // "Webb is the only candid supporter of Scots-Irish and Anglo Americans." //

For all of his supposed Scots-Irish pride, the twice-divorced Jim Webb has repeatedly failed to marry a woman of similar background. Name of wife #1: Barbara Samorajczyk. #2 named: Jo Ann Kruka. #3 is named Hong Le (his current wife and mother of Webb's mixed-race child).

This makes me lean towards believing this man to be a self-serving hypocrite.
Like so many postmodern whites, his ethnic identity begins and ends, with himself.

Wanderer said...

An article of interest regarding the Jim Webb Question and the future of US politics:

Jim Webb and the New Southern Strategy

CharlieBarlie said...

In the full (Vdare) article, Steven makes the interesting point that we don't even know how much religious underrepresentation there is, because no one asks about it.

But Steve's suggestion of eliminating affirmative action for everyone but blacks and native Americans would be a hard trick to pull off. Maybe even trickier than getting rid of it altogether. (In CA and WA and MI, voters eliminated it wholesale--at least in theory, and with some real effects.) I doubt that any activists on either side would embrace the compromise he proposes, although voters might go for it.

But picking up on the facts Steve notes, I would suggest two other, more minor, tactics:

1. We should emphasize that amnesty for illegal immigrants will mean millions more people entitled to preferential treatment. (This observation is rarely discussed, but it will sour most people on both amnesty and on preference programs.)

2. People should investigate religious under- (and over-) representation in all sorts of areas. And perhaps we should agitate for religion questions to be asked.

Charlie

Mercer said...

"White women form the backbone, politically, as the swing force behind AA."

" this banishing of upward White male mobility is catnip for women. It makes "find the Alpha easy.""

Are white college women happy that they have a harder time getting a boyfriend at many colleges because they outnumber men on campus? I have read a few articles about it and they did not think it was catnip. What evidence do you have that they like it when they outnumber white men?

Mercer said...

"After all, the GOP is the Party of White People. And, as countless American TV commercials inform us, what could be more shameful than being white? Voting is aspirational, and who would ever aspire to associate themselves with anybody as uncool as white people? "


Steve you are certainly a provocative thinker. As long as blacks have a higher crime rate I think you are right.



Does anyone know when it became fashionable for American whites to tan? Do whites in other countries tan?

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know a way to make the our version of Google images revert to the old version?

Max to the bottom and choose the "basic version"

Kylie said...

Anonymous said...""In one of your referenced columns you mention James Spader as a pale white actor who has been typecast as a villain. He has also been typecast as hyper intelligent. This is ironic since he was a high school drop out who only worked menial jobs before being discovered. He is quite candid in interviews about his inability to much of anything except act. Apparently being white connotes brains."

Spader is either being unusually modest or is distancing himself from his less-than-humble origins. It'd be more accurate to say he chose to drop out of a comfortably middle-class life and support himself by taking menial jobs while pursuing his dream of becoming an actor.

From his IMDb entry: "Son of teachers Todd and Jean Spader. Attended Phillips Academy in Andover with director Peter Sellars; dropped out in eleventh grade."

Yes, technically, he's a high school drop-out but in his case that definitely does not translate into a not-too-bright-guy whose early life held little promise or hope.

Average Joe said...

For a group who enjoys every advantage in this country, you folks do an awful lot of whining.

We learned how to do it by studying the blacks and the Jews. Blacks and Jews enjoy better lives in the United States than they would in any other country in the world and yet they are constantly complaining about racism and anti-Semitism.

B Lode said...

For a group who enjoys every advantage in this country, you folks do an awful lot of whining.

Over 10,000 white women raped by blacks every year ... this is an advantage?

Affirmative action is an advantage?

Being told to leave our homes whenever crime gets too bad...?

Having the history of our people rewritten by the media and the schools to highlight every bad thing a white person did and leave out a lot of the good thing...?

Being killed disproportionately fast in the necon wars in Asia...?

What do you mean?

Truth said...

"Why not simply cut the Gordian Knot and give every minority in America a lifetime supply of Sammy's skin whitening cream?"

I'll gladly donate my supply to you Bob, that way you can eschew your inferior heritage and look like a Nord.

BTW someone mentioned Thandie Newton; if you saw her debut in Flirting
You know she used to be black also.

Anonymous said...

Whiskey said...

"White women form the backbone, politically, as the swing force behind AA."


Thats BS! Sounds like you need to brush up on your history. Jewish ethnic activist have always been (and still are) the backbone behind affirmative action. Support for AA is slowly diminishing within in the Jewish community, because they now form an elite group and have nothing to gain from AA anymore. Hence, they now want to protect the status quo.



"...Getting rid of the annoying White guy two cubicles over who checks them out with a dominant darker skinned man is a plus for White women."

White women hate white men? That must be new. White people didn't hatch out of eggs. To create white people, you'll need white women to love white men. (lols if you didn't know this)

The deepest hatred for White men has always come (and still does) from the most extreme element of the Jewish community. Watch a few Hollywood movies and you’ll see. White women, like all women, are social creatures. They are heavily influenced by what they see on TV.

Anonymous said...

For a group who enjoys every advantage in this country, you folks do an awful lot of whining.

That would be Jews, not goyim whites

Anonymous said...

As cosmetic procedures become safer, cheaper, and more effective, it is likely that more and more people will choose to look more and more European...... Perhaps this sort of thing will be the solution to our racial problems.

EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!

kudzu bob said...

I'll pass on your kind of offer of skin-whitening cream, Twoof, but I wouldn't mind a Kool.

CJ said...

Fred said...

Witness the unsympathetic reaction to that Indian lacrosse team that missed the tournament in Britain because the Brits wouldn't take their homemade Indian nation passports and the Indians didn't want to travel on U.S. passports.

Yes I noticed that. It got a lot of play up here in Canada (a lot of the Iroquois players live on the Canadian side of the border in cross-border reserves notorious for smuggling and crime). As far as I can tell nobody else gives a rat turd.

Encouraging.

David Davenport said...

... Getting rid of the annoying White guy two cubicles over who checks them out with a dominant darker skinned man is a plus for White women. ...

So change your life, Whiskey.

Quit that nerdy cubicle job.

Take up a manly occupation that your mother won't like.

Truth said...

I only smoke Newports, Kools are for fags.

kudzu bob said...

Why'd you go and call Obama names? Be nice, Twoof. The poor guy's got enough trouble already without your making everybody think he's on the downlow.

Now have a King Cobra with that Newport and get your crunk on!

BamaGirl said...

"Does anyone know when it became fashionable for American whites to tan? Do whites in other countries tan?"

Eastern Europeans tan. Alot of British women have fake tans from what I've seen. Scandinavians seem to go tanning as well. Not so sure about the rest of Europe though.
I'd assume it started in the 30s, maybe earlier. My grandmother who was born in the mid twenties described going tanning when she was a teenager.

BamaGirl said...

"Moreover, Women mostly prefer darker skinned guys, who are viewed as more masculine, more dominant, more well endowed. Getting rid of the annoying White guy two cubicles over who checks them out with a dominant darker skinned man is a plus for White women."

Huh? So its just dark skin that white women like? Are you really so delusional that you believe some 5'1 Guatamalan dude is more attractive than a 6' Danish guy? You have a very bad case of projection, Whiskey.

Immigrant Group Quintilingual said...

Mercer,

Does anyone know when it became fashionable for American whites to tan?

Obviously, whenever THE Jews consolidated their power. Probably about six millennia ago. It's okay to be a little fuzzy on the details. If the need be, you can just make them up, like your natural leaders Kevin MacDonald and Pat Buchanan.

Do whites in other countries tan?

It depends; do you feel that THE Jews have Vast World Reach, or do you believe in the Pristine White Haven? If the former, then they do; if the latter, then they don't. And you can definitely have it both ways (like Average Joe, for example), in which case, it's sometimes.

corvinus said...

Are white college women happy that they have a harder time getting a boyfriend at many colleges because they outnumber men on campus? I have read a few articles about it and they did not think it was catnip. What evidence do you have that they like it when they outnumber white men?
I talked to a girl at a music conservatory a year ago... which, as may be surmised, is heavily female and many of the men there don't fancy women. She says many of the girls there are borderline crazy from the lack of straight male attention. Many go lesbian to pass the time even though they prefer men.

White women hate white men? That must be new. White people didn't hatch out of eggs. To create white people, you'll need white women to love white men. (lols if you didn't know this)
He apparently hasn't thought much about the married/single voting divide among white women, how they vote for the Dumbos when single but switch to the GOP when they get that ring -- which is one of their secret life goals. Yes, even now. I guess one worthy idea would be to convince single white women to vote GOP rather than Dem.

Laban said...

Before WW2 in the UK, dark skin was unfashionable - a hangover from the not very distant days when it meant you worked in the fields. Women in Victorian England took great care to cover their arms in the sun.

Tanning really seems to have come in during the post-war years, when the rich were holidaying in the South of France and Barbados. Before, it denoted 'labouring class', after 'leisured class'.

Anonymous said...

He apparently hasn't thought much about the married/single voting divide among white women

Whiskey hasn't thought much about a lot of things. He obsessively focuses on a split between white men and white women that does not exist.

You wouldn't know it reading Whiskey's comments, but there is also a married/single voting divide among men. According to Gallup, unmarried women voted Obama 66%, McCain 34%, and unmarried men voted Obama 63%, McCain 37%. Married men voted McCain 58%, Obama 42%, and married women voted McCain 53%, Obama 47%.

The ethnic gap, not the gender gap, is everything.

CNN exit poll

Vote by Sex and Race

White men: McCain 57%, Obama 41%
White women: McCain 53%, Obama 46%

Black men: Obama 95%, McCain 5%
Black women: Obama 96%, McCain 3%

Latino men: Obama 64%, McCain 33%
Latino women: Obama 68%, McCain 30%

Vote by Race

White: McCain 55%, Obama 43%
African-American: Obama 95%, McCain 4%
Latino: Obama 67%, McCain 31%
Asian: Obama 62%, McCain 35%
Other: Obama 66%, McCain 31%

Vote by Religion Among Whites

White Protestant: McCain 65%, Obama 33%
White Catholic: McCain 52%, Obama 47%
White Jewish: Obama 83%, McCain 16%
Non-whites: Obama 79%, McCain 18%

In case anyone has not yet figured it out, race trumps gender.

Anonymous said...

It's okay to be a little fuzzy on the details. If the need be, you can just make them up, like your natural leaders Kevin MacDonald and Pat Buchanan.



Have you ever actually read MacDonald and Buchanan, or are they just scary figures which haunt your dreams and which you in your turn will scare your children with?

For a supposedly intelligent people, Jews sure do emote a lot.

Anonymous said...

"Getting rid of the annoying White guy two cubicles over who checks them out with a dominant darker skinned man is a plus for White women."


That's more than I wanted to know about your personal life, Whiskey. The fact that women consider you a creepy stalker does not mean that they dislike white men.

Anonymous said...

"1. We should emphasize that amnesty for illegal immigrants will mean millions more people entitled to preferential treatment. (This observation is rarely discussed, but it will sour most people on both amnesty and on preference programs.)"

Over and over and over
and over and over and over and over.

sorry for shouting, but THIS IS THE KEY FACT TO GET ACROSS TO PEOPLE

ben tillman said...

In the full (Vdare) article, Steven makes the interesting point that we don't even know how much religious underrepresentation there is, because no one asks about it.

And the fact that the EEOC ignores religion is due to the efforts of tribester Alfred Blumrosen.

In violation of the Civil Rights Act, Blumrosen’s EEOC sent out official forms to major American corporations demanding a “race count” to determine the proportionality of various races working at the firms. This annual race count should be deemed as notorious as Germany’s Jew count, but it is generally ignored—or applauded—by scholars. Soon thereafter the EEOC also required corporations to submit sex and ethnicity counts, all aimed to force employers to hire a racially, sexually, and ethnically proportional workforce. But Blumrosen ensured that the EEOC never inquired about religion. He was determined to prevent a proportional workforce based on religion—though religion was one of the categories mentioned in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Appareently, this is discussed here:

Hugh Davis Graham, The Civil Rights Era: Origins and Development of National Policy, 1960-1972 (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp. 118-52, 177-221.

Moreover,

[t]he authors of Title VII (the employment section) of the 1964 Civil Rights Act consistently and clearly opposed the use of quotas to remedy discriminatory hiring practices, but Alfred Blumrosen, a ranking civil servant at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and a classic bureaucratic zealot, deliberately subverted those intentions.

Through “creative interpretation” of Title VII, he reoriented the EEOC toward an acceptance of the need for quotas or analogous forms of compliance assessment.

asdfasdfasdf said...

Affirmative action is a bad thing but there's another problem.
Call it the guilt/privilege paradox.

We generally associate 'white guilt' with whites losing privilege and power. Since 'white guilt' argues whites did alot of evil, criminal, shameful things in the past, the implication is whites need to make amends and concessions to repair the damage. And indeed many whites lose out as a result of this. But many whites, especially well-educated liberal elites, gain huge advantages from this. Since SO MUCH NEEDS TO BE DONE, there are many organizations, institutions, committees, foundations, and etc that look into social problems and seek solutions to fix them. Guess who runs most of these bastions of new power? White elitists. And what if their proposals fail to bring blacks and browns up to par with other whites? Then, the privileged sons and daughters of these white liberal elitists inherit and run these organizations. When a rich white liberal yammers about 'white guilt', he or she means something must be done and HE or SHE--and her friends and family members--should control and devise the means of doing it. So, 'white guilt' is also a huge industry of white power/privilege, at least for white liberal elitists.

But there is also a psychological element to the guilt/privilege paradox. Some whites who really do lose out feel better about their social-historical defeat by embracing 'white guilt'. They can fool themselves that they lost out because (1) they morally deserved to lose out (2) they are noble because they accepted the loss with grace (3) they CHOSE lose out for good of progress.
If you're a wasp who loses out to Jews in business and loses out to blacks in sports, 'white guilt' might be therapeutic. Instead of being overcome with bitterness and envy, you can say something like, "we whites ran everything for so long, and we kicked butt so many times, it's time we lost too once in awhile and got our butts kicked too." It works like ointment on an aching butt. Even without political or economic power, a white guy can psychologically feel empowered through 'white guilt'. He can pretend that his loss and defeat was something he himself engineered and/or accepted gracefully out of own goodness of heart and raised consciousness.

For example, take Lawrence O'Donnell, a passionate proponent of interracial relations. We all know white women go with black men cuz black men in greater numbers because black men are winning the TOP STUD CONTEST, whereby white males are becoming irrelevant as icons of male sexuality and prowess. O'Donnell, by making lots of noises about interracial relations, is pretending that the new sexual order has been made possible by a good-hearted and 'progressive anti-racist' fighter such as he. No longer sexually relevant, a wussy white boy is trying to remain politically and morally relevant, as if to suggest, "white women and black men can finally do one another cuz a good, conscientious, and noble white liberal like myself has allowed it to happen."
That way, it feels less like LOSING OUT TO THE BLACK MAN and more like DOING A NOBLE PROGRESSIVE FAVOR FOR THE BLACK MAN.
Pathetic.

Truth said...

I'm highly ashamed of you, Bob: All of the great rap music out there and you listen to that semi-literate dirty souf bullshit...

And you white women should be ashamed of yourselves, look what you've done to poor Whiskey.

Svigor said...

Max to the bottom and choose the "basic version"

Thankyouthankyouthankyou.

Svigor said...

Mr. Sailer, I wonder, do you ever feel ashamed about playing host to so much White aggrievement?

For a group who enjoys every advantage in this country, you folks do an awful lot of whining.


This is a bit like the fat rich kid complaining that he only gets 99% of his favorite store's inventory.

Let's hope he's as ashamed of playing host to "white aggrievement" as people like you are of your total disinterest in free expression (which is, of course, the only reason "white aggrievement" is absent from most blogs and forums).

Leftists: they can't tolerate even one speakeasy.

asdfasdfsdf said...

Reading Webb's op-ed, I was struck by the different kinds of sympathies.
There is sympathy.
There is sympathy with guilt.
There is sympathy with guilt and fear.

Whites may feel sympathy for any down-and-out or oppressed people on Earth, but without the element of guilt, it's no big deal, noting to lose sleep over. Whites feel this way about most Asians and Hispanics. I mean who really cares about Tibetans or Bolivians?

Then, there is white sympathy WITH GUILT regarding a certain people if whites had done something bad to them in the past. American Indians fit this mold. Their lands were 'stolen' by whites. And lots of Westerns were made with Injuns being little more than target practice. So, there is sympathy and guilt but there is no fear. Most Indians live in reservations or are invisible to most of us.

Then, there is sympathy plus guilt plus fear, and this pertains mainly to blacks. There is the slavery thing but there is also white fear of black muscle, crime, political bullying, rioting, etc. Webb focuses on guilt but I suspect his special concession to black Americans is based at least halfway on fear that many whites share.

adfasdfasdfsadf said...

If Webb argues that blacks descended from American slaves deserve affirmative action, then doesn't it also follow that ONLY THOSE AMERICANS WHOSE ANCESTORS OWNED SLAVES should suffer from affirmative action? It's only logical. Why should ALL Americans--Poles, Swedes, Chinese, Turks, Mexicans, Loatians, etc--have to pay for affirmative action too? They didn't do anything bad to blacks.

I suppose one could argue that ALL Americans benefitted from an economy partly built by American black slave labor. But all blacks also benefitted from white working class toiling away long hrs in dingy factories day in and day out. Early yrs of capitalism wasn't pretty neither in UK nor in the US. And many blacks got to work as porters because Chinese did back breaking work to lay down railroads. And thanks to Anglos--slave-owning or not--, a great nation called US was created politically, culturally, and economically. In that sense, all Americans owe a special thanks to Anglos EVEN IF some Anglos owned slaves or killed Indians. The America that all of us--white, black, brown, yellow, red, green, etc--have come to benefit from was essentially created by Anglo-Americans in the early crucial yrs. And so what if America had slavery until 1865? What part of the non-Western world didn't have slavery at that time?

And who's talking of countless whites who were sold to the Middle East and North Africa by slave-runners--white, Muslim, and Jewish?

And instead of just comparing American blacks with American whites, shouldn't we also compare American blacks with blacks who were NOT brought over as slaves? Didn't blacks who were brought over here as slaves do better than blacks who remained in Africa? I mean there is no comparison. It's like comparing Zimbabwe when it was run by whites with Zimbabwe run by Mugabe today. Whites did abuse power and privilege but it was only under white power than blacks gained any sort of progress, stability, and growth. If anything, blacks who were not brought to America should be suing the white man for leaving them back in Africa to be enslaved, mass-tortured, mass-killed, and even cannibalistically eaten by other black Africans. Slavery sucks, but having an Anglo slave master sure beats having an African or an Arab one.

adfadssdfsf said...

Though Americans should not be responsible for and responsive to all the miseries and evils around the world, the emphasis on black suffering in the US has led to the ridiculous notion that blacks suffered more than anyone else and 'nobody knows the trouble he seen, noboby but a negro'.

I'll grant the Atlantic slave trade was brutal but seen in the context of their time, was slavery in the American South really the worst thing in the world? Far from it. Materially, it wasn't so bad at all. In material terms, blacks actually lived better than most people around the world--even better than many northern white farmers and European peasants and workers. Of course, blacks didn't have political and social freedoms or rights, but how many democracies were there around the world in 1865? For 95% of mankind, concepts such as human rights was science fiction. Black experience in America can only be said to be terrible under the very high standards set by the creators of this republic. Otherwise, one would have been luckier to be a black slave than a Russian serf, Chinese slave or tenant farmer, a Hindu slave, Arab commoner, etc.
Even after slavery, it is true blacks did not have full rights, but they still had more rights and freedoms than most people on Earth. And blacks never had to worry about mass violence or famine or such. Now, compare the horrors that swept through the Ottoman empire, Chinese empire, Russian empire, all over Africa, etc, etc in the 19th century and 20th century. I heard from 1865 to 1965, only 2000 blacks were lynched to death. Horrible number but let's put it in perspective. And during the Civil Rights era, only a handful of blacks were killed.

adsfasdfasdf said...

In pogroms, 1000s of Jews were killed at one time. Under communism, 20 million Slavic Christians perished within a period of 15 yrs. If we add WWI, Civil War, and WWII, the total of Russian losses comes to at least 45million in the 20th century alone. And even those who survived often went on famine rations, and under communism, they had no rights, no freedoms. In the Taiping Rebellion in the 19th century, 20-30 million died. During the 20th century, at least 70 million--possibly 100 million--chinese died in wars, famines, genocides, etc. And stuff like this happened all across Asia and does to this day in N. Korea and Burma. In Latin America, chicken pox may have killed 50 million out of original 60 million people. If we see the American experience in the larger context of Eurpean conquest of the New World, the decimation of Indigenous people in South and Central America almost has no equal in history. And we can go on and on and on. I've known people who came from Poland(and survived WWII), from Vietnam(with memories of colonial wars and Vietnam War and communism etc), Greece and Armenia(very tragic histories, far more so than black American history in the 20th century).

Now, Americans should not be responsbile for all the horrors that took place in the world, but I cringe when I hear stupid stuff like, 'immigrants do better than blacks because they didn't suffer like blacks did'. These people are either moronically ignorant of world history or just downright devoious and vile. If anything, it's American blacks who do NOT KNOW how lucky they've been to have lived in America. Sure, living under whites could be trying at times but any Russian, Pole, Chinese, Armenian, or whatever would have traded roles with any black American when the shit hit the fan over and over and over in the 19th and 20th centuries. The entire population of black-Americans is 40 million. Around 40 million Chinese painfully starved to death in a few yrs during the Great Leap Forward. Yet, dumb provincial Americans think immigrants don't suffer from historical trauma cuz they never went through anything like an occasional lynching suffered by blacks.

Btw, I wonder what Steve Sailer thinks about Hawaiians and Eskimos? Didn't they lose their lands to newcomers too? Shouldn't they be included with blacks and Indians?

Truth said...

"Let's hope he's as ashamed of playing host to "white aggrievement" as people like you are of your total disinterest in free expression"

Are they really any less interested in free expression then you are? I hear you constantly complaining about the NAACP, Obama, Jeremiah Wright, The Ivy league, etc.

Victoria said...

"Webb has repeatedly failed to marry a woman of similar background. Name of wife #1: Barbara Samorajczyk. #2 named: Jo Ann Kruka. #3 is named Hong Le ..."

Weren't the first two wives, at least, white? Doesn't his son, who served in Iraq, have a white mother? It's the third wife that makes him a disgrace -- to give his son a mixed-race sibling is repulsive.

"Like so many postmodern whites, his ethnic identity begins and ends, with himself."

Yes.

"Are you really so delusional that you believe some 5'1 Guatamalan dude is more attractive than a 6' Danish guy? You have a very bad case of projection, Whiskey."

These kinds of claims made by Whiskey are so ridiculous. One can only think he is a long-suffering guy, who exonerates his lack of desirability with these weird tales about white women. "It's not that they don't desire me, they don't want any white men!" Ha!

By the way, the business of whites tanning has nothing to do with anything. There is no desire to permanently remain tanned after one's summer holiday. It's just something to do, and does not equate to a Sosa story.

Victoria said...

"That way, it feels less like LOSING OUT TO THE BLACK MAN and more like DOING A NOBLE PROGRESSIVE FAVOR FOR THE BLACK MAN. Pathetic."

Yes, you've hit the nail on the head. It makes you feel more powerful, instead of less so, if you can believe that you did not acquiesce or pussy out in fear of a rival, but played an active role in his success. It's weird and, as you say, pathetic.