a non-blonde world « The Lumber Room

a non-blonde world

December 15, 2007 by elberry

i can’t help but feel it’d be a shame for the white race to die out. Image from Met Art, an exellent site.

Posted in raging phallus power, women | 21 Comments

21 Responses to “a non-blonde world”

on December 16, 2007 at 11:53 am1 anaj

Your latest supposedly tongue-in-cheek flirt with white race supremacy is becoming pretty disgusting. Read up a little on the term “Swart gevaar” to see in whose ideological companionship you are navigating.

Whilst previously you were wrong with your guesses at what Anaj might not approve, you are definitely right this time.

/Signoff
on December 16, 2007 at 12:36 pm2 doggone

I think Elberry’s occasional remarks on white people (and especially on white women) are refreshing. Seriously speaking, I think there needs to be nothing supremacist or racist whatsoever in expressing regret that in the very near future Caucasian women such as the one pictured here, will be gone, along with the rest of the whites/Caucasians. Simply because terms such as “white race” is used by neo-Nazis and other idiots, doesn’t really make the terms themselves unusable in any other context. However, while it is all well and good to condemn Elberry or anyone expressing similar sentiments, few are the voices in blogosphere who would condemn as strongly and quickly statements which, to put it mildly, basically say “it is good that white people go extinct”.
on December 16, 2007 at 1:19 pm3 anaj

Race is a construct. Biologically, race is nothing but a phenotype, a matter of outer appearance. If that weren’t the case, there could be no so-called mixed-race origin, whether where speaking of dogs or of people. Biologically, race is a coincidence, or an accident, if you like, caused by geographic separation (which is overcome by a global economy) or - if we talk about dogs - achieved through breeding (we know all too well that this term was also once applied to people).

The mere notion of race and therefore the notion that white people could become extinct (or: should be be saved form extinction) is an invention of groups who would like to secure their share of privileges which coincidentally gravitates around their colour of skin, hair etc, i.e. around biological coincidence.

You are trying to make it sounds as though there was such as thing as a free-floating term, or word, that could easily be put into a new context. “The nazis used the term, but that doesn’t mean Elberry and I can redefine it.”

You’re wrong. Our argument here is not just about the plain usage of a term. It is about the claim of superiority than is attached to it. You may try and pretend that you are able to use it like a innocent term, as though it were nothing but a series of letters or sounds.

Just go on exchanging your refreshing ideas, it won’t be too long until you find people patting your back who are quite happy to resuscitate ideologies past.

And Elberry is going to be one of the first to be slain by those people, precisely because he looks not like one of the blond elves he thinks are too precious to be extinct.
on December 16, 2007 at 1:31 pm4 anaj

The whole argument of extinction is wrong. A species like the Dodo may become extinct, a race? Hardly.

In terms of the logic of the argument, it is also wrong to show the picture of an individual and make it appear as though extinction is imminent with the death of this individual or, worse, with the offspring of this individual not bearing the same characteristics of hair and skin.

That’s like saying something is regrettably lost in Heide Klum’s children with Seal, as though these children would not have both their parents’ genes.
on December 16, 2007 at 1:50 pm5 gladys

[sigh]

It sure would be nice to exchange “refreshing ideas” here without your moral high ground-ism, anaj. But being the kind of person who has a pathological need to have a last word, you surely surface again soon.
on December 16, 2007 at 2:02 pm6 danilou

“And Elberry is going to be one of the first to be slain by those people, precisely because he looks not like one of the blond elves he thinks are too precious to be extinct.”

These kind of idiotic statements are recycled only by the typical ultra-leftists and multicultists. By the way, Indians are Indo-Europeans par excellence.
on December 16, 2007 at 2:09 pm7 anaj

There is hardly anything refreshing about fantasizing about sanctuaries for blonds, darling, it’s rather backwards and went by the name Lebensborn in NS-Germany.

For the moment, I cannot help but be devastated by the sudden flirtation with racist (i.e. based on race as a construct) ideologies that is peek-a-booing on this blog and I feel that a more reasonable voice is needed in this dialog.

I’ll soon enough give up to make my appearance, in particular because the main aim of this seems to be to cause exactly counter reactions like mine.
on December 16, 2007 at 2:16 pm8 doggone

There she comes again, yippee! Voice of reason my ass. Why don’t you just admit that you complain here so much because you are not a blond yourself, anaj.
on December 16, 2007 at 2:27 pm9 anaj

The actual reason for meycomplaining so much is that Elberry likes dedicating his posts to me, as you might have noticed from the tag “Anaj would not approve”, so I feel obliged to respond occasionally.

Ask Elberry what his obsession with me is and why he is craving for my attention so desperately - I doubt that being a non-blond is the main reason.
on December 16, 2007 at 3:07 pm10 sexual healer

Hmm, maybe you and Elberry should meet offline, then? You would propably hit it off despite this online arguing…
on December 16, 2007 at 3:13 pm11 anti-dhimmi

anaj:

There should be Guantanamo in every country.
on December 16, 2007 at 3:18 pm12 Jonathan

Well, I thought it was nice of Elberry to post a picture of this lady. Though i would have chosen a a differently pretty blond probably (taste being a multicoloured bird).

If racial diversity and etc is such a good thing why not then delight in whiteness as one of those races? Why cannot all colours be delighted in etc…including mxitures.

Ok, yeah because ‘race does’ not exist..but i mean at the surface level..in appearance, which is what Elberry was alluding to by this image. Wasn’t he?

But given that Elberry is not white himself i had supposed anyway that his earlier defense of Englishness, from which i guess this posting had morphed, had more to do with what is meant by English culture, which of course is not race specific.

I think it is a clear case of projection and a false imputation of implication to conclude that this post reveals white supremacist attitudes. He just likes white women..whats wrong with that?

The same spirit of accusation floods people all too often when they fly the St.georges cross etc as well.

Or are we not even to have freedom in our preferances and tastes?
on December 16, 2007 at 5:36 pm13 lenina

@ doggone, gladys, danilou: underhand personal attacks are inappropriate and have nothing to do with the argument in question => your views don’t count.

@ anaj: there is currently quite an anti-PC attitude felt in the UK. People feel that we live in a ‘nanny state’ and that they’re no longer ‘allowed to speak their mind’. That explains the reactions your very reasonable comments are getting.

@ all: the reason why it’s wrong is that it speaks of the ‘white race’ as if it was real, when in fact it’s just discursive - but by writing it the way he did, elberry helps reiterating an imaginary ‘white race’. Seeing that language doesn’t only consist of what is there but also what *isn’t*, I don’t think it’s right to just ‘brush off’ any connotations this has.

Another example may help illustrate the poit: I have a couple of disabled friends, and my BF (who thinks the whole ‘PC thing’ is an unecessary wanky leftie ‘nanny state’ thing), when talking about the girlfriend of one of them, asked him: “What is WRONG with her?”

Some of you would argue that it was only a fair question, but I thought this question should not have been asked like that, seeing that it implies that ’something is not right’ when someone is disabled, simultaneously implying a hierarchy where able-bodied people have everything ‘right’ with them.

The reason why it does apply to any public utterances is that everyone helps create and iterate meanings and opinions, and discourse. Therefore, when Jonathan says:

“Or are we not even to have freedom in our preferances [sic] and tastes?”

I would say: you should have this freedom, but at the same time people have a responsibility whenever speaking *publicly*, not to iterate any statements that have, culturally and in regard to language, racist connotations.

It really isn’t a big thing. It’s just common sense. However, in the UK, currently everyone is post-PC (apart from people familiar with Foucault and post-structuralism, who have the brain to actually understand what’s going on here)
on December 16, 2007 at 5:57 pm14 Susan B.

Anaj is right. At the most basic level, there is no such thing as “different races.” We are all from the same species, with adaptations in our skin, hair, and eye shape/color to help us deal with different environments: Snow and ice; sun-burnt plains; etc.

If global warming heats up the planet, blondes will disappear in favor of darker people. If another Ice Age comes, we’ll have more northern phenotypes.

Perhaps a sun will explode in the next galaxy, blinding us all, then we will have to find another way to judge, oppress, and worship each other.

Anaj, I’m glad you’re here. The day moral voices like yours die out is the day we are finished as a species. Racism is easy; that’s why it’s so pervasive.
on December 16, 2007 at 6:43 pm15 anaj

@Lenina: If only the notion of ‘the discursive’ was a bit more wide-spread - it suddenly seems to get lost in the post-PC days. The whole discussion reminds of that one chap in Cologne (I told you about the argument and we often had a laugh about it) who insisted that one, for a change, ought to look at the issue of Bild (a German tabloid) “without discursiveness”.

@Susan B.: Thanks for stepping in in the threads on this blog - although I fear it’s love labour lost. One easily tends to thing that there must a spirit of reason somewhere in Elberry, but his blog personality is not to come to grips with. He enjoys dissent too much to take sides, even when he could take sides with reason or the responsibility that Lenina mentioned. Do you have a blog? If you don’t want to leave it’s address her, you can drop me a message on my blog and leave your email address (won’t be published).
on December 17, 2007 at 7:13 am16 Roger Price

Don’t you realize that mr. Elberry simply laughs at you most of the time? This blog is a entertaining exercise in manipulation and deceptive communication. Exaggeration, equivocation, half-truths, misdirection, pretense and irony fuel these on-going processes. Works quite nicely for the rubes, it seems, as Elberry seems quite capable to intentionally cause more outrage, misunderstanding, and plain confusion.
on December 17, 2007 at 7:50 am17 native

Britiain’s Chief Rabbi, Sir Jonathan Sacks, has this to say:

“Britain is losing its identity because of over-zealous political correctness and a failure to deal with immigration…I think we are seeing a new intolerance,” he said. “There is an extravagant over-zealousness in trying not to offend anyone and little do these people realise that other faiths would like Britain to be a Christian country.”

Sir Jonathan added: “A tolerant society is one that ignores difference and a multicultural one is one that highlights them. It is confidence in your own heritage that allows you to be generous to those of another heritage.”
on December 17, 2007 at 8:25 am18 Jonathan

Lenina: Attacks of a personal nature may be unkind and cruel, suggestive of a personality similarly constituted, but are they ‘inappropriate’? Surely it is only Elberry, since it is his site, who can decide if these kind of comments are permissible on his site. I am presuming that since they remain he has already decided. But yes I agree that insults are devoid of content.

Whether or not the ‘white race’ is essentially real in an under-the-skin kind of a way (I know not enough to say), doesnt, as far as I can see, change the fact that white people exist on the surface. And it was a surface depiction of this women that we saw in this post. Clearly skin colour depends on what skin colours combine through procreation. If fewer and fewer white skins combine with other white skins then there will be fewer white skinned people. And that will sadden Elberry since he likes white women (as do I..I also like black women, and brown ones too). I dont see how he is making any other point than this. He is not saying, as far as I know, that whites shouldn’t mate with non-whites (or whatever the PC term is), but that if whites only mate with non-whites, that whitenesss as such would disappear. I also think it would be sad, though I don’t think it would be so terrible. Far worse in my opinion would be if our Christian cultural values (which are intrinsically race independent) die out entirely.

I agree with you regarding the responsibilities writers should feel regarding context and the interpretative potentiality of ones utterances. But this has a limit. Readers and viewers also have a responsibility not to project made up meanings behind the words or images of those who use them. I accept this is a two-way duty and that misunderstanding can easily arise because our languages are intrinsically opaque, due to the unavoidability of either intended and/or falsely imagined implication, as well as the fact that people don’t always care about being clear or unambiguous, especially when the forum in question is not - unequivocably ‘public’ in any case. As far as I know Elberry does not see his blog as what we customarily understand as a public, far less an academic, platform. So why shouldnt he ‘be himself’ (even if that is a ‘persona’ without having to worry about how people whom he may not even have been aware of addressing might misinterpret him.

Yeah i see what you mean about the insensitivity of ‘what’s wrong with her’. On the other hand facts are that disabled people do have ’something’ wrong with them. Otherwise they wouldnt be dis-abled. The problem lies with a lack of sensitivity and basic nastiness not the content of what was said. I am supposing the person didn’t understand the disability? We must distinguish substance from image here.

Maybe ‘racism’ needs to be defined. I dont think everyone sings from the same hymn sheet in this regard, as so often in intellectual life, miasmic as it is.

Why presume that not only a Knowledge of but a commitment to Foucault and post-structuralism is a necessary prerequisite for the possession of intelligence? I’m not sure why you seem to be saying this.

Happy Christmas to all, and a Merry New Year. No doubt those adjectives should be the other way round.
on May 4, 2008 at 5:45 pm19 parallelsidewalk

I’ve actually never been that attracted to white women in general or blonds in particular. Most women I dated when I was younger were Latina and I’m now engaged to a Chinese woman. That being said, I don’t get the impression that Elberry is any kind of hardcore racist. Anaj is correct that there really is no “white race” outside of a social construct, and I have to personally say that I don’t care even a little bit if we’re “bred out”. Regardless, while I may be wrong, in context of other things he’s said/written, I don’t get the impression that elberry has a 14-words “lets’ preserve the white race from mongrelization” type outlook. I think he just likes the idea of blue eyed blonds and redheads not losing those genetic traits in a sea of dominant genes, much the way several people in my field of study (linguistics) don’t want to see dying languages dissappear in our globalizing age. I disagree with El pretty often, but I don’t see the pseudo-Nazism. Am I not looking hard enough?
on May 4, 2008 at 6:07 pm20 elberry

i suspect for Anaj as an Austrian and very angry Feminist, any sign of being Politically Uncorrect is…the very worst of sins. It’s a Stasi thing, you probably have to be Austrian/East German to understand the need to condemn people. 50 years ago she’d be one of the Stasi’s best informants, i’m sure, or most prolific, anyway…the KGB and Stasi would not have found ‘Political Correctness’ at all strange, indeed they would have relished it.

Being attracted to white women, i would indeed feel it as a sad day when everyone is an undifferentiated brownish hue, all eyes are dark, all hair is dark - and i’m told such a day will come.

However, i could as easily have said ‘i’d hate to see an end to spicy Latina babes’, or Chinese girls. i like variety. i like to walk in a wood and see different trees and different flowers.

This, apparently, is ‘disgusting’, according to Frau Stasi. i’m just lucky she can’t have me taken away for ‘political re-education’, e.g. being electrocuted and beaten and forced to write out my ‘confession’.
on June 7, 2008 at 8:38 am21 meander

I am particularly fond of pugs and Australian shepards and Tibetan mastiffs. It is true that these are all equally dogs, not separate species, capable of interbreeding. A world full of only Boston terriers and Dalmatians and German shepards would be an equally doggy world.

Are the distinctions between breeds of dogs only a construct? Certainly they are only a description of characteristics, of phenotypes.

But I’d still miss the pugs.