Steve Sailer reveals the tremendous opportunities for advancement offered to Black Americans in today's USA. The 50 million strong Black American ethnic groups produces about 2000 youths with academic potential per year, as against a demand of tens of thousands. Any intelligent, disciplined, dedicated, focused Black American will be embraced by the system and pushed ahead. The sea will open up to the willing and capable Black American.
Barak Obama defnitely is NOT a Black American ethnics. Mother is WASP and Father (biologically) a Luo, an ink black Sudanese tribesman. Genetically, he has nothing in common with the 70% yellow-skinned Bantu + 30% WASP mix that make up the American Black ethnics. Culturally, he grew up among WASPs and never met an American Black till adulthood.
The man early grasped the opportunity and focused on passing as an American Black. He got into Harvard on the basis of checking the Black square and writing an essay on his dreams of african heritage (he had none, of course). it worked wonderfully, he got accepted and promoted to the prestigious position of editor of the Law School journal. Then, based on his Black American avatar, he entered politics championing Black American ethnic ghetto interests. The system soon co-opted him as senator.
At this point he was identified by the plutocrats (pic) as what he was: an intelligent, capable and ambitious man who succeeded in gaming the system and had excellent potential for the top post. They saw through his pretenses of Blackness and his Black American communist connections. The financial and political power of the establishment embraced him, got behind him and pushed him ahead.
It appears to have been a good choice. He beat George Bush. He put Wall Street in charge of the American economy. He feeds religiously the industrial-military complex. He appears at AIPAC meetings and holds seder dinners at the White House. The fifty million real, authentic Black Africans are extatic. Even Middle East Arabs are confused by his rethorics - he looks and talks like a friend. Even this old Jew, should he be an American citizen (which is not), may vote for his re-election.
The pic shows Soros Gyuri, a Hungarian Jew who made good in America. The man survived Nazi occupation of Hungary and Eichmann by passing as an ethnic Hungarian with false name and false papers. More than that, he made money from his fake Hungarianness raiding Jewish property (I dont blame him - no one has the moral right to judge what people did to survive the Holocaust). What I mean, if anybody can identify fakeness, it is Soros.
And me. And Steven Sailer, I presume.
35 comments:
Don't be fooled - he is a leftist at heart. When given the choice, he always prefers the socialist way. He is driving America into a ditch. He friend Bernanke is doing some kind of magic trick where the government buys its own bonds - this is like raising yourself off the floor by pulling on your shoelaces - impossible. If that doesn't convince you, then like most modern leftists, he doesn't like Israel, prefers Palestinians - the leftist rule is always to champion the stupid over the smart.
K
K,
Bernanke (of Obama) has channelled billions to the Wall Street rentiers while "starving" the American working class. That's what Paul Krugman and The Economist's Buttonwood is saying in so many words.
I stopped hearing Obama's rethorical productions. He is acting his role and doing it very well.
Anything to break the white man in the USA.
Anon.
I noted this a while back 1st gen
mulattoes can appear like a wide variety of racial groups Obama Blacks Asians Latinos and perhaps even the Arabs see a sort of reflection that they may not see say a purely white or black politician.
It is not only appearance. He speaks very well.
It is remarkable that even in free America, there are many Jews passing as not Jews. Presidential Candidate Kerry, for example, passed for an Irishman. Of course he knew that genetically he was a Hungarian Jew. Also Margret Albright said she didnt know that she was Jewish. I dont sympathize with these fake people, but its meaning is that being a Jew in America is a little like being black. Those bright Jewish people who choose to assume a fake identity did it for powerful reasons.
Regarding Schwartz aka Soros it is clear that he took up a fake identity to save his life and as soon as times returned to normal, he did not hide his Jewishness. He did not hide it, it is just (I quote him) he prefers not to be a Jew.
Fate appears to enjoy putting such individuals at the cross roads. But you cannot fault their choices, all the painstaking work you have done can be dashed based on an answer. The problem is prolonged self denial leads to self hate which may have afflicted Soros.
Obama's master stroke is how his identity is in permanent flux. The Whites Asians, Blacks, Muslims and even the A. Jewish community see their hand in him
He does speak well with that rich preachers voice that makes an audience feel a deep personal connection to him real or not. That is power
"...prolonged self denial leads to self hate..."
It is difficult to know. It seems reasonable. I can only attest that people living a fake identity are damaged. Must be.
I felt it at 15 reading Frantz Fanon. He was a psychologist and said that colonized people were psychologically suffering and damaged. I felt he was speaking to me: we Jews are a colonized people, trying to pass like others. For Fanon, revolution was the way to cure, for me it is Zionism. Obama passing as an American Negro is twisted, his own brother rejected him and didnt want to know anything with him and his sick obsessions.
Hey J did you ever read or review the book JEWISH EUGENICS by John Glad? - download a free copy @ http://www.whatwemaybe.org/txt/txt0000/Glad.John.2011.Jewish_Eugenics.pdf
More info at http://www.whatwemaybe.org/txt/jewish_eugenics.htm
Also Kevin MacDonald at Occidental Observer reviewed it - http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/05/review-of-john-glads-jewish-eugenics/
I think Obama was a leftist at heart before he entered politics, but he seems to have understood that becoming top boss requires sacrifices to one's own code. Forced to choose between his idealistic start and current lifestyle, he probably chose for the pleasantness of being the most important man in the world.
Who can blame him?
J,
Kerry was only 1/2 Jewish by ancestry, and his grandfather Fritz Kohn/Kerry was the one who made the decision to hide that ancestry. How can you be so certain that John Kerry even knew about it before he was told.
Albright is a more difficult case since she is pur sang, but her parents hid it. Perhaps her reaction further supports that being ethnically Jewish is disadvantageous. Since the religion is bullshit (and you would be a bit hypocritical to say otherwise given that you don't actually believe in God), how much should we really blame her for following her self-interest?
Also Kevin MacDonald at Occidental Observer reviewed it - http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/05/review-of-john-glads-jewish-eugenics/
MacDonald is insane.
Why do you post insane people, Eman?
His students say MacDonald weird, isolated.
One thing about MacDonald is his extreme Eurocentrism and obsession with the very small Ashkenazi ethnics (almost an extended family or clan). He completely ignores what is going on in East Asia, where the most intelligent people is living (Singapur, Hong Kong, Japan, China... all with higher average IQs than Europeans). MacDonald has nothing to say on Chinese and Japanese, which are the bulk of humanity and where the most intense evolutionary action is taking place. The European episode may become a footnote on Asian history. We Jews are important (specially for us Jews) but have to recognize that there is a whole world out there.
There is a school of thought which maintains that the East Asians, while averaging a very high IQ of about 108, do not produce many exceptionally creative people who pioneer new ideas. This is felt to be the preserve of the Caucasians and the Ashkenazim; Asians are more apt to copy, and tinker , and maybe improve, and to mass produce via diligence, social loyalty and economies of scale.
This is not to deny they will become a real threat; they will. But just that if we put our minds together, the whites and the Jews so to speak, we could retain the cultural and intellectual initiative.
I think there is something to this.
But because we fight amongst ourselves, and are ruled by those who neither represent us nor have our interests at heart, we are in extreme danger as ending up as a series of vassal states to the Chinese.
Anon.
I feel a certain chill whenever doubt on the potency of Asian creativity are voiced more so today as it accelerates. From particle physics to poetry name any field and I will name an Asian on it's cutting edge. It can be argued in aggregate they held cultural and intellectual initiative in the course of the multi-millenia existence as a people and an Asian century may be upon us
Anon.,
The term "Caucasian" is not really synonymous with "white" in the sense that you are using it, i.e. autochthonous Europeans excluding extra-Europeans however similar. The Caucasus mountains, from which the term was taken, are outside of Europe, and in the context of macro-races, the non-Europeans in the Caucasus and Middle East are the closest "relatives." The Ashkenazim, lacking much sub-Saharan admixture and possessing some European admixture, are among the closest to Europeans viewed at that level (see http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/files/2010/06/jewfig2a.png)
The Chinese are dabbling in eugenics and in creating the "Better Baby". They have no moral inhibitions at all and they are many. How can an evolutionary psychologist like MacDonald ignore the Chinese phenomenon while writing and writing about a handful of powerless, dirt-poor, desperate German-Hungarian-Jewish refugees of the so-called Frankfort School. The man is out of his mind.
BTW my parents had intellectual friends who could be classified as pertaining to the Frankfort philosophical orientation and they were old, tired, displaced, forgotten people. Well, my perspective is different, I see them as pitiable ruins whose familes had been recently killed. MacDonald sees them a magically powerful cultural revolutionaries.
Anon:"The Ashkenazim, lacking much sub-Saharan admixture..."
From the book JEWISH EUGENICS:
“Even without this latest infusion, genetic tests have shown that the present Jewish population would appear to have a total Negro admixture of the order of five to ten percent.” (pg. 29)
Tsk tsk textbook case Anon
Overwhelming exception is a logical fallacy similar to a hasty generalization. It is a generalization that is accurate, but comes with one or more qualifications that eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume. i.e the sans 90-95 %.
“Even without this latest infusion, genetic tests have shown that the present Jewish population would appear to have a total Negro admixture of the order of five to ten percent.” (pg. 29)
There is no Negro admixture in Ashkenazi at all. Majority of Jewish DNA is Italian.
MacDonald is laughable, uninformed, Jew exterminator.
KMD is a jerk, but this PDF that was linked to his article is fascinating:
http://www.whatwemaybe.org/txt/txt0001/Hashiloni-Dolev.Yael.2006.Israel-Jewish%20eugenics.pdf
MacDonald is laughable, uninformed, Jew exterminator.
You're going to have to do way better than that, anonymous. You can laugh at MacDonald all you want but you can't just call someone a "Jew exterminator" with no backup.
Or are you a gentile exterminator?
You can laugh at MacDonald all you want but you can't just call someone a "Jew exterminator" with no backup.
Why can't I?
Culture of Critique has no "Backup."
The most recent estimate of sub-Saharan admixture in Jewish and Southern European populations based on autosomal genetics was published by Moorjani et al. this year. They came up with an estimate of approximately 3% for Ashkenazi jews. Dienekes reported on this article and showed why the estimates in the Moorjani article are simplistic and inaccurate, but they are still much more accurate than any estimates based on simple uniparental haplogroup counting which gives a definite overestimate for Jewish populations. There is no shortage of crazy, leftist Jewish dilettante bloggers or WN Jew haters who will try to exoticize the ancestral tree or tar us, respectively, but they are all fools of the worst order.
Dienekes' posts on Moorjani et al.:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/04/sub-saharan-admixture-in-west-eurasian.html
I should add that Moorjani's estimates for Southern European populations were in the 1-3% range and for non-Jewish Levantines were in the 4-15% range. Again, Dienekes shows very well why these are probably overestimates for the Southern European and Ashkenazi Jewish populations. Still, the relative comparisons are interesting, and Jews are distinguished from other Middle Eastern populations by their relative paucity of sub-Saharan admixture.
I should add that Moorjani's estimates for Southern European populations were in the 1-3% range and for non-Jewish Levantines were in the 4-15% range.
White nationalists also hate Southern European "Mud People"
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/019091.html
The level of discourse at Alternative Right is discouraging. The comments section of an interesting article by a Greek writer on cooperation between Greek leftists and illegal immigrants immediately degenerates into a discussion of whether Greeks and southern Italians are "mud people."
Unless Spencer changes direction, AltRight looks like becoming a slicker Stormfront.
- end of initial entry -
Bruce B. writes:
Actually, I keep thinking it's becoming more like Majority rights and keep wanting to ask Spencer how it's different from that site other than being geared towards a younger crowd.
I've followed Altright somewhat regularly since its inception. Spencer tags posts under various labels e.g. "multiculturalism," "race," "Eurocentric" but it seems to me like greater than 95 percent of what he posts is essentially "white-right" stuff regardless of what tag he gives it. He throws in economic doomsday posts from time to time which makes it seem even more like Majority rights. From what I can tell, Kalb, Gottfried, etc. have withdrawn from the site. Scott Locklin, the fellow who wrote articles on the different social classes, isn't there anymore. Trifkovic isn't there anymore--he's back at Chronicles. Brimelow doesn't appear to have ever done anything for the site. Even the weird blue-collar men's issues guy is long gone. Majority rights also had some traditional conservatives early on that I suspect left because of its monomaniacal views (e.g. Mark Richardson, Jim Kalb, John Ray). [LA replies: I'm not aware that Mark Richardson ever wrote there.]
So it seems to me the Altright has become Majority rights for twenty-somethings.
Bruce B. continues:
Regarding my last comment, in Spencer's partial defense, I don't think his site is as blatantly anti-Jewish as MR. He had a post by a professor named Byron Roth defending the Jewish perspective.
It's just that the monomaniacal view, the slick webpage look with embedded videos and the economic doomsday posts reminded me of MR.
" Obama passing as an American Negro is twisted"
The One Drop Rule Engineer is unbending, if any in your lineage can is black however far removed you are black, if any parent is black the child is black basically. Other identities are subordinate
So Obama can accurately claim to be a Negro as his brother whose religion is subordinate to this fact. Mulatto is a false grouping
Disagree. "American Black" is an ethnic group that evolved from
Bantu Africans (mostly from Ghana and Liberia) and English settlers in the American South. It has grown to a fifty million and has become homogenous with certain cultural features. Obama does not belong to this ethnic group. In the African side, he is a Luo, a Sudanese race very far removed from the Bantu, and only shares with American Blacks his WASP heritage. The one drop rule is nonsense and always was.
"The one drop rule is nonsense and always was."
Maybe you don't quite get the dynamic, at least as I see it here in the US. One's race identity is selected by the surrounding members of one's community, and they do that based on one's superficial appearance. If people's initial reaction to you is to classify you as black - based on your appearance - then that is your identity. Oneself gets no say in the matter, as one cannot change the stranger's impression of your race. Because white people have always instantly id'd him as a black american, he shares their experiences of American black/white interaction, with whatever that includes. And if one is visibly partly black, then one is id'd as black by both blacks and whites (as well as others). Those strangers etc were not consulting young Obama on "how he identifies." He identifies as their reaction obliges. So even if he is genetically a Luo-American, socially he quickly became socially a bonafide Black American as he grew up.
The part that differs from other blacks is that he didn't grow up among family who were id'd by others as black and who's lives were thus filled with the black american experience. But his life was.
rm
I guess the question to ask is were any of his parents black ? this is a racial question, culture and ethnicity can vary but race is fixed. You can have Black Americans or Caribbeans Bantu or Nilot for instance. I concur with rm
As Africa's ongoing race wars show, Africa is peopled by many racial groups. The distance between a Luo and a Bantu is larger than say a WASP and a Beduin. They are of different build and different color.
Although Obama's features are not typical for American blacks (strange ears and chin - I think he got these from his mother) , he is a 50/50 African American mixture so his skin tone is within the range of the African-Americans of slave ancestry. Tiger Woods is also accepted as an American "black" for this reason.
When people look at you, they don't make a complex study of your tribal membership, they just get a general impression. The typical American (black as well as or, as a result of their lower level of education, even more so than whites)views "Africa" as a single entity rather than a vast and ethnically and socially varied continent, so that the "fine" (actually gross) distinctions between Kenyan and Liberian, between Bantu and Nilotic, Kikuyu and Luo, etc. are entirely lost on them.
Obama's father was inky black, much darker than almost all American Negroes. If his mother had been equally black I don't think Obama would have "passed" as just another American black.
http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2008/07/20/mn-obama_2008_pr_0497584600.jpg
Slave cultures tend to be dysfunctional - Moses found this out and had to embark on a 40 year intensive rehab program (plus American blacks were not selected on intelligence). So the way Obama differs is that he grew up in white culture and his intelligence is much higher (Obama's father was lacking in moral character but his intelligence was unquestionable - he was probably in the top 1% of Kenyans). So he looks like an American black (more or less on the outside) and he pretends to be one because there was an advantage to it, but inside his head (where it counts) he is nothing like most American black people.
K
Correct. He is faking it. On the other hand, Obama went to greath lenghts to assimilate into the American Black community. For example, he married Michelle who is real and no fake.
Post a Comment