Saturday, November 2, 2013

What color are Whites?




I’m one of the contributors to a recently published French book De quelle couleur sont les Blancs? The following is an abstract:

Within each human population, skin color varies mainly by age and by sex. These two sources of variation dominate the range of complexions one sees as long as the third source, ethnicity, contributes little. This is the situation that once prevailed in most human societies. Relatively pale complexions signified infants or women; red-brown complexions, men. A cult of female whiteness thus developed, especially within a large zone of Eurasia. Today, this mark of femininity is losing its social significance with the growing importance of ethnic differences in skin color and, also, the mounting popularity of tanning among women. These changes are described with respect to France, although many other countries have taken part in them. 

The proposed title for this book was initially La question blanche en France (The White Question in France). As such, the aim was to examine the role of “Whites” in French race relations. How do the Français de souche see themselves? And how do they see the “Others”? This would have been a novel perspective, since books on race relations tend to focus on minorities and their views of reality.

Sadly, this aim has not been achieved. The book does excel at giving voice to minorities and presenting their perspectives. Thus, Naïma Yahl provides a wealth of intimate details on how the White French woman, la Roumia, is perceived in Algerian popular culture. But none of the contributors provide the reverse perspective, at least not to the same degree. Leafing through this book, I sometimes feel like I’m reading a wartime letter with key passages inked out. Laurent Dornel, for instance, describes how, during the First World War, France brought in 257,000 workers from North Africa, Madagascar, Indochina, and China to replace the French men who had been sent to the front. I had known about this mass influx but was unaware of the rioting that resulted:

[…] the colonial and Chinese workers were the target of growing “racial violence” among the common people. Beginning in May 1917, almost everywhere in France (Brest, Dijon, Le Havre, Paris, Toulouse), brawls and even riots broke out more and more often, often causing serious injuries and deaths. The French reproached the colonial workers for being strikebreakers and making it possible, by their presence, to keep French workers at the front. They also denounced the sexual competition that their presence had provoked (p. 209).

At that point, the text moves on. There is a recurring tendency by all of the contributors to describe the grievances of one side at great length, while being much more restrained in describing those of the other side. This is unfortunate because the aim of the book was to put the Français de souche in the spotlight and to let them take the floor. This lack of balance is particularly evident when the different contributors discuss racisme anti-Blancs (anti-White racism). Sadri Khiari argues:

But if one envisages racism as a power relationship, one cannot place on the same level those who benefit from the entire power of the racial system and those who often have only their words to resist. Today, the notion of “anti-White racism” is being mobilized to delegitimize the anti-racist movement […] (pp. 45-46)

Yet anti-White racism is not just a matter of shouting sale Blanc! It’s also violence. If one examines interracial acts of violence, the trend is overwhelmingly in one direction. How come? If “Whites” are so powerful, why would they allow this to go on? And why would they allow immigration to continue at such a rate that large areas of France are now French in name only? In reality, most Français de souche act as individuals and have only a weak sense of their collective interest. Collective action is instead wielded by better organized factions, particularly the globalized business community—which lobbies hard to outsource employment to low-wage countries and insource low-wage workers.

Ironically, although Khiari uses much leftist rhetoric, he has no understanding of class differences—or any intra-ethnic differences for that matter. There are only “Whites” who form a monolithic bloc in defense of their interests, from the poorest laborer to the globetrotting businessman. This is the kind of delusional thinking that used to characterize the real racists. Today, it has become the stock in trade of the anti-racist.


Reference

Frost, P. (2013). De la pâleur au bronzage. Les idéaux de la beauté féminine en France. In: S. Laurent and T. Leclère (eds.) De quelle couleur sont les Blancs ? Des « petits Blancs » des colonies au « racisme anti-Blancs » (pp. 170-177), Paris: La Découverte, 298 p. 

46 comments:

Sean said...

It's certainly true that leftie anti-racists claim to be up against big business interests, which is obviously the opposite of the truth. "Power of the racial system" indeed!

barakobama said...

I doubt tat the different skin colors like more pale for women was not as wide spread as this person claims., Maybe the ancient Egyptiens and a few other people had that concept. But all those civilizations you learn about as a little kid in history class were not the only humans in the world. The vast majority of people in the world in ancient times except the middle east could not write and where not civilizations. What ancient Greeks and Romans said in no way reprsents what everyone in Europe at that time thought.

Some people assume that racism began when Europe started to conquer the world in the 1400's and 1500's that's really only the origin of modern white racism. But people have always hated foreigners and seen them as inferior. Just look at ancient Roman and Greek writing they don't base their superiority on skin color they base on ethnicity. They were very Raciest or whatever you want to call it towards pretty much all foreigners.

I know that at least in America white racism is almost totally dead. The main forms that do exist are white people who don't like getting blamed for everything bad in the world and don't like that the western world is becoming more and more non white. So it is kind of a reaction to people reacting to white racism it is not the old form. Race is still a awkward thing to talk about that does come up pretty often. But it is almost always people afraid of seeming raciest.

The Zimmerman thing is a good example of I guess modern American racism. Race was not a issue originally at all but Americans who have been scared from our past try to find racism in it. Our media even our president totally brain washed people and caused riots and hate in the country.

The main problem I think right now is the type of modern white racism I explained above, the type of minority racism towards whites that was kind of represented in the Zimmerman trial, and Americans trying to put race in everything.

When every there is a really good white basketball player playing with black kids. Not in a insulating way but he will be called Larry Bird, Steve Nash, etc. or people will in some way comment on the fact that he is so good and white. And from my own expernce when your the only white person playing basketball with all black people race is usually going to be mentioned same if there is one or a few black players with a bunch of white players.

But real racism is extremely rare in America. And what I described above doesn't always happen most of the time people don't treat each other differently because of race. Unless because of their race that reprsents a different cultural backround.

I do have a problem though when our media makes a much bigger deal about race than the everyday people. I get sick of hearing about oh wow the first black this or the first woman this. in Our history books they always combine blacks, other minority's, and women. That really gets on my nerves I have looked at real original historical documents and I realized our history books a lot of times are written in the liberal point of view. Instead of just listing to my history book I want to get the real stuff and try to see how people actually thought in 1880 or whenever.

Reader said...

...Relatively pale complexions signified infants or women; red-brown complexions, men.

Peter, is there a possibility that the darkness or swarthiness of a man's skin is a function of his testosterone levels? For example, we already know that certain traits such as an angular face, square jaw, muscle tone, athletic body type, aggressiveness, etc. correlate with testosterone. Is a swarthy complexion also related to it, or is it not really a hormonal feature?

Anonymous said...

Maybe it's a form of paternity testing between different ethnic groups when miscegenation occurs. The darker the father, the darker the daughter. The lighter the father, the lighter the daughter. On average and as a whole. Of course, the sons of such unions tend to vary a bit, but while genetically both children tend to belong to a father and a mother, phenotypically they tend to resemble the father more. That's my experience among Europeans, Caucasoid Arabs, South Asians, Southeast Asians, East Asians, Horn of East Africans and the various mixed from South America.

Anonymous said...

Whites are the color of light peaches, or white flowers if one prefers.

Sean said...

Apart from the class interests, I think a couple of other factors may be:-

(1) Status seeking. Mega rich people (who have nothing to worry about but what powerful people think about them) seem to compete to favor non whites. It is a bit like giving to charity--always done with great fanfare.

(2) A hereditary tendency among economically successful people to trust in the power of co-operation and acceptance.

In the modern west the economic interests of the wealthy knowledge class are disconnected from the economic interests of the white masses as never before (there are few profitable industries where unions are important). Now an intra-ethnic genetic behavioural difference between the white elite and their working class can find expression. Hence the instincts of ordinary people are 'Neanderthal', marking a lower form of life. Which is true in a way. The thing is that upper class inclusive co-operative tendencies are just as hard wired as the lower orders' 'us verses them' attitudes are. If the taproot of the intra-ethnic differences in attitude to immigration is different degrees of genetic pacification in white social classes, it is difficult to see how debate will do any good.

Anonymous said...

" the mounting popularity of tanning among women"


Tanning is still a very lower-class phenomenon and this is acknowledged even in popular culture.

See:

http://newsblaze.com/story/20080423062911tsop.nb/topstory.html


It's also interesting how in Medieval literature both swarthy men and women are always thought to be lower class.




..

Anonymous said...

Peter,

You have a tendency to depart from sociobiology-oriented anthropology and turn to doctrinaire Marxist materialism when it comes to certain issues. It seems like there's a recognition that evolutionary biology might lead to some uncomfortable ideas when it comes to certain issues, so you turn to warmed-over Marxism, which commits you to a similar attitude that you criticizes leftists for, namely of viewing a "class" as a monolithic bloc.

Anonymous said...

The "wealthy knowledge class" is not a hereditary class. Most people in the "wealthy knowledge class" today are from middle and lower-middle class backgrounds.

There is no evidence that being pro-immigration has anything to do with a desire or willingness to cooperate with and accept immigrants personally, since those that are pro-immigration are the most insulated from immigrants. Moreover, this is not even consistent with the "class" argument that those who are pro-immigration are so because they want to cynically use them for their own gain.

Anonymous said...

@barakobama

http://blackracismandracehatred.blogspot.com/

http://able2know.org/topic/138570-353

Bones and Behaviours said...

When someone attributes racial or ethnic identities and the resulting conflicts to SIT and the neurological evidence in its support, no one here would mind. But such things as class differences also work by the very same mechanism evolved so that people identify their own ingroup in contrast to outsiders and behave accordingly.

Recognising this is not to present a 'warmed-over Marxism'.

Anonymous said...

" while genetically both children tend to belong to a father and a mother, phenotypically they tend to resemble the father more."

Any actual evidence for this or is it just more weak anecdotal bullshitting from internet racialists?

Bones and Behaviours said...

Peter, can you help me?

What is the distribution of primate epidermal (ie. non-follicular) pigmentation?

I can only find odd details about this subject online though its important in understanding the diversity of human skin colour.

Sean said...

anon, "evolutionary biology" does not exclude cultural group strategising (which is possible in humans because they can enforce compliance).

There are intra-ethnic conflicts of economic interest and hypercapitalism has given one group in society unprecedented freedom of action to enforce pan-ethnic compliance.

The medium of the internet isolates people, so it doesn't really matter what they think up.

Luke Lea said...

I particularly like your last two sentences. Anti-racism has devolved into a new form of bigotry and should be denounced as such whenever appropriate. I do that.

idurar said...

I'd like to clarify something: the concept of whiteness as known in America and related cultures is NOT universal.

I hope this is not a disappointment but North Africans (and Middle Eastern people)don't see French people or any European people for that matter as "white". Unless they are of French ["ghetto"] culture, usually in highly segregated suburbs/neighborhoods with a significant "black" population and other migrants more likely to use this term and in a linguistically monolingual context (these people speak only French, even at home).

"White" (or its equivalents) is used among Maghrebis to describe somebody of their own people who is on the lighter side of the spectrum in terms of pigmentation (native Maghrebis vary from golden to pale white skin in winter). Europeans are labeled by their country of origin or by terms synonyms with "non-muslim". The only time real colorism is used is for Subsaharan Africans who are labeled "black".


Anyway, the RECENT trend of self-labeling by SOME French "de souche" as "white" probably stems from the use among black populations (from West Africa or the French overseas Départements) with probably an additional globalized and strong influence which comes straight out of American culture. It has been subsequently used as a way to segregate themselves from non-Europeans, no matter how the "Others" see them.


From my experience (I live in the Southeast, in Provence), there is still intra-european racism and discrimination in day-to-day life, especially among older generations, directed to people of German descent (or with German-sounding names), Italians, Corsicans, Pieds-noirs etc. That's why I have yet to hear the racial use of "white", since there is no unity among European groups (a significant part of French population is made of European migrants and their descendents).
As a result, it always makes me giggle when I hear on a tv shows expressions like "white" or "anti-white racism" because it sounds so unnatural in French culture.
I think people are basically making a big deal of a relatively minor issue, the racial self-labeling is looking for an emotional response in the national population.

Bones and Behaviours said...

Idurar,

In colonian North Africa the french referred to Caucasian north Africans as 'white Africans' to distinguish them from the descendants of slaves from the old trans-Saharan trade in people.

Peter Fros_ said...

Sean,

Within Western societies, the income distribution has become more and more unequal since the 1970s, and this is affecting how the rich and the poor see each other. Class snobbery did exist during the postwar era, but it was discreet. It’s now becoming much more overt and ‘politically correct.’ The working class is now openly described as a bunch of losers in the new global marketplace. Poor white trash!

Barakobama,

We see this association between lighter skin and feminine identity in simple nonliterate societies, i.e., hunter-gatherers and tropical horticulturalists. You might want to read through some of my publications on this topic.

Yes, white Americans have a weak sense of collective identity. This is partly because of the social atomization that comes with modern societies. It’s also because collective consciousness as “whites” is highly stigmatized. But what about nonwhite Americans? You seem to imply that only “white racism” is problematic. That may be true in a country that is 90% white. But will it be true when white Americans become a minority?

Reader,

Yes, castration leads to very pale skin, both in terms of melanin production and cutaneous blood flow, see:

Edwards, Edwards, E.A., J.B. Hamilton, S.Q. Duntley and G. Hubert. (1941), Cutaneous vascular and pigmentary changes in castrate and eunuchoid men, Endocrinology , 28, 119-128.

The sex hormones affect skin color via transient effects (i.e., circulating hormones) and organizational effects (i.e., the prenatal surge of sex hormones).

Anon,

I’ve heard others say that there is some kind of sex bias, i.e., that the offspring of a white father and a black mother look different from the offspring of a black father and a white mother. Can you steer me toward any literature on this topic?

Anon,

Today, the tanning fad is generally seen as a lower-class phenomenon. But back in the 1920s and 1930s the reverse was true. At that time, it was ‘leading edge’ and tended to attract the young, the urban, the better educated, and the better-off. In this, the tanning fad seems to be following a trajectory similar to that of other fads. Once everyone gets in on it, it becomes trailing edge and not leading edge.

Anon,

Biology isn’t everything. We’re also products of historical, social, and economic circumstances. I’ve met sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists who seem to go to the other extreme, perhaps out of disgust with the extreme environmental determinism that is now de rigueur.

I’ve never been a doctrinaire Marxist. I’ve been strongly influenced by Marxist writers and have had Marxist friends, but I dislike what ideology of any sort does to people. To the best of my knowledge, Marx never predicted globalization, i.e., the role of the business community in outsourcing employment and insourcing low-wage labor. This issue didn’t exist in his time and has only been addressed by more recent writers who are better described as neo-Marxist.

Anon,

It’s both. The new globalized elite is able to manipulate our notions of correct thinking. Sometimes, this happens in a very conscious and overt manner, through think tanks, paid pundits, and paid academics. More often, its less conscious and less overt. People go where the money is. Certain views get better press, and others don’t. If you want to succeed in journalism and academia, you soon learn what you should believe and what you shouldn’t. It’s not explicit, and there is room for dissent. But most people aren’t natural dissenters. When a certain view becomes held by the majority, it becomes the norm. If you don’t follow the norm, you’re seen as an oddball, even if you express your views clearly, convincingly, and civilly

Peter Fros_ said...

Bones and Behavior,

Try:

P.W. POST, G. Szabo and M.E. Keeling, A quantitative and morphological study of the pigmentary system of the chimpanzee with light and electron microscope, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 43:435-444, 1975.
W. MONTAGNA and H. Machida, The skin of primates. XXXII. The Philippine tarsier (Tarsius syrichta), American Journal of Physical Anthropology 25:71-84, 1966.
W. MONTAGNA, H. Machida and E.M. Perkins, The skin of primates. XXVIII. The stump-tail macaque (Macaca speciosa), American Journal of Physical Anthropology 24:71-86, 1966.
W. MONTAGNA, H. Machida and E.M. Perkins, The skin of primates. XXXIII. The skin of the angwantibo (Arctocebus calabarensis), American Journal of Physical Anthropology 25:277-290, 1966.

Luke,

Originally, the word ‘bigot’ had nothing to do with views on race or racism. It referred to religious extremists who held to their views dogmatically and who categorically rejected the legitimacy of contrary views. Who are the bigots today?

Idurar,

The same was true here in Quebec. Most people had little or no contact with people of African origin, and the word ‘noir’ was often used in a relative nonethnic sense. If you were a swarthy French Canadian, other French Canadians would call you ‘noir’. Tanned skin was often called ‘noir’. Today, this is no longer true. Attitudes toward skin color are becoming racialized because the social environment has changed.

What you are describing in France would probably happen anyway with or without American influence (although that influence is facilitating the process). When the differences in skin color of your immediate social environment become largely racial in nature, the social perception of skin color becomes racialized.

Sean said...

"People go where the money is"

The medium is important. Books like De quelle couleur sont les Blancs? are more important than anyone realises.

Bones and Behaviours said...

Thanks Peter. But I was hoping for information as to the overall evolutionary trends. In hominins the skin became darker about 2mya and this has been used as evidence to infer the evolution of denudation.

However at least some of the other simians are dark skinned, for example, howler monkeys have dark skin. So I was wondering why this is if they neither possess naked skins nor inhabit open habitats.

Sean said...

"There is a recurring tendency by all of the contributors to describe the grievances of one side at great length"

The men of the white intelligentsia like Laurent Dornel can do just that, because they are giving the "reverse perspective". White intellectuals thinking in a peculiarly white Western idiom ('White Mythology') are responsible for a rising tide of racial domination. Domination of whites.

Sean said...

"NOWAK and colleagues have seized on this attribute as the defining feature of networks that suppress selection: even strongly advantageous mutations do not spread through the population. Their theory, published in Nature in 2005 and 2006, offers a mathematical description of some networks that make sense intuitively: for example, a small lake feeding a stream that flows into a larger lake. Within each lake, natural selection will operate freely in the fish population. Mutations that occur in the smaller lake will affect fish in the larger lake—but mutations that occur in the larger lake, no matter how advantageous, will never reach the fish in the smaller lake because the stream flows only one way".

And that is why Peter being a contributor to books like De quelle couleur sont les Blancs? is so important.

Simon in London said...

"There are only “Whites” who form a monolithic bloc in defense of their interests, from the poorest laborer to the globetrotting businessman. This is the kind of delusional thinking that used to characterize the real racists."

Strange to think that the anti-Jewish frothers in the comments of eg Alt Right would be perfectly mainstream if only 'Jew' were exchanged for 'White'.

Anonymous said...

Interesting to note that the anti-anti-semites, like Simon, are quick to defame a white defense of their own interests.

Peter Fros_ said...

Anon,

Simon's point (and my own) is that it's delusional to believe that whites collectively defend their interests. Yet this is the key argument of whiteness studies. The reasoning goes thus:

1. In Western societies, the upper 10% is overwhelmingly white, and the upper 1% even more so.

2. These elites therefore design their societies in a way that favors "white" interests and "white" values.

3. All whites, however poor they may be, receive this unearned benefit.

But how does this argument explain globalization? A half-century ago, the working classes of North America and Western Europe had stable well-paying jobs in manufacturing. Today, most of those jobs have been outsourced to countries where wages are much lower and working conditions much worse. Meanwhile, the jobs that could not be outsourced (i.e, in construction, food processing, and services) have seen a massive insourcing of low-wage labor. This two-way process has made the playing field much less level for capital and labor. On the one hand, the First World working class has been thrown into competition with the manpower of the Third World. On the other hand, the owners of capital are able to get returns on their investment that would have been impossible previously.

According to proponents of whiteness theory, this shouldn't have happened. The top 1% should have been looking out for the interests of their pale-skinned brethren further down the ladder.

Well, it did happen. Even more galling, whiteness theory diverts attention from what is happening. The "unearned benefits" are being accumulated by the proponents of globalization. The wealthy are becoming wealthier by selling off a heritage that is not theirs to sell off.

Anonymous said...

anon, "evolutionary biology" does not exclude cultural group strategising (which is possible in humans because they can enforce compliance).

Of course it doesn't. Nobody said that it does. What it doesn't do, however, is regard "cultural groups" as fundamental or independent entities.

There are intra-ethnic conflicts of economic interest and hypercapitalism has given one group in society unprecedented freedom of action to enforce pan-ethnic compliance.

Sure, but you've never talked about ethnic categories with respect to this issue. You've talked about "whites", which is a racial category.

Anonymous said...

Recognising this is not to present a 'warmed-over Marxism'.

What's warmed-over Marxism is failing to reduce or probe into these "class differences".

Anonymous said...

Peter,

It's not so much that you've been influenced by Marxism - you're a Canadian anthropology PhD, of course you've been influenced by it. It's that when it comes to certain topics, you suddenly depart from the sociobiological bent that characterizes most of your thinking and writing.

Sean said...

anon, Reduction to the factors you are positing as crucial can't explain why the Germany of today is not like Germany of a few generations ago.

Bones and Behaviours said...

Class differences represent social identities and the exact same brain activity is at work behind both inter-class and inter-ethnic interactions. Its behind recognising those who are like oneself and those who are not.

Peter Fros_ said...

Anon,

When I was a grad student, I was accused of not being sufficiently committed to historical materialism. Now, I'm accused of not being sufficiently committed to biological determinism.

Please, it's not just "certain topics." On most topics, I believe that human biology interacts with historical, economic, and cultural circumstances. What do you think I mean when I talk about gene-culture co-evolution?

Ben10 said...

A bit late, but regarding the sculpture in the church stone in the previous topic, it really looks like the Cagots that I have seen in photos, with high and big cheek bones, so there may have been a cagot type.

Regarding the question here. I'd say there are 3 different white tones in the European population.
*Dull greyish white, doesn't look very healthy, like by a like of sun on a skin that would be otherwise tanned.
*Pale almost transparent white (I've seen that in a guy in Quebec, Qc. amazing you could see his blue veins very deep in his neck). That's possibly the Frankish type.
*Bright, almost reflective white, common in Anglo-Saxon girls.

Of course all these 'whites' are actually pink under increased blood flow.

Bones and Behaviours said...

Can anyone please link to old photographs of Cagots?

Anonymous said...

Another sculpture from a book cover by René Descazeaux

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Les-cagots-Histoire-dun-secret/dp/2846180849


B10

Sean said...

"What it doesn't do, however, is regard "cultural groups" as fundamental or independent entities."

It's not a choice between reducing separate categories to a fundamental unit or claiming (post-modernist style) that all biological categories are merely constructions of society.

The human species is made up of groups with emergent properties, nested within one another. It would be obtuse to claim the dynamics of human interaction are best understood by ignoring the existence of assemblages other that those based on ethnicity. An army is something more than the individuals making it up.

Bones and Behaviours said...

Its interesting to see photographs of what the Cagots actually looked like.

http://www.pinterest.com/pin/161003755399747053/

http://www.pinterest.com/pin/161003755399741230/

They're from this page that I found with a Google search. Someone has collected photographs of cagots on this page.

http://www.pinterest.com/daviabailey/cagots/

On the other hand this Cagot lady does look typically French.

http://i347.photobucket.com/albums/p446/vodkasodamag/cagot-marie-beauzac.jpg

Sean said...

Another thing anon, not even Kevin MacDonald agrees with you about 'cultural groups'. He says humans can monitor and enforce compliance, giving as an example the WW2 Soviet army, where disregarding minor orders could lead to summary execution.

Anonymous said...

anon, Reduction to the factors you are positing as crucial can't explain why the Germany of today is not like Germany of a few generations ago.

Which factors am I positing? I think you're the only one who has argued that German genes today - which haven't changed from a few generations ago - are why Germany is like it is today.

Anonymous said...

Class differences represent social identities and the exact same brain activity is at work behind both inter-class and inter-ethnic interactions. Its behind recognising those who are like oneself and those who are not.

Absolutely. Manipulation of social identity is arguably a primary activity of human competition and the main activity of politics. However, "class differences" in the abstract do not wield and manipulate social identity by themselves. People do.

Anonymous said...

When I was a grad student, I was accused of not being sufficiently committed to historical materialism. Now, I'm accused of not being sufficiently committed to biological determinism.

It's not that you're insufficiently committed to "biological determinism." There's a strong sociobiological bent to your writing. In fact, I think it can be a bit facile and lack rigor at times, although that's not so much your fault as it is the nature of sociobiology in general. However, there are sensitive topics in which sociobiological thinking can be controversial and it is safer to take a more orthodox line.

Anonymous said...

The human species is made up of groups with emergent properties, nested within one another. It would be obtuse to claim the dynamics of human interaction are best understood by ignoring the existence of assemblages other that those based on ethnicity. An army is something more than the individuals making it up.

Nobody is disputing the existence and importance of such "assemblages." You don't even consider them to be fundamental - you tend to reduce them to economically motivated individuals or something - so I'm not sure why you bring this up.

Anonymous said...

Another thing anon, not even Kevin MacDonald agrees with you about 'cultural groups'.

I never even mentioned him. I don't know why you bring him other than as some sort of bogeyman.

Anonymous said...

please do not put quotation marks around the term white, this is a canalhice available.

White race says respct the original Iberians (R1B) Aryans (R1A) and native Europeans (I)

Anonymous said...

A defining characteristic of psycho- racial uniqueness of European Caucasians is the trait openness to experience or novelty . Why do some traits such as fair skin color and red hair were clearly selected more in Europe than in any other region ?
Because the large incidence of this psychological trait favors the development of another trait , self - consciousness , the sense of individuality, to feel special .
Individualistic people are better able to transcend the social rules herd in search of new experiences . Homeopathic doses of narcissism and self-centeredness are only found in numbers most satisfactory among whites . As a result the and make new choices to procreate with a woman with red hair for example, is as signs of masculinity to group or is simply a desire for novelty, or-and the first is a further purpose of the second. Miscegenation what happens in the West is only the manifestation of this phenomenon, an essential trait of the white psyche, while his glory and his own Trojan horse. European Caucasians have a great sense of aesthetics to psychological traits or appearance . And this selection occurred very early, because the complexity of sucessives socio -cultural civilizations , hegemonic era of the Christian religion and other nano-subjective and anthropocentric factors , predominated over sexual selection , keeping probably more common among elites , with greater power of choice, especially men .

http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/06/autism-and-redheads-the-canaries-in-the-epidemic-part-1.html

Anonymous said...

"What's warmed-over Marxism is failing to reduce or probe into these "class differences"."

Distraction.

The point being made was about a political agenda undertaken by people of one class against people of another class not about why people are in one class or another.

The globalist 1% aren't waging economic and demographic warfare on the western working class population because of class differences so it's not relevant.

Discussing the class differences you want to discuss is simply part of the same strategy - basically a way of saying they deserve it.