Sailing Off Course
- Thread starter Don Wassall
- Start date
From Steve Sailers website. Any stat guys out there interested in doing the work he requests?
From: isteve.com
Do white benchwarmers mean victory in the NFL? I hypothesized, following J.B. Cash's suggestions, that perhaps having lots of white nonstarters on an NFL team makes for a more successful team, perhaps because white utility players are more likely to master the playbooks for multiple positions (as suggested by their higher IQ average IQ scores on the Wonderlic test mandated by the NFL) or because they are better team players about sitting on the bench without complaining.
The social scientist who has been crunching the numbers has complete data on white starters and nonstarters only for 2003. He finds a positive correlation between the number of white nonstarters on a team and its winning percentage of r = 0.38.
It's definitely worth looking at multiple years to see if that stands up over time, because that's getting to be a pretty high number. In the social sciences, the convention is that 0.2 = low correlation, 0.4 = medium, and 0.6 = high. So, 0.38 is just under "medium." That says that 14% (038 times 0.38) of the variation in winning percentage in the 2003 season is associated with the number of white benchwarmers, which is a quite large percentage in something as overwhelmingly complicated as winning in the NFL.
Can anybody collect start & nonstarter statistics by race by team for other years?
From: isteve.com
Do white benchwarmers mean victory in the NFL? I hypothesized, following J.B. Cash's suggestions, that perhaps having lots of white nonstarters on an NFL team makes for a more successful team, perhaps because white utility players are more likely to master the playbooks for multiple positions (as suggested by their higher IQ average IQ scores on the Wonderlic test mandated by the NFL) or because they are better team players about sitting on the bench without complaining.
The social scientist who has been crunching the numbers has complete data on white starters and nonstarters only for 2003. He finds a positive correlation between the number of white nonstarters on a team and its winning percentage of r = 0.38.
It's definitely worth looking at multiple years to see if that stands up over time, because that's getting to be a pretty high number. In the social sciences, the convention is that 0.2 = low correlation, 0.4 = medium, and 0.6 = high. So, 0.38 is just under "medium." That says that 14% (038 times 0.38) of the variation in winning percentage in the 2003 season is associated with the number of white benchwarmers, which is a quite large percentage in something as overwhelmingly complicated as winning in the NFL.
Can anybody collect start & nonstarter statistics by race by team for other years?
White Shogun
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 6,285
The reverse of this equation is that maybe the team is better because all the white players are on the bench instead of on the field.
I'd be more interested in seeing a stat comparison of teams that actually put white guys on the field against teams that have the fewest whites, period. Weren't the three time Super Bowl champion Patriots one of the whitest teams in the league during their Super Bowl run?
Edited by: White Shogun
I'd be more interested in seeing a stat comparison of teams that actually put white guys on the field against teams that have the fewest whites, period. Weren't the three time Super Bowl champion Patriots one of the whitest teams in the league during their Super Bowl run?
Edited by: White Shogun
Yes, after I posted it I thought about it for a minute and realized "who gives a darn?" The statistical analysis may verify assumptions about black ego vs. white team spirit, but---so what! We know it to be true and really do not need to see the numbers.
As mentioned before that would be impossible since currently there are no white players at the "forbidden" positions to compare to. I think the only way that any significant analysis could be done is to go back in time to the seventies when racial disparities were much less and run the numbers from then. That would be ALOT of work!
White Shogun said:
As mentioned before that would be impossible since currently there are no white players at the "forbidden" positions to compare to. I think the only way that any significant analysis could be done is to go back in time to the seventies when racial disparities were much less and run the numbers from then. That would be ALOT of work!
White Shogun
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 6,285
JB
I wouldn't think the comparison would be a total waste of time, despite the lack of white players at skill positions.
Let's say that teams that field more white starters, whether on defense, QB, or TE, have a higher overall winning percentage than teams that are all or nearly 100% black. It wouldn't be foolproof statistically, but it might help dispel the idea that having too many whites on a team is detrimental to its success.
This comparison might be done with the work already compiled here on Caste Football, with the grading system Don has in place for each NFL team. A quick glance at a team's grade, in comparison to its record, could give us a general idea.
I might be able to do this myself, if anyone is interested, but it will have to wait til the weekend.
I wouldn't think the comparison would be a total waste of time, despite the lack of white players at skill positions.
Let's say that teams that field more white starters, whether on defense, QB, or TE, have a higher overall winning percentage than teams that are all or nearly 100% black. It wouldn't be foolproof statistically, but it might help dispel the idea that having too many whites on a team is detrimental to its success.
This comparison might be done with the work already compiled here on Caste Football, with the grading system Don has in place for each NFL team. A quick glance at a team's grade, in comparison to its record, could give us a general idea.
I might be able to do this myself, if anyone is interested, but it will have to wait til the weekend.
WS, Sailer has already done that, or rather someone else did. On his site (see below) he mentions a low positive correlation between white players and winning percentage from 2003 only. A bigger study would have to be done for it to be valid. Anyway that analysis led him to think about the point I had made previously about white bench players and that's what led to the further study.
(Sailer writes
It's starting to look like there may well be a modest level of irrational anti-white discrimination in the NFL after all, although it's hardly as bad as J.B. Cash imagines. A social scientist reader has gone over some more data and finds consistently positive (but low) correlations between percentage white players on the roster and winning percentage. He finds that the correlation between 2005 percent white and 2005 wins so far is positive r = 0.27. And in 2003 for the full season, the correlation was r = 0.33. (He had previously found a correlation of 0.11 between 2005 % white and 2004 wins.)
The correlation between % of starters who were white and % wins appears lower (r = 0.13 in 2003 and r = 0.17 in 2002). This might validate Cash's theory that having whites sitting on the bench is better for team spirit because blacks who aren't playing are more likely to raise a stink about their not starting, poisoning the atmosphere on the team.
After all, our society for the last 40 years has lavishly encouraged blacks to claim to be victims of injustice, so it would hardly be surprising that among pampered athletes, all of whom were stars in high school, whites might tend to be more likely to keep quiet for the good of the team when they feel they are being mistreated than are blacks.
(Sailer writes
It's starting to look like there may well be a modest level of irrational anti-white discrimination in the NFL after all, although it's hardly as bad as J.B. Cash imagines. A social scientist reader has gone over some more data and finds consistently positive (but low) correlations between percentage white players on the roster and winning percentage. He finds that the correlation between 2005 percent white and 2005 wins so far is positive r = 0.27. And in 2003 for the full season, the correlation was r = 0.33. (He had previously found a correlation of 0.11 between 2005 % white and 2004 wins.)
The correlation between % of starters who were white and % wins appears lower (r = 0.13 in 2003 and r = 0.17 in 2002). This might validate Cash's theory that having whites sitting on the bench is better for team spirit because blacks who aren't playing are more likely to raise a stink about their not starting, poisoning the atmosphere on the team.
After all, our society for the last 40 years has lavishly encouraged blacks to claim to be victims of injustice, so it would hardly be surprising that among pampered athletes, all of whom were stars in high school, whites might tend to be more likely to keep quiet for the good of the team when they feel they are being mistreated than are blacks.
White Shogun
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 6,285
It would be interesting to see the breakdown of the positions held by the white players in those years with the highest correlation, e.g. 2005, vs those years when it was the lowest, 2002.
I would also like to know if there is a threshold, or break even point, where a certain number of white players will not make a difference one way or the other, but once a certain percentage of the total team are white players, those teams begin to win more often.
I would also like to know if there is a threshold, or break even point, where a certain number of white players will not make a difference one way or the other, but once a certain percentage of the total team are white players, those teams begin to win more often.
For what it's worth, I added up the '05 won-loss records of the teams that received an F or F- from Caste Football and the teams that received a C-, C or C+, the highest grades given.
The ten failing teams (Arizona, Baltimore, Dallas, Green Bay, Jacksonville, Miami, Minnesota, New Orleans, New York Jets, Seattle) are a combined 19-28 thus far.
The seven C-range teams (Carolina, Cleveland, Indianapolis, New England, San Francisco, St. Louis, Tennessee) are a combined 18-16. This looks even better when one considers that Tennessee, Cleveland and San Francisco are all in a rebuilding mode and have very young teams.
However, I think such an analysis -- even one far more in-depth -- is close to worthless. To the very limited extent Sailer acknowledges there might be something to the Caste System in football, he is looking at it solely from a top-down perspective. All NFL teams range from black dominated to incredibly black dominated, which means no study of value of the NFL can be done until it actually has some white dominated teams again. The NFL has almost no racial variation from team to team, certainly less than the NBA and far less than MLB.
The percentage of white players in the NFL, whether starters or backups, whether "skill position" players or other positions, won't begin to increase until white football players are given equal opportunity from the earliest levels of organized football, through high school and college, and then finally the NFL. The kind of study Sailer is talking about, and it sounds to me like just so much more intellectual yammering masking a lack of understanding, can only be applied at the sub-college level, because those are the only places that whites can be found in large numbers at the taboo positions, including all-white teams.
For example, we have talked quite a bit on the board here about how suburban (mostly) white high school teams seem to almost always have their way with urban (mostly) black teams. If true, it would greatly bolster our argument that whites are systematically discriminated against at a grotesque level at the elite I-A college level. Such a study can be done, but it would take a lot of time and research.
My opinion is that such a study WILL eventually be done, as part of a class action lawsuit by white athletes against the NCAA, not by a Sailerite.
The ten failing teams (Arizona, Baltimore, Dallas, Green Bay, Jacksonville, Miami, Minnesota, New Orleans, New York Jets, Seattle) are a combined 19-28 thus far.
The seven C-range teams (Carolina, Cleveland, Indianapolis, New England, San Francisco, St. Louis, Tennessee) are a combined 18-16. This looks even better when one considers that Tennessee, Cleveland and San Francisco are all in a rebuilding mode and have very young teams.
However, I think such an analysis -- even one far more in-depth -- is close to worthless. To the very limited extent Sailer acknowledges there might be something to the Caste System in football, he is looking at it solely from a top-down perspective. All NFL teams range from black dominated to incredibly black dominated, which means no study of value of the NFL can be done until it actually has some white dominated teams again. The NFL has almost no racial variation from team to team, certainly less than the NBA and far less than MLB.
The percentage of white players in the NFL, whether starters or backups, whether "skill position" players or other positions, won't begin to increase until white football players are given equal opportunity from the earliest levels of organized football, through high school and college, and then finally the NFL. The kind of study Sailer is talking about, and it sounds to me like just so much more intellectual yammering masking a lack of understanding, can only be applied at the sub-college level, because those are the only places that whites can be found in large numbers at the taboo positions, including all-white teams.
For example, we have talked quite a bit on the board here about how suburban (mostly) white high school teams seem to almost always have their way with urban (mostly) black teams. If true, it would greatly bolster our argument that whites are systematically discriminated against at a grotesque level at the elite I-A college level. Such a study can be done, but it would take a lot of time and research.
My opinion is that such a study WILL eventually be done, as part of a class action lawsuit by white athletes against the NCAA, not by a Sailerite.
Don Wassall said:
Yup.
Don Wassall said:
Here here! Couldn't agree more. White players are so disadvantaged by the time they've left college, and enter- or try to enter- the NFL, I just don't see the relevance to any "statistical correlations" re: how many white players on a team and that team's success. I imagine the correlations would be strong for positions that whites are treated relatively fairly (QB and OL,) low to moderate for the positions that some are allowed to play (D-Line, LB, WR and safety,) and, obviously, non-existent for the positions with no white presence (RB and CB.) Whenever the numbers work in our favor, so be it! But I don't care that much one way or the other.
Nor would it be effective for college football because the white talent is so dispersed among so many teams, at so many levels of competition. If a handful of Div. I teams could recruit most of the best white talent in the entire country, it would be interesting to see how they would do (I mean real world success, not just stats.) But the reality is that many of the best players are spread throughout a bunch of teams that, for the most part, have little recruiting power (with a handful of exceptions, like Ohio State and Notre Dame.) That's why the white players are there- they can't get the black players they really want!
I'm sure Sailer could cobble together some stats showing how uncompetitive Div. I teams with white WR's, CB's, and RB's are. And so what if he did? Most of those teams would be weak regardless, because they can't recuit the best black talent. And they don't have enough of the best white talent to make up for it. Prominent programs can get many of the best black players in the country, and they can win games that way. But how would they do with the best white players: Bell, Hillis, Hawk, Hass, Anderson, etc.? We'll never know because they ignore them.
We don't need stats. We need scholarships.Edited by: JD074
Colonel_Reb
Hall of Famer
I think Don has a good point about the class action lawsuit. I can't see anyone spending the time and effort, except possibly someone doing a dissertation, (and even then it would be a small sample) on a subject such as this. When it does happen, things may start to change, but I agree that any analysis of the league as it is now is pointless and a waste of time. JD, we do also need scholarships.
Uberberserker
Guru
My main issue with Sailer (and I have read alot of his stuff from The American Conservative ), which I pick up at the news-stand occasionally) is that I don't get what his basic underlying socio-political philosophy is. He just seems to go around and around in a circle saying some things that are non-PC and then comes back to saying things that are PC (this was pointed out in the Amren post that someone re-posted here).
My best guess is he is some sort of Paleo-con (since he writes for Amcon, there is alot of Paleo-conservatism I like, my main disagreement with them is over Religion), but then he comes up with these weird creedal 'citizenist' notions that one could just as easily read in *ugh* The Weekly Standard.
Edited by: Uberberserker
My best guess is he is some sort of Paleo-con (since he writes for Amcon, there is alot of Paleo-conservatism I like, my main disagreement with them is over Religion), but then he comes up with these weird creedal 'citizenist' notions that one could just as easily read in *ugh* The Weekly Standard.
Edited by: Uberberserker
I agree with your observation, Uberberserker. I'm not a regular reader of Sailer either, in large part because there is no coherent philosophy to his writings. As J. B. Cash pointed out, he was written some good articles. He wrote one about the ongoing race war in South America and its implications for the U.S. a couple of months ago that I thought was excellent. But overall he seems to be an iconoclast with not much to offer in the way of solutions.
White Shogun
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 6,285
Another flaw that I thought of in such a study is that we have no way of knowing if the white players on the team are the best white players available.
Let's say that a statistical study indicated that the fewer white players on a team, the higher a team's percentage of wins. One might conclude that white players are indeed lesser athletes and detrimental to a team's success.
But on the other hand, with the caste system and slotting being what it is, there is nothing that says teams will not keep lesser white athletes around so as not to be a threat to the black players on the team and upset the status quo.
If a stud white running back comes along and wins a starting job, will the black linemen block for him? Will he be a loner in the locker room, will the players bad mouth him behind his back to the coach, will they pick fights and set him up in the locker room in hopes of having him demoted or even booted off the team, so their black brother can get his job back?
The overall success of the team in such cases doesn't matter, they would rather lose with their homies than win with a white usurper who stole a roster spot from a bother.
Such shenanigans would make undertaking any such study practically worthless.
I submit that if such a study is ever undertaken and it is shown that more whites = more wins, the study will be deemed racist and biased anyway, and would never be used as a basis for reform in the NFL.
Let's say that a statistical study indicated that the fewer white players on a team, the higher a team's percentage of wins. One might conclude that white players are indeed lesser athletes and detrimental to a team's success.
But on the other hand, with the caste system and slotting being what it is, there is nothing that says teams will not keep lesser white athletes around so as not to be a threat to the black players on the team and upset the status quo.
If a stud white running back comes along and wins a starting job, will the black linemen block for him? Will he be a loner in the locker room, will the players bad mouth him behind his back to the coach, will they pick fights and set him up in the locker room in hopes of having him demoted or even booted off the team, so their black brother can get his job back?
The overall success of the team in such cases doesn't matter, they would rather lose with their homies than win with a white usurper who stole a roster spot from a bother.
Such shenanigans would make undertaking any such study practically worthless.
I submit that if such a study is ever undertaken and it is shown that more whites = more wins, the study will be deemed racist and biased anyway, and would never be used as a basis for reform in the NFL.
Here's another critique of Sailer's "citizenism" idea developed in opposition to American Renaissance's support of White Nationalism. If push came to shove Sailer would have no trouble reverting toall-out advocacy of the multi-culti party line. I'm not sure he's very far away from it as it is.
Stockholm Syndrome as the Way?
By H. Millard (c) 2005
In "Citizenism" vs. White Nationalism, a column appearing this past week on the V-Dare.com and the American Renaissance websites, columnist Steve Sailer writes, "By 'citizenism,' I mean that I believe Americans should be biased in favor of the welfare of our current fellow citizens over that of the six billion foreigners."
Thus does Sailer repeat, perhaps inadvertently, a standard "love the one you're with instead of the one you're like" argument used by blenders.
This same argument could be restated thus: We should favor those who are genetically unlike us if they happen to live near us in this geographic area of the planet that has been called America and we should not so favor those who are genetically like us if they don't live on this particular piece of dirt.
It almost sounds as though Sailer is advocating for a version of the Stockholm Syndrome.
That Mr. Sailer apparently doesn't understand, or does, but chooses to ignore, the importance and primacy of genes, genotypes and phenotypes (genes, for short) in both the small and the big picture of existence and in the meaning of life, seems clear from his column.
To fully understand why Sailer's argument that we should value citizenship over genes is an error of the first magnitude, one must start with the sure scientific knowledge that we are our genes and without our genes, we are not ourselves. While that may sound a little silly, it is the truth.
Genes are essential. Change them, or water them down, and we are not Us. Thus, if we like who we are, it is important for Us to protect, to preserve, to improve and to multiply our genes. This is done by mixing and mating with others who are Us and by not mixing and mating with those who are not-Us.
While having a bias in favor of our fellow American citizens made sense for Whites when America was mostly a genetically homogeneous White nation, it doesn't make much sense today when America is not what it was. In fact, having such a bias is unnatural. It is also harmful for the improvement of Whites in particular and for the improvement of the species as a whole.
This is so, because such a bias, and the blindness to genetic similarities and dissimilarities that it encourages, leads logically to bedroom genocide and the resultant clustering of genetic traits in the middle of the Bell Curveâ€â€where dwells the one size fits all humanâ€â€the Tan Everyman.
If you're unclear what Sailer is suggesting, note that he lumps all non-Americans into the term "foreigners." Thus, according to Sailer, White Americans should help non-White Americans over their fellow Whites who happen to have been born in different countries.
This is old and tired thinking of the type we saw during the two world wars, where low consciousness White Americans went to war against White Europeans who were demonized as the others, when that's not what they were at all. The truth of existence is that White Americans are much closer to White Europeans, who may not even speak the same language and who live far away, than we are to non-White Americans who do speak our language and who may live next door.
To be clear. There is no genetic American. Once, American and White were nearly synonymous. No more.
As Sailer goes merrily on his misguided jingoistic way, he continues, throughout his column, to emphasize the wrongheaded view that artificial citizenship should trump natural genes.
It can't be emphasized enough that this advocacy of the artificial non-genetic identity "American," rather than the authentic genetic identity that we are born with, is a basic error in thinking.
Such thinking can, and has, led to a soft form of genocide, not just of Whites, but of non-Whites as well. Go ask some present day blue eyed "Indians," whose Indian ancestors wanted to be "just Americans," and practice what Sailer calls "citizenism," about this.
Chances are you'll find these present day watered down Indians now scrambling to proveâ€â€either out of a new found pride in genes, or because they want to open casinosâ€â€that they have some smidgen of Indian blood left in their veins.
The truth of the matter is that without a critical mass of Indian blood, one is not really an Indian at all. Same thing with all the other races.
Or, better yet, go visit the Black Jamaicans with German surnames and have them show you pictures of their White German great grandparents. Then, try to keep a straight face as you tell Whites with consciousness that finding identity as a citizen of an artificial nation; as a Jamaican or as an American, for example, is better than finding it in genes.
Sailer also writes: "A huge number of Americans grasp that we are lucky to be American citizens and they want to pass on their good fortune to their posterity ."
Ah, Mr. Sailer, "posterity" refers to children and offspring. If Whites are replaced by non-Whites so that America is all non-White, should Whites feel joy that they have passed on something to those who are not really of their posterity? Why? Where's the value in that? Shall we feel pride, as we lie in our graves, that those who inherit what we have created are not our people and that they do not have Usâ€â€our genesâ€â€within them? That makes about as much sense as it would to feel pride if sentient ants suddenly called themselves Americans, waved tiny American flags, and took over.
Sailer then tells us: "But the odds seem a whole lot better that "citizenism" will prove more effective at defending America from harm than... White Nationalism ...."
What makes Sailer think the goal of those with White consciousness (aka, at least for this column, "White Nationalists") is to defend the artificial and blended nation, America? His premise is wrong. My guess is that the goal, and the proper one at that, of many with White consciousness is to defend White people whether they happen to be in America or not.
It's important in life to be able to distinguish between the artificial and the genuine and to not foolishly defend the artificial at the cost of the genuine.
The United States of America has been around for a couple of hundred years. Our genetic lines have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. Which is real? Which is us? Which is our most essential identity? If America is gone, but our genes survive, do we survive? Yes. If our genes are gone, but America survives, do we survive? No.
Our real identity is found in our genes, not in a written constitution or in the ideas and notions of fallible men.
A nation, including America, is a little like a river. Both the nation and the river have names that remain constant but with contents that can change markedly.
Even though the names may remain the same; who among us would drink the polluted water and, while gagging, try to convince others that it's still sweet because it once was so and because the name is the same? Those who would do this, might be the reality deniers among us who will knowingly avoid the many no-go, non-White areas of our large citiesâ€â€made no-go by non-White genesâ€â€and pretend such areas don't exist or that they don't have a genetic causeâ€â€all the while they wave the American flag as though this is 1900's White America.
The water is not sweet and this is not 1900's White America.
America is now post-American America. The water has changed. White Americans are less and less the major part of our nation river. They are disappearing all the while they smile as they're being sold down the river with a big lie that our strength comes from our diversity. Their salvation, though most may not know it, is to reject the conceits and lies of this Dark Age and find their identity in their genes, and to treat those genes as sacred.
Blind patriotism and loyalty toward a nation made artificial through a disconnect from genes is a major error in the struggle to survive. And, one does not survive unless one's genes survive so that one's descendents are of the same genotype and phenotype.
To think otherwise would be to be like ants feeling blind patriotism and loyalty to an anthill, simply because it's called an anthill, even though it is now full of grasshoppers who are killing off the ants.
http://www.anu.org/viewnationallistnews.asp?ID={165DF23C-B3B E-4A44-B276-570080F6FE0D}Edited by: Don Wassall
Stockholm Syndrome as the Way?
By H. Millard (c) 2005
In "Citizenism" vs. White Nationalism, a column appearing this past week on the V-Dare.com and the American Renaissance websites, columnist Steve Sailer writes, "By 'citizenism,' I mean that I believe Americans should be biased in favor of the welfare of our current fellow citizens over that of the six billion foreigners."
Thus does Sailer repeat, perhaps inadvertently, a standard "love the one you're with instead of the one you're like" argument used by blenders.
This same argument could be restated thus: We should favor those who are genetically unlike us if they happen to live near us in this geographic area of the planet that has been called America and we should not so favor those who are genetically like us if they don't live on this particular piece of dirt.
It almost sounds as though Sailer is advocating for a version of the Stockholm Syndrome.
That Mr. Sailer apparently doesn't understand, or does, but chooses to ignore, the importance and primacy of genes, genotypes and phenotypes (genes, for short) in both the small and the big picture of existence and in the meaning of life, seems clear from his column.
To fully understand why Sailer's argument that we should value citizenship over genes is an error of the first magnitude, one must start with the sure scientific knowledge that we are our genes and without our genes, we are not ourselves. While that may sound a little silly, it is the truth.
Genes are essential. Change them, or water them down, and we are not Us. Thus, if we like who we are, it is important for Us to protect, to preserve, to improve and to multiply our genes. This is done by mixing and mating with others who are Us and by not mixing and mating with those who are not-Us.
While having a bias in favor of our fellow American citizens made sense for Whites when America was mostly a genetically homogeneous White nation, it doesn't make much sense today when America is not what it was. In fact, having such a bias is unnatural. It is also harmful for the improvement of Whites in particular and for the improvement of the species as a whole.
This is so, because such a bias, and the blindness to genetic similarities and dissimilarities that it encourages, leads logically to bedroom genocide and the resultant clustering of genetic traits in the middle of the Bell Curveâ€â€where dwells the one size fits all humanâ€â€the Tan Everyman.
If you're unclear what Sailer is suggesting, note that he lumps all non-Americans into the term "foreigners." Thus, according to Sailer, White Americans should help non-White Americans over their fellow Whites who happen to have been born in different countries.
This is old and tired thinking of the type we saw during the two world wars, where low consciousness White Americans went to war against White Europeans who were demonized as the others, when that's not what they were at all. The truth of existence is that White Americans are much closer to White Europeans, who may not even speak the same language and who live far away, than we are to non-White Americans who do speak our language and who may live next door.
To be clear. There is no genetic American. Once, American and White were nearly synonymous. No more.
As Sailer goes merrily on his misguided jingoistic way, he continues, throughout his column, to emphasize the wrongheaded view that artificial citizenship should trump natural genes.
It can't be emphasized enough that this advocacy of the artificial non-genetic identity "American," rather than the authentic genetic identity that we are born with, is a basic error in thinking.
Such thinking can, and has, led to a soft form of genocide, not just of Whites, but of non-Whites as well. Go ask some present day blue eyed "Indians," whose Indian ancestors wanted to be "just Americans," and practice what Sailer calls "citizenism," about this.
Chances are you'll find these present day watered down Indians now scrambling to proveâ€â€either out of a new found pride in genes, or because they want to open casinosâ€â€that they have some smidgen of Indian blood left in their veins.
The truth of the matter is that without a critical mass of Indian blood, one is not really an Indian at all. Same thing with all the other races.
Or, better yet, go visit the Black Jamaicans with German surnames and have them show you pictures of their White German great grandparents. Then, try to keep a straight face as you tell Whites with consciousness that finding identity as a citizen of an artificial nation; as a Jamaican or as an American, for example, is better than finding it in genes.
Sailer also writes: "A huge number of Americans grasp that we are lucky to be American citizens and they want to pass on their good fortune to their posterity ."
Ah, Mr. Sailer, "posterity" refers to children and offspring. If Whites are replaced by non-Whites so that America is all non-White, should Whites feel joy that they have passed on something to those who are not really of their posterity? Why? Where's the value in that? Shall we feel pride, as we lie in our graves, that those who inherit what we have created are not our people and that they do not have Usâ€â€our genesâ€â€within them? That makes about as much sense as it would to feel pride if sentient ants suddenly called themselves Americans, waved tiny American flags, and took over.
Sailer then tells us: "But the odds seem a whole lot better that "citizenism" will prove more effective at defending America from harm than... White Nationalism ...."
What makes Sailer think the goal of those with White consciousness (aka, at least for this column, "White Nationalists") is to defend the artificial and blended nation, America? His premise is wrong. My guess is that the goal, and the proper one at that, of many with White consciousness is to defend White people whether they happen to be in America or not.
It's important in life to be able to distinguish between the artificial and the genuine and to not foolishly defend the artificial at the cost of the genuine.
The United States of America has been around for a couple of hundred years. Our genetic lines have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. Which is real? Which is us? Which is our most essential identity? If America is gone, but our genes survive, do we survive? Yes. If our genes are gone, but America survives, do we survive? No.
Our real identity is found in our genes, not in a written constitution or in the ideas and notions of fallible men.
A nation, including America, is a little like a river. Both the nation and the river have names that remain constant but with contents that can change markedly.
Even though the names may remain the same; who among us would drink the polluted water and, while gagging, try to convince others that it's still sweet because it once was so and because the name is the same? Those who would do this, might be the reality deniers among us who will knowingly avoid the many no-go, non-White areas of our large citiesâ€â€made no-go by non-White genesâ€â€and pretend such areas don't exist or that they don't have a genetic causeâ€â€all the while they wave the American flag as though this is 1900's White America.
The water is not sweet and this is not 1900's White America.
America is now post-American America. The water has changed. White Americans are less and less the major part of our nation river. They are disappearing all the while they smile as they're being sold down the river with a big lie that our strength comes from our diversity. Their salvation, though most may not know it, is to reject the conceits and lies of this Dark Age and find their identity in their genes, and to treat those genes as sacred.
Blind patriotism and loyalty toward a nation made artificial through a disconnect from genes is a major error in the struggle to survive. And, one does not survive unless one's genes survive so that one's descendents are of the same genotype and phenotype.
To think otherwise would be to be like ants feeling blind patriotism and loyalty to an anthill, simply because it's called an anthill, even though it is now full of grasshoppers who are killing off the ants.
http://www.anu.org/viewnationallistnews.asp?ID={165DF23C-B3B E-4A44-B276-570080F6FE0D}Edited by: Don Wassall
Don Wassall said:
My sentiments exactly. That's why I get annoyed by these patriotic, gung ho, Toby Keith conservatives. So incredibly misguided. America is my home and I don't want to live anywhere else (maybe someday that'll change, who knows,) and there are things that I love about it. But this is not the America it used to be. The Toby Keith's should feel a sense of pride and loyalty in their people, not this deeply sinking chunk of land, this modern day Atlantis....
Here's the Sailer article currently running on the immigration control site V-DARE which mentions Caste Football:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/051016_football.htm
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/051016_football.htm
Interesting quote from an article on jonentine.com that was linked from Sailer's article:
http://www.jonentine.com/reviews/AAAS_peeringUnderTheHood.ht m
"Next month's Olympic games in Athens should demonstrate yet again that West African runners are built for speed and Kenyans built to endure."
Demonstrate... you mean, by losing the men's 400, 800, marathon, and women's 100 (among others I'm sure)...?
http://www.jonentine.com/reviews/AAAS_peeringUnderTheHood.ht m
"Next month's Olympic games in Athens should demonstrate yet again that West African runners are built for speed and Kenyans built to endure."
Demonstrate... you mean, by losing the men's 400, 800, marathon, and women's 100 (among others I'm sure)...?
And from the Sailer article:
Quick, somebody tell that to all those super-fat black linemen!
Thanks for throwing us a bone. I'll assume that he means 5-10% of the 128 starting CB's and 1st and 2nd RB's that he mentioned, not just third stringers and practice squad guys. That would be 6-13 white players who actually get to play at those positions. Not big numbers, but it'd be so much better than what we have now. Imagine 3-6 Luke Staley's and 3-6 Dustin Fox's, getting significant playing time. Not bad. I don't think that's too much to ask for.
But, of course, it should also mean an even higher percentage of white WR's, safeties, LB's, and defensive linemen.If there are 3-6 white 1st and 2nd RB's, there should be at least 2-3 times as many 1st and 2nd white WR's. After all, white athletes have already proven that they can play that position.
Add to that our "over-representation" in the American population, the success of white football player's at the high school level, and the success of the few white players that get significant playing time in DI and the NFL, and I think our point here is being made.
Edited by: JD074
Quick, somebody tell that to all those super-fat black linemen!
Thanks for throwing us a bone. I'll assume that he means 5-10% of the 128 starting CB's and 1st and 2nd RB's that he mentioned, not just third stringers and practice squad guys. That would be 6-13 white players who actually get to play at those positions. Not big numbers, but it'd be so much better than what we have now. Imagine 3-6 Luke Staley's and 3-6 Dustin Fox's, getting significant playing time. Not bad. I don't think that's too much to ask for.
But, of course, it should also mean an even higher percentage of white WR's, safeties, LB's, and defensive linemen.If there are 3-6 white 1st and 2nd RB's, there should be at least 2-3 times as many 1st and 2nd white WR's. After all, white athletes have already proven that they can play that position.
Add to that our "over-representation" in the American population, the success of white football player's at the high school level, and the success of the few white players that get significant playing time in DI and the NFL, and I think our point here is being made.
Edited by: JD074
I think that I can explain the association that Cash and Sailor make about more white back-ups equate to wins. Most fans underestimate the influence that quality special teams have on the outcome of games. Good special teams plays determine field position for the offense, change momentum of the game, and provide quick scores for a team. Most of the special teams are made up of back-up players. Guys like Steve Tasker, Tim Dwight, and others have made a great impact on the game by being great special teamers.
Now this is where the difference between white and black is apparent. White players will accept their role as a back-up/special teams player and try to be the best that they can be at that position. Black players will look at special teams as a demotion and not give a 100% effort. Hence, teams with a large percentage of white players as back-ups typically have very good special teams, which translates to more wins for the team.
Now this is where the difference between white and black is apparent. White players will accept their role as a back-up/special teams player and try to be the best that they can be at that position. Black players will look at special teams as a demotion and not give a 100% effort. Hence, teams with a large percentage of white players as back-ups typically have very good special teams, which translates to more wins for the team.
White_Savage
Mentor
Yes, I just have to take an at-bat at a couple of things in this essay.
"At peak condition, young black men tend to have lower body fat percentages than young white men. And, in most sports, the muscle to fat ratio is a key measure."
Is it? You mean you're not hitting us with "fast twitch muscle fibers" and "fast twitch brain cells" anymore?
But if we take Sailer at his word, the average trained black will have 12% bodyfat, while the average trained White will have 15%. This statistic, btw, according to Sailer himself, comes from the ultra-relible source of a personal trainer who tells blacks and whites to shoot for these two goals respectively. Not exactly a long-term scientific study.
But anyway, let's take these figures at face value. 12% vrs. 15% means that at 200 lbs, your black "afflete" woul carry 24 lbs of body fat, while your white player would carry 30. This is not hard math. Anyone here honestly think +- six pounds is making all that much difference in athletic performance?
"But blacks have other, subtler traitsâ€â€such as more tapered legs, with thinner calf muscles, which makes running easier because less weight needs to be moved with each stride.
Similarly, in the animal kingdom, creatures built for speed, such as horses and deer, have extremely tapered legs with the big muscles that move the legs kept up high in the main part of the body. In contrast, elephants have untapered legs, which is one reason they much don't like running."
But which animal would win at tug-of-war or a fight, Mr. Sailer?
Probably NOT your "manly and charismatic" gazelles or whatever.
Finally, just to make sure I get in this here, "Love is Colorblind?", the essay of his he sites under bodyfat percentages, is bullsh*t. In this, he claims that White women are found with ******* men and White men with Asian women because Africoid males have more "masculine" low bodyfat while Asian females have more sexually attractive and feminimen "Higher body fat percentages.". What rot. I can guarantee you 90% of White males find White women more sexually attractive, on average, than Asians. The REASON White men are marrying Asians and Latinas is because they are giving up on White women, whom feminism has systematically brainwashed into shrewishness, while the system has simultaneosly portrayed Whites as impotent and unmanly, often brainwashing them into acting so, while shamelessly glorifying the *******, thus making them more attractive to women.
"At peak condition, young black men tend to have lower body fat percentages than young white men. And, in most sports, the muscle to fat ratio is a key measure."
Is it? You mean you're not hitting us with "fast twitch muscle fibers" and "fast twitch brain cells" anymore?
But if we take Sailer at his word, the average trained black will have 12% bodyfat, while the average trained White will have 15%. This statistic, btw, according to Sailer himself, comes from the ultra-relible source of a personal trainer who tells blacks and whites to shoot for these two goals respectively. Not exactly a long-term scientific study.
But anyway, let's take these figures at face value. 12% vrs. 15% means that at 200 lbs, your black "afflete" woul carry 24 lbs of body fat, while your white player would carry 30. This is not hard math. Anyone here honestly think +- six pounds is making all that much difference in athletic performance?
"But blacks have other, subtler traitsâ€â€such as more tapered legs, with thinner calf muscles, which makes running easier because less weight needs to be moved with each stride.
Similarly, in the animal kingdom, creatures built for speed, such as horses and deer, have extremely tapered legs with the big muscles that move the legs kept up high in the main part of the body. In contrast, elephants have untapered legs, which is one reason they much don't like running."
But which animal would win at tug-of-war or a fight, Mr. Sailer?
Finally, just to make sure I get in this here, "Love is Colorblind?", the essay of his he sites under bodyfat percentages, is bullsh*t. In this, he claims that White women are found with ******* men and White men with Asian women because Africoid males have more "masculine" low bodyfat while Asian females have more sexually attractive and feminimen "Higher body fat percentages.". What rot. I can guarantee you 90% of White males find White women more sexually attractive, on average, than Asians. The REASON White men are marrying Asians and Latinas is because they are giving up on White women, whom feminism has systematically brainwashed into shrewishness, while the system has simultaneosly portrayed Whites as impotent and unmanly, often brainwashing them into acting so, while shamelessly glorifying the *******, thus making them more attractive to women.
White Shogun
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 6,285
Since we're talking stereotypes, here are a few of my thoughts on the topic:
Whats interesting is that you don't see a whole lot of Asian women with black men. If this stereotype is true, that white women are more attracted to black men because they are more masculine, wouldn't women of ALL races and cultures seek such men?
In addition, I think many men are turned off by the rising tide of fatness cascading down the thus-unrecognizable female form that was at one time the body of a fine white woman. Asians tend to be slimmer and more petite, enhancing their stereotype of femininity, latinas less so, but latinas are still more willing to exploit their curves and sensuality than are white women.
And yes, I do think that +/- six pounds will make a difference in the performance of a world class athlete.
Whats interesting is that you don't see a whole lot of Asian women with black men. If this stereotype is true, that white women are more attracted to black men because they are more masculine, wouldn't women of ALL races and cultures seek such men?
In addition, I think many men are turned off by the rising tide of fatness cascading down the thus-unrecognizable female form that was at one time the body of a fine white woman. Asians tend to be slimmer and more petite, enhancing their stereotype of femininity, latinas less so, but latinas are still more willing to exploit their curves and sensuality than are white women.
And yes, I do think that +/- six pounds will make a difference in the performance of a world class athlete.
Southern Knight
Guru
White Savage writes: "The REASON White men are marrying Asians and Latinas is because they
are giving up on White women, whom feminism has systematically
brainwashed into shrewishness, while the system has simultaneosly
portrayed Whites as impotent and unmanly, often brainwashing them into
acting so, while shamelessly glorifying the *******, thus making them
more attractive to women."
Amen, brother. It all starts with media control. Once you
can control the thoughts and opinions, everything else takes care of
itself. We are now into our second generation of White persons
who have literally NEVER been presented with a positive image of their
own race -- not through the media, schooling, or any other social
institution.
are giving up on White women, whom feminism has systematically
brainwashed into shrewishness, while the system has simultaneosly
portrayed Whites as impotent and unmanly, often brainwashing them into
acting so, while shamelessly glorifying the *******, thus making them
more attractive to women."
Amen, brother. It all starts with media control. Once you
can control the thoughts and opinions, everything else takes care of
itself. We are now into our second generation of White persons
who have literally NEVER been presented with a positive image of their
own race -- not through the media, schooling, or any other social
institution.
White_Savage
Mentor
White Shogun said:And yes, I do think that +/- six pounds will make a difference in the performance of a world class athlete.
Oh come on!
I mean,(Once again, taking these figures at face value) probably it would be a handicap among world class sprinters or something. But in things like football, baseball, where so many other factors come into play? Hard for me to believe, I mean, I can still run and do jujitsu rolling techniques when I'm wearing 50 lbs of steel..maybe not nearly as long, but still
Taking these figures at face value is another problem. I mean, Whites dominate wrestling, where everyone but the HWs has to religously cut weight to get into the most advantageous class.
Savage, there are some sports where low body fat and strength to weight ratios play a big part towards success. You mentioned wrestling and sprinting, but also swimming, gymnastics, high jumping, volleyball, and pole vaulting. All of those sports are dominated by low bodyfat, cut, white males.
I doubt any of these guys have body fat % as high as 12%:
Aleksandr Popov "The Russian Rocket"
Matt Biondi
Paul Hamm
I doubt any of these guys have body fat % as high as 12%:
Aleksandr Popov "The Russian Rocket"
Matt Biondi
Paul Hamm
White_Savage
Mentor
White Shogun said:Since we're talking stereotypes, here are a few of my thoughts on the topic:
Whats interesting is that you don't see a whole lot of Asian women with black men. If this stereotype is true, that white women are more attracted to black men because they are more masculine, wouldn't women of ALL races and cultures seek such men?
Shogun: It could be argued that Asian culture remains stronger and has not been as degraded by the NWO, and that Asians are marrying more intelligently. I mean, they may be marrying outside of their race, but they're still marrying nice guys who are good providers, etc. Perfect example: My Jujitsu instructor is married to a Chinese lady. He's a great guy, and really, I can't fault, his choice of mate on the grounds of her personal qualities, though obviously the issue of loyalty to one's gene pool remains.
Also, you must realize historically how Asians have felt about blacks. When a White calls blacks "animals", he's speaking figuratively. The Chinese OTOH, traditionally believed it in the LITERAL sense. In Imperial China, all imported black slaves had to be castrasted, by law, believe it or not.