Transcript of Reason Radio Interview with Me on October 13, 2010

Since the sound quality was so poor, I decided to make a transcript of this interview available for you all. Enjoy it. Robert Stark: We’re going to be discussing California issues, how the states have changed, and how it affects trends facing the rest of the nation, but first of all, I came across this article on Robert’s site called Some Sensible Positions for Liberal Race Realists and White Advocates. Your first point is to amend the Constitution to get rid of the anchor baby thing. Very sensible position that most Americans would support. Robert Lindsay: I don’t know if they could get it through Congress and pass it as a Constitutional amendment, but all White advocates should be supporting this move. It is a very reasonable position to take. My position is that White advocates should not be taking crazy positions – almost all of them are taking these crazy, loony positions like “freedom of association” that are simply never going to fly. This move to amend the Constitution to get rid of the anchor baby thing is a reasonable position. Your average reasonable person, especially White person, says, “Sure, why not? Good idea.” The Left is trying to portray this as racism, but hey, let them scream! Because your average normal American, at least White people, and even some Black people, looks at this and says, “What? They’re calling these people racists? Because they want to amend the Constitution to get rid of these stupid anchor babies? That’s not racist, that’s just rational.” Robert Stark: I think that even liberal European countries don’t give out citizenship to anchor babies. Robert Lindsay: Some countries may allow it, but I think most of Europe has gotten rid of it. Ireland recently had birthright citizenship, but they just got rid of it. We’re one of the last countries around to have this. Robert Stark: Ireland has only been getting a lot of immigration recently because of their economy. Robert Lindsay: There has been a recent trend for at least White countries to get rid of birthright citizenship. As far as the rest of the world goes, I don’t know, but I would be surprised if there is much birthright citizenship. Most countries don’t agree with the concept. Why should you get birthright citizenship? If you’re born in some foreign country, you get citizenship of whatever country your parents are citizens of. Robert Stark: Yes, it should be based on the parents. Robert Lindsay: You’re still a citizen of some country! You have a right to be a citizen of some country in the world. If a female American citizen and I go over to…Peru and have a child there, why is that kid a Peruvian citizen? That kid is an American citizen. It’s born of American citizens. Despite the fact that we are living in Peru now, we are still just American citizens living in a foreign country. Robert Stark: What are your thoughts on dual citizenship? Robert Lindsay: I understand that there is a lot more dual citizenship going around than people think. I mean, the anti-Semites go on and on about US Jews being “dual citizens” of the US and Israel. But my understanding is that there’s a lot of dual citizenship going on here in the US and in other countries as well. Immigrants from many different countries the world over who are here in the US actually have dual citizenship – US citizenship and citizenship in their home country. So apparently it’s not just a thing with Jewish Americans having Israeli citizenship – they are not the only ones. Robert Stark: I think the Israeli issue is not so much the dual citizenship – a lot of immigrants have that – the main thing is that many people in positions of power in the government and politics are more likely to have dual Israeli-US citizenship. Robert Lindsay: The real concern is that, say, your average person who has Irish and US dual citizenship is not some sort of virtual agent working for the Irish government. Your average person with Israeli and US dual citizenship is practically an Israeli agent! And that’s the whole problem right there. That’s the whole problem with dual loyalty and the Jews. Robert Stark: Yes, the dual loyalty is a problem. And due to multiculturalism, it’s tolerated, when we really should not be tolerating dual loyalties. Robert Lindsay: Dual loyalty is a problem with Jews due to the nature of Judaism and the Jews. Most other ethnic groups are not so ethnocentric as the Jews so we don’t worry about dual loyalty much with them. But due to the nature of Judaism, Jews are loyal to the Jews first and their native land second if at all. That’s why this dual loyalty thing keeps cropping up with the Jews – it’s inherent in the Jews themselves. It’s not an anti-Semitic canard. Robert Stark: Yes, it’s just how they are. Robert Lindsay: With the Jews, dual loyalty isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. Robert Stark: Your next recommendation is to avoid overthrowing civil rights laws. Can you go into detail about what some of these civil rights laws are? Robert Lindsay: The White advocates want to get rid of all civil rights laws! Every White advocate I have heard of wants to get rid of every single civil rights law that we have on the books in this country. They hate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They hate the Housing Rights Act, they hate the Voting Rights Act. They want to get rid of all of them and all anti-discrimination laws too. It’s true that Rand Paul is running for Senate now, and he agrees with that position, but nevertheless, that is a very fringe position to take. The day to get rid of civil rights laws has come and gone! The civil rights laws are here to stay! Robert Stark: So you think that would be a very difficult idea to sell to your average person. Robert Lindsay: Worse than that. It’s not going to happen! Those days are gone. That was maybe doable in say, 1980 or so… Robert Stark: I think the real big issue is immigration…You’re critical of people who want to get rid of non-White immigration. Instead, you are calling for IQ tests. Robert Lindsay: Yes, this would actually be a very interesting thing for White advocates to support. They were actually suggesting this in Germany. I don’t have any problem with that at all, but I don’t want it for spouses of citizens. If you marry someone from another country, they don’t need to take the test. But it’s a good idea, especially with these problematic immigrants. Some of these immigrants are a real problem. Robert Stark: What groups do you see as most problematic? Robert Lindsay: The Hispanic immigrants are a problem. Especially the ones from Mesoamerica. The ones from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras…And to some extent, those from the Dominican Republic. Robert Stark: Is it because they are coming here illegally? Or is it legal immigrants as well who are a problem? Robert Lindsay: I don’t think that all of the problem Hispanic immigrants are illegals. I would think that with Hispanics, the problem is IQ-related. If you said we are only taking Hispanics with an IQ of 98, which is the US average, therefore, all Hispanic immigrants, no matter how many you allow, are not going to cause an IQ decline in the country. I would imagine if you set it at 98 – your average Hispanic and their offspring who are causing problems – their IQ is below 98. The ones who are not causing problems, who are assimilating well, who act like you and me, their IQ’s are 98 and above. It’s a pretty good cutoff. It’s the dumber ones that are causing all the problems. Robert Stark: How would this plan deal with the numbers of immigrants coming into the US? Do you think there should be a cap per country? Because right now, we take in I think almost 2 million people a year legally. Robert Lindsay: Is it really 2 million? Robert Stark: I think it’s maybe 1.5 million, but anyway, it’s pretty high. Robert Lindsay: Sure, White advocates should advocate for a cap. 200,000, or 400,000…some kind of a reasonable cap. Robert Stark: Isn’t this what Pat Buchanan has been advocating? Robert Lindsay: I think that is a salable position. A lot of Americans might go along with that. And it really puts the pro-immigration, multicultural, PC crazies on the spot, because it forces them to say, “Terrible! They want to limit immigration to 400,000 a year! How awful! We need 2 million billion zillion a year instead!” Robert Stark: As opposed to advocating for zero immigration, they won’t be able to play the card saying you are racist. Robert Lindsay: Sure. You sound like some kind of a nativist nut if you say, “Yeah! We want zero immigration!” And it’s never going to happen anyway – zero immigration is not doable. Instead, you say, “Hey, we just want limits.” Then people have to stop and think, “Wow! 400,000? That’s a lot? How many do we actually let in every year, anyway? 2 million billion trillion zillion? Wow! Well, that’s way too many.” And it puts those idiots on the spot. They have to defend those insane high numbers as the only way to go, and they will have to say that those limiting immigration to say 400,000 a year are part of some evil racist plot, and that’s not going to work. Robert Stark: And focus on the overpopulation issue as well. That’s important to bring up. Robert Lindsay: Yes, I also wanted to say that in 1991, there was an amendment to the Civil Rights Act that dealt with something called “disparate impact.” And this, in contrast with the rest of the civil rights laws that need to stay, has got to go. Thing is, most people don’t even know what disparate impact is. No one’s heard of it, no one understands it. But for instance the Ricci case, the firefighters case in New Jersey, was a case of disparate impact. Disparate impact says that if you give tests to a bunch of applicants, and the Whites pass the test, but the Blacks flunk at a higher rate, then there must be something wrong with the test. And you have to go back and redo the test or dumb down the test. It says that every time you have a racially disparate impact in any outcome, it’s always due to racism or bias in the testing, and that’s not necessarily true. Maybe the Blacks just could not pass the test. Most people would be in favor of getting rid of disparate impact. And you would really put the PC idiots and the Black groups, etc. on the defensive because they would have to defend disparate impact and these crazy cases like the New Jersey firefighters, and most White people, and even a lot of Blacks, thought that case was an outrage. The goal is to push the PC-multicultural people into a corner and force them to defend things that sound really bad, and make us sound like the reasonable people. You see? Robert Stark: The next one is getting rid of US colonies. I don’t think we need to go into too much detail here. It’s pretty simple, but in a nutshell, the US colonies are places like Puerto Rico and American Samoa. And they are big sources of immigrants. And because they can’t really be screened like foreign immigrants, they can simply come in in large numbers. Robert Lindsay: Yes. They are unscreened immigrants, and they cause tons of problems. Our legal immigrants don’t really cause a lot of problems, to be honest, because we screen them really well. But the Puerto Ricans and the American Samoans can come here just like that. For them to come to the US is like you or me moving to Nevada. It’s like moving to another state. And it’s because they are unscreened that these groups cause so many problems. And there’s no reason to have colonies anyway! Robert Stark: It’s ridiculous. We should let them secede. It doesn’t make sense. Robert Lindsay: Why do we have colonies anyway? What are we, an imperialist country? Ok, we’re an imperialist country. Let’s have a conversation about this. Do Americans want to be an imperialist country? Let’s put these imperialists on the spot. Let’s force them to defend US colonialism! Robert Stark: I think that Puerto Rico is a product of the Spanish American War. And I think the same with Samoa. So in a sense it is imperialism. Robert Lindsay: I don’t know how we got Samoa. There’s also Micronesia, but Micronesia is not so much of a problem. But Micronesia is a colony too. We should not have any colonies. No country should have any colonies. And this is a Left position. Only the Left is totally principled on this position and says no nation should have any colonies. So by doing this, White advocates would be lining up with the hard Left, but that’s OK! Because the Hard Left takes a very principled anti-imperialist stand on this. Let’s force these elites to defend US imperialism! I want to see these guys on TV defending our imperialism and colonialism. You see, the Puerto Ricans and the Samoans and the rest don’t want to go – they don’t want independence. Robert Stark: They want it both ways. They don’t really view themselves as Americans, but they still want the benefits of being American at the same time. That’s the problem. Robert Lindsay: They like it the way it is. And if they become states, it is not going to be so good of a deal economically for them. But the way it is now, as colonies, it’s basically just a total scam for the colonies. But if they go on their own and become independent, they will probably just become ordinary 3rd World countries, and they will have a lot of problems as far as that goes. Why are we coddling these people? Robert Stark: Another issue that is very important is schools. You are talking about these White advocates who are so fixated on Brown vs. the Board of Education, that it’s basically a done deal, and they are wasting their time. Robert Lindsay: Brown vs. BOE is a done deal, right? Are they going to get rid of it? Even this crazy rightwing Supreme Court, are they actually going to get rid of Brown? It ain’t going to happen! Robert Stark: So your main focus is on busing and that kids should just have to go to their local schools. Robert Lindsay: Well, we shouldn’t say it’s evil or anything like that. “Oh! They’re busing Blacks into White schools! That’s terrible!” The main thing is that busing is just stupid. I mean, why are they doing it? Robert Stark: And it ruins good schools. Like the schools I went to in LA public schools – they used to be decent schools, but they got completely ruined. And both the middle school and high school I went to were in fairly wealthy parts of LA. But they’ve both basically turned into ghetto schools through the use of busing. Robert Lindsay: Well, sure, but I don’t want to say that because that sounds racist. Instead, I would just say that it’s a complete waste of money. And I would say that there is nothing wrong with a White school. They act like a White school is some sort of pathological thing. “Oh! Look at that school! It’s too White! Oh, we can’t have that! We need to make it half Black!” There is nothing wrong with a White school. It’s perfectly acceptable for a White school to be a White school and a Black school to be a Black school. Robert Stark: The multicultural and diversity types, they use diversity as a code word for non-White. For instance, true diversity would be a school where each ethnic group would be say 2 Robert Lindsay: It’s ridiculous! The diversity thing has become like a fetish. I’m an integrationist, but we don’t need diversity everywhere. If some town is naturally a White town just because a bunch of White people went and moved there and few non-White people decided to move there, well, that’s OK! We don’t have to go fix it up by say, importing 20,000 Black people. If some town is naturally Black, well, that’s OK! Maybe a bunch of Blacks wanted to move there, and maybe non-Blacks did not want to move there. There is nothing wrong with naturally segregated places, as long as it’s voluntary and we still have laws in place to ensure that anyone can go live anywhere they want to. And when you say that Blacks can’t learn in a Black school, and the only way that Black people can learn is if they’re around a bunch of White people, that’s very insulting to Black people. It really insults them. It says they’re inferior, and it’s a real burn on Black people. And I don’t know why Black people want to believe this insult about them. What’s wrong with a Black school? Robert Stark: You’re right, that’s what busing implies – that Blacks are inferior, and they need to be around White people in order to learn. And affirmative action implies the same thing. Most of your proposals are pretty reasonable, but saying we support affirmative action? California, which is a liberal state, actually voted to end affirmative action. I don’t see how saying we support affirmative action would appeal to most of the public if the majority of people are opposed to it. Robert Lindsay: Well, you could always say you support affirmative action but only if the non-Whites are just as qualified as the Whites. But the point is that that pretty much rules out most affirmative action right there! This was how affirmative action was supposed to be, but it’s never been that way. Robert Stark: But that still is reverse discrimination against Whites – if they are equally qualified, choosing the non-White. I think the best strategy would be to have economics based on economics or geography. It would benefit a lot of middle class Whites in middle America. If you look at the Ivy League universities, they are really dominated by the ultra-wealthy and then a few slots left over for affirmative action. And this is your last point – say we have no problems with well-behaved Blacks who wish to fully integrate into White communities. Robert Lindsay: Right, that’s a good idea, because almost all of these White advocate types are segregationists, and they push things like freedom of association. That’s what this Rand Paul is pushing. It’s not going to happen. You’re not going to get freedom of association back in where White communities can have housing covenants that say we don’t want any Black people, or we only want White people. Ain’t gonna happen. Ain’t gonna happen! Instead, we should say that if there are Black people out there who wish to move to our communities and are willing to assimilate to the values of our White communities and White culture – welcome to our city! Robert Stark: Then you say that this will force the PC crowd into the dubious role of defending Black culture. Robert Lindsay: Yes, because then they will say, “Oh! They only like White culture! Racists!” To that, we should respond, “We like White culture. We’re White, we like our culture. There’s good and bad about it, but we prefer our culture. And personally, we feel that a lot of Black people would be better off adopting White culture or assimilating to White culture than in getting into their own Black culture.” And then the PC crowd will scream, “They’re saying White culture is better than Black culture!” But your average person, especially your average White person, hears that and thinks, “Hm. You know what? White culture is better than Black culture!” Robert Stark: The one point that we left out is to support the immigration of White Hispanics into the US. So, how is that really practical? You’re saying our immigration policy would have to explicitly address race, and do you think that would be practical? Robert Lindsay: Well, White advocates are already saying that they only want White immigration coming into this country. Robert Stark: What are the White advocates’ position on White Hispanics? Robert Lindsay: They never discuss it. The only thing they say is that we will only accept immigration from Europe. And that’s never going to happen. We may as well branch out and say, “Well, we’d like the White Hispanics to come here.” Because then it would be a lot harder for the PC Left to accuse the White advocates of racism. “They hate Hispanics! They hate Hispanics!” And people would look at that and say, “Are you sure they’re racists? They don’t seem to mind the White Hispanics.” And then the PC Left will retort, “Sure! They like the White Hispanics, but they don’t like the non-White Hispanics!” Robert Stark: They would still be able to play the race card, but it would cause division among Hispanics. It’s interesting, because on our last show, we were covering the Rick Sanchez incident. Rick Sanchez is basically White, but because his family is from Latin America, he takes this view that he’s somehow a minority, and it’s sort of our own fault, because in Latin America, the Whites down there in many cases are fairly racist against the non-Whites down there. But we classify everyone from the region as effectively non-White, i.e., Hispanic. It’s ridiculous. Robert Lindsay: The White advocates in the US are almost all Nordicists. They don’t like the White Hispanics very much. They tend to label them as non-Whites. And the only Whites who they think are really White are from Northern Europe. Robert Stark: Well, the first immigration act in the 1920’s was a Nordicist thing because it favored northwestern Europeans. Robert Lindsay: It was, true. White racism in the US has always been Nordicist, but your average White person in this country is no longer a Nordicist. Robert Stark: I think this Nordicism thing has pretty much died out… Robert Lindsay: No, no, no… Robert Stark: Because if you look at these pro-White forums, there are Italians, Greeks, or Eastern European descent, but you are personally into that Pan-Aryanism philosophy. Robert Lindsay: It’s a good thing, Pan-Aryanism, because once you get into Pan-Aryanism, it gets harder and harder to call White advocates racists. Because the PC Left says, “Oh! They’re racist!” Sneer sneer. Then people say, “Hey, wait a minute. They like Moroccans, right?” Then the Left says, “Well, yeah, but they’re still racists!” Then people say, “Wait a minute. They like Syrians. They like Iraqis and Lebanese…” The Left says, “Doesn’t matter! They’re racists!” Sneer. Then people say, “Hey wait. But they like Turks. They like Armenians, Chechens, Iranians…” Robert Stark: David Duke is into that Pan-Aryanism stuff, because he visited Syria and Iran, and he pointed out that he saw people who were so called Aryans when he was there. Robert Lindsay: Well, we shouldn’t be saying that. We should instead be saying something like, “All Iranians are White.” We shouldn’t say, “Well, there’s a few of them who are real Aryans, but most aren’t.” Grumble grumble. Robert Stark: All of them? Do you consider Ahmadinejad White? Robert Lindsay: Yes! Absolutely. If you look at Iranians on a gene map, they’re right next to Norwegians, Danes and English. They’re White people! And if you look at them, they look White. The people I talk to are California racial liberals, but they almost all say, “Iranians? They’re White! They look like White people.” And if you talk to Iranians, they all claim White too. So this whole idea that Iranians are non-Whites is just kind of a fringe concept. It ain’t gonna fly. Robert Stark: People assume that all Middle Easterners look alike, but there are some big distinctions. Someone from Saudi Arabia is completely distinct from someone from Lebanon. Robert Lindsay: Well, yes, but I think Saudis are mostly White. Yet some of them, like Prince Bandar, he’s a pretty Black looking guy. Some of those Gulf types, they have so much Black in them that you can’t really call them White anymore. One thing I wanted to go back and talk about on my list here. We need to get serious about throwing seriously disruptive students out of school. Everybody wants to know, “What do we do about the schools?” For the whole White advocate crowd, and many ordinary Whites, the overarching racial question often is, “What about the schools?” The White advocates look at the mess in mixed schools and scream, “Re-segregate the schools! Black schools for Blacks! White schools for Whites! Get rid of Brown versus BOE!” Well, you know what? That ain’t gonna fly. Robert Stark: I agree. The way you deal with these kinds of racial issues is you go around the race aspect by just dealing with people based on their behavior. And the anti-racist types, they’re still going to call you racist because they make excuses for bad behavior. But screw them. All we need to do is to say that students who are continuously disruptive should be send them to separate schools. And if they get their behavior under control, then they can go back to the regular schools. But it’s unfair for students who want to learn to have to put up with that crap. Robert Lindsay: They’re destroying the schools. I hate to say it, but it’s especially true with the Blacks. There seems to be a tipping point of around 1 But once again, the PC crowd will be backed into a corner, and they will be forced to defend these students who act absolutely horrible, and just flat out destroy schools. They destroy Black schools, they destroy mixed schools, they destroy all kinds of schools. And in response to their charges of racism, we will say, “Well, it’s not just for Blacks. We will throw the bad Whites out. We’ll throw anybody out.” Robert Stark: Yes, anyone. You can’t call it racist, because it’s a colorblind solution. Robert Lindsay: And once again, we will force these PC characters to defend the worst acting, most horrible students in the whole country, total brats, that are destroying schools for everybody else. And that’s a terrible thing to defend. I want to see them defend that behavior. See, that’s a reasonable thing that’s actually doable. Getting rid of Brown versus BOE, getting rid of integration – those are not reasonable goals. Robert Stark: Yes, these people, they’re just living in a fantasy. Like on immigration, they want to shut it all down, but in reality, we will be very lucky if we can even stop amnesty. Robert Lindsay: Agreed. We probably can’t even stop amnesty. We can’t even throw these illegals out of here. Robert Stark: Yes, we can’t even throw out the illegals. Robert Lindsay: First things first. Robert Stark: Practical solutions that are doable… Robert Lindsay: I don’t think we can deal with legal immigration at all right now. First things first. First of all, we need to deal with illegal immigration, and we can’t even deal with that! These PC crazies want to legalize all the illegals, for Chrissake. Let’s deal with that first. Politics is the art of the possible. And these people, these White advocates, especially these White nationalists, they are advocating positions that are totally unreasonable. They are completely non-doable, fringe, ultra-radical positions. I doubt if these folks have the support of 5-1 Robert Stark: Well, if you look at the new A3P Party, most of their platform is pretty reasonable stuff that sounds similar to the stuff that you’re advocating here. Robert Lindsay: It’s a good idea! It’s a good idea to come across like a moderate. One of the goals of politics is to come across as reasonable and to force your opponent to take crazy positions and defend those crazy positions. Fine. Put crazy words in their mouth, and then make them defend them. Robert Stark: These issues all tie together, but originally I intended to discuss California, and we still have a decent amount of time. To start off, we are both from California, and we are both originally from the LA area, and both of us have moved up to Central California. And Robert, can you tell us, what are the changes that you have seen throughout your life and that have happened to our state and what are some of the biggest and most negative changes that you have seen? Robert Lindsay: Well, I’m not going to call for a return to White California. That’s an era that is done and gone. And I did not mind growing up in a multicultural California. When I was growing up in the 1970’s, California was about 70-8 I don’t have to live with all White people. We can have some non-Whites around. We grew up with the Mexicans. The Mexicans are a part of this state. They’ve been here from the very start. This state used to be a part of Mexico. The Mexicans – they’re part of the neighborhood! Robert Stark: But the problem is the sheer numbers. Because the PC, Open Borders types try to say, “Oh, you hate Mexicans. You’re scared of Mexicans.” But most White Californians are pretty used to being around Mexicans. They’re part of the landscape. It’s not really an issue that they are here. Instead, it’s an issue of numbers. Robert Lindsay: Yes, right. The Mexicans in this state assimilated really well back in the 1970’s. And now, there are a zillion of them, they’re not assimilating, and they’re causing tons of problems. And they were not causing tons of problems back in the 1970’s. Robert Stark: You wrote that Mexican-Americans are assimilating into low class White culture. Robert Lindsay: The assimilated Hispanics, the ones that are second and especially third generation, a lot of them are assimilating to a sort of a White trash culture. Like the lowest of the Whites, the worst of our people. Robert Stark: I saw that a lot at the Wallmarts in Fresno. Not so much in LA. Robert Lindsay: Yes, it’s not a good thing that a lot of them are assimilating to. One thing that I have noticed is that the Hispanics who have a deeper connection to Mexico – first generation immigrants and some of their children – now I don’t really like the illegals all that much, but we have a lot of them around here. But actually the ones that have a really deep and intense connection to Mexico, who are still into the Mexican culture, a lot of them tend to act pretty good. They have a tight-nit family structure. Robert Stark: Yes, I noticed that when I was in a public high school in LA, the recent immigrants minded their own business, but there were others who emulated the whole gangta rap culture. They wore baggy jeans and listened to rap. Robert Lindsay: Those are not the recent immigrants! Robert Stark: Yes, the gangbanger types are children of illegals or in some cases, even grandchildren of illegals. Robert Lindsay: Yes, they are the children of the illegals. And now we are getting into multigenerational gangbangers. But around here, the ones that are still deeply connected to Mexico, they generally act pretty good. They act like Mexicans, people from Mexico itself. They act like peasants. If you go down to Mexico – I used to go down there 25-40 years ago – your average Mexican generally acts pretty good. They are conservative, traditional people, they have a very tight-knit family structure, and they keep a close watch on the girls. And for instance, the traditional Mexican girls, they don’t try to sleep with every guy in town. It’s dishonorable to be a slut or to be a prostitute and sell your body. But I see these Mexican Americans who are assimilated, 3rd generation, and they start selling their bodies on the street and shooting heroin and just sleazing out to the max. And the ones around here that are deeply connected to Mexico, a good, proper Mexican girl, she won’t do that! To them, the worst thing on Earth is to be a whore. And, you know what? I’ve got to respect that. There is something valuable about that. The family is often very protective of the girls. They have good, strong role models. The male has a strong role model. The female has a strong role model. The Mexican women are very feminine, they’re very nice to men, they’re very friendly. I don’t really have anything against the peasant culture of Old Mexico. There’s a lot to be said for peasant cultures. In many ways, they are good, traditional. Robert Stark: You also said that you have seen the cultural decline of the White middle class. You wrote an article about that. Can you explain some of the things you have observed about the White middle class over time? They also seem to be assimilating into lower class culture and they seem to be getting less intellectual. Robert Lindsay: Part of what is going on is the wiggerization of White people. Things are just getting a lot trashier. Back in 1970’s, White culture, if you had tattoos, you were considered to be a sleaze. Especially a woman, if a woman had tattoos…we knew women who had tattoos, and people hated them and treated them like they were whores. The only people who had tattoos were people like bikers or maybe Marines. For a White middle class person, that would be considered a totally sleazy thing to do, to get a tattoo on your body. White people were supposed to be like these White bread, upper middle class, well-mannered types. Now, just about every White woman you see is decorated like a cannibal! They have all these piercings all over their bodies. I don’t want to put them down too much, but it seems sleazy to people from my generation. It seems as if there has been a trashification of our people. Robert Stark: That sort of thing used to be seen only in lower class Whites, but now it’s seen in middle class people too. It’s due to the TV. People don’t value intellect so much anymore. Robert Lindsay: Maybe, but White culture has always been anti-intellectual. You can go read Richard Hofstadter’s Anti-Intellectualism in American Life where all the way back in the 1950’s, he was talking about this sort of thing. I think that what’s going on is that White middle class people, especially young people, have decided it’s cool to look and act like a low class person. Robert Stark: We have been talking a lot about race and demographics, but I would like to talk about the issue of the environment in this state and the over development and urban sprawl that the state has been seeing, and how both liberals and conservatives deal with this issue. It’s fascinating because liberals are promoting all this immigration, and business interests go along with them, but the conservatives – they’re apologists for this urban sprawl and this horrible overdevelopment. Tom McClintock, who is this anti-immigration politician in the state…I knew this woman who was running for state assembly, and she was complaining about all of these tract homes going up in Ventura County, and his attitude was that they could do whatever they wanted to with their land. But I see that mentality as the same mentality as the people who are for Open Borders or defend job outsourcing. It’s really just as bad. Robert Lindsay: Well, you see, he’s just a typical Republican. I don’t get the Republicans or the capitalists’ point of view. For instance, on housing, their POV is that…we have to keep on building houses? What? Forever? How long are we going to be building these units called “housing starts?” That can’t go on forever. We have to keep building new houses, new houses. And in order to keep building new homes, you need an increasing population. This is the whole growth-based economic mentality. And I don’t think it’s sustainable – endless growth forever. You can’t. Robert Stark: So the immigration issue, it’s basically the same mentality. If you look at the places where the elites live like Marin Country or Malibu or Carmel, they’ve done a great job of conservation and low, sustainable growth with lots of open space there. They want to keep their own places beautiful. But if you look at the big money interests, they profit off an increasing population because that means more consumers. Some of these people are Democrats, some of them are Republicans, but it doesn’t matter. Instead, it’s just all about growth is good for making a profit. Robert Lindsay: Endless growth. But isn’t that kind of crazy? Isn’t there ever going to get to be a point where people have enough money, and we don’t need to keep on growing forever? Apparently, you can’t have this endless growth without having endlessly increasing population. And more and more houses. And more and more cities. And more and more roads. And more and more everything. Robert Stark: These neoliberal types, they say we need to keep bringing in more and more immigration as a way to grow our economy. It’s insane because it’s not sustainable, and you can’t have an economy that is based on that model. Robert Lindsay: What’s going to happen? At some point, the whole world is going to look like New York City. What are we going to do? Are we going to start building cities on top of cities? Are we going to start building cities underground, or on top of the ocean, or under the ocean, or up in the sky? And this endless growth thing, it can’t possibly be an environmental position. If you’re an environmentalist, you can’t take this endless growth position. Why do we always need new houses in the US? I don’t understand why. Obviously because our population is growing, right? Are we going to start building second homes? Why does everyone need a second home? Do people need third houses? Do they need fourth houses? Robert Stark: Or the size of the homes. They want these gigantic homes on one acre lots, and it’s wasteful of space. It’s not at all resourceful. And these same types – they claim to be fiscal conservatives and fiscally responsible. But this endless growth is not fiscally responsible because it’s very wasteful of natural resources. Robert Lindsay: Those huge lots are not so great. It would almost be better to pack people into cities and then have big open spaces. But people like those big lots. I was living on a one acre lot up in the Sierra foothills. It’s not bad, there are still a lot of wild animals out there with 1-5 acre lots in the country, with those rural ranchettes. Robert Stark: It’s fine if people have big lots up in rural areas or in nature, but the main problem is suburbia, which is a disaster. Robert Lindsay: There are no living things anymore in suburbia. The only animals are the humans and their pets. There are a few animals that are adapting to suburbia – the raccoons, the skunks and the opossums. In some of the suburbs now, you have some coyotes. Robert Stark: Thank you for being on, Robert. Robert Lindsay: Sure.

Please follow and like us:

0 thoughts on “Transcript of Reason Radio Interview with Me on October 13, 2010”

  1. Robert please stop using skype, my guess is you used skype at this interview. I havent been able to listen to any of your skype interviews because of the horrible sound quality.

      1. Skype has had this awful sound quality for every interview you did on skype and I havent listened to any of your skype interviews.

      2. I’ve heard of quality issues with Skype as well. Leo Leport, of the “Computer Guy” radio show uses it, and even he has noted this.
        Then again, your recorded broadcasts thus far have been totally intelligible. At least for me.

      3. yeah i downloaded the mp3 was painful to listen but i made it through. i bet it’s a problem with skype, the cutouts had this timing to them which sounds digital, like dropped packets.

  2. Robert
    As I said previously.
    Base everything on IQ otherwise you don’t believe in IQ tests.
    You say IQ tests are cure for intelligence..right ?
    Well, ok. Use them.
    Name me one industry which uses IQ tests ? Why isn’t IQ used in the real world ? If this is a cure for intelligence. Why have job interviews ? CV’s ? Why have elections ? Why not just give it to the political leader with the highest IQ ? Pilots ? Highest IQ. Who gets IVF ? Highest IQ. Bank Loans ? Highest IQ. Even in the hard scientific of world maths and stats and other sciences, who gets the job, funding or projects, even that world isn’t based on IQ.
    Until IQ fanatics practice what they preach and use them widely and base results of an IQ test on the things that actually matter in life (Jobs, Education, Health, Wealth) then I know that IQ tests are just another tool that white people will use to makes up their own evidence to try to support the superiority of whites. They need to prove it, because they fear our actual superiority and first race position.

    1. Actually, pilots ARE selected by IQ tests, it’s the first sift on entry that most air-forces around the world use.
      IQ tests were and are used for selection into the most demanding jobs, and their utility is proven, apparently study after study tells us that IQ tests are the only predictive tool for job performance that actually works (interviews are apparently worthless).
      Their use in the USA for job selection was effectively outlawed by the Griggs vs. Duke Power case, back in the 70s, because of the ‘disparate impact’ that so exercises Bob.
      But, elsewhere in the world they are used extensively.
      Anyway, what are SAT, LSAT, MSAt, GMAT etc etc tests but glorified IQ tests?

    2. IQ isn’t used by businesses probably because it is illegal to do so. or it opens them up to lawsuits based on racial discrimination. duh.

  3. Dirty Bull
    You not listening to what I am saying. You are saying that IQ test are a cure for intelligence. Well, then I’m running your argument to it’s logical conclusion.
    Base everything on IQ.
    Say if I created a cure for cancer. What would people say ? Every would be happy and think I was genius, then what would be people think if I told everyone, then this cure wouldn’t be used widespread. Do you think people would believe that I have created a cancer ?

    1. I’m sorry, but despite having studied English comprehension at school to a reasonable level, I have difficulty in understanding the point you’re trying to make.

    2. ABM, considering your poor intellect and your tendency to plagiarize, I’m willing to wager that your IQ is rather low.

  4. Ahmadinejads white! Your just taking the piss aren’t you?
    Granted that some Iranians are white.
    Saudis are mostly white?
    What the fuck planet are you living on?
    I guess Egyptians are mostly white to?
    Robert why didn’t you mention the fact that the difference between the Mexicans in the US of the 70’s and today is back then the US hadn’t implemented there genocidal policy towards Mexico with CIA connected Mexican drug lords who most certainly have connections to Mexican gangs in the US.

    1. They consider “White” in the sense of being anthropologically “Caucasian.” Skin color is just a reaction to the environment, over time.
      Just look at a lot of folks from India.

  5. Actually the White man developed English Language and skills to trick the africanblackmilitants of the world.

  6. @robert lindsay- its interesting that you are a pan-aryanist. So you are OK with millions of Muslims in Europe slowly islamifying it just because they’re “aryan”? So what is your position on Geert Wilders? Is he a bad guy because of this? because theres definitely some problems with Islamic culture. You know whats funny is that Indians, and Arabs and other Central Asians dont like to be white. Its an insult these days. Theres a campaign to change the Caucasian category so it no longer includes these people. Ahmed Ahmed the Arab comedian is part of this. sorry but I think “pan-aryanism” is just kinda weird, mainly because theres such a culture gap between Euros and Arabs. see the backlash against letting Turkey in the EU.

    1. Before 9/11 European states even right wing politicians like Joerg Haider campaigned Turkey’s integration into Europe.
      If they have a problem with Muslim extremism it is because they formented it to use it proxy wars in foreign lands especially Germany and Britain with there domestic Turkish and Pakistani population which they still use abroad like Turks from Germany with BND help starting the riots in Xinjing, China in 2009 and trying to destabilise Uzbekistan with the Islamic Jihad Union.

      1. Yah, it is all a big conspiracy by the Muslims to foment “it” in your lands.
        They are just like the “reds” where, man. They could be ANYONE! Even your neighbor!

    2. AJ, pretty sure “Muslims” aren’t a race there, big guy.
      Robert was speaking about certain Middle Eastern nations, and their racial make-up. Not religion.
      As far as Indians, Central Asians and Arabs not wanting to be white…LOL!!!
      My advice to you is, actually go out an meet a few. You know, in the REAL world. You might be surprised at how they ACTUALLY think.

  7. Lindsay
    I am somewhat sensitive to your talk about IQ perhaps because I am on the autism spectrum and have been unfairly associated with these people. Even though my Verbal IQ is in the superior range (124) and my logic and reasoning score in the 93 percentile, I can still identify with the intellectually disabled and foreigners with low IQ’s, though I have not had much experience with them so maybe I am a bit naive. But I don’t like to see people being judged for something they can’t help such as their IQ, their height, or their family history. While it is true that high IQ people can contribute to a more intellectual, and innovative society, they are also better at creating scams and more successful at running the black market and manipulating authorities than those with low IQs. I would like to see you do a post on this sometime.
    I am not advocating that we let in a huge influx of low IQ third immigrants from the third world, just that we don’t assume that possessing a high IQ makes one a good citizen.
    I’d take a supermarket bagger with Down Syndrome over another Bernie Madoff any day.

    1. Damn…Wish I knew you in High School. I would have dated you just for your math skills. I could have used that junior year.

  8. Dear Robert
    Suppose that someone proposed that only Caucasians could vote and hold elected office and that he would define a Caucasian as anyone who has at least 3 grandparents who are of European, North African or West Asian origin, with North Africa consisting of the five Mediterranean countries and West Asia consisting of all the land in Asia between the Mediterranean and Pakistan, would that person be a racist or not? I would say that he would be very much a racist because he reduces a part of the population to second-class citizenship because of race.
    You are a racist if you advocate fewer rights for people of some races, whether the disfavored races are 90, 75, 50 or 35% of mankind is irrelevant. Granted, a pan-Aryan is better than a Nordicist, but he is still a racist. Pan-Aryanism excludes all of sub-Saharan Africa, nearly all of Asia and a significant chunk of Latin Americans.
    If immigration is drastically reduced, then all worries about non-whites become irrelevant because most Americans will then remain white, and the same is true of every European country.
    Regards. James

  9. @cyrus I never claimed Muslims are a race. I was just questioning the wisdom of “pan-aryanism” considering the fact that muslims who are caucasian still pose many problems in Europe, like gang rape, terrorism, and non-assimiliation. race is important, but so is culture. oh, and if they want to be white why did Indians campaign (successfully) to be considered an Asian minority and not Caucasian as far back as the Reagan administration? because of this they qualify for special minority privileges like being favored by the gov.

      1. Bullshit. Stop acting like you know your ass for a whole in the ground, “john.” You sound like a poster child for the British National Party half the time.
        The only Muslims who see themselves as a race, are the “true believers.” Exactly like Evangelical Christians here in the U.S. Same damn thing.
        Just like Evangelical Christians, they prey on the poor and downtrodden for support and numbers. Modern religion is an ideological industry. It is big business, and it is beyond mental illness what they do. It is outright evil.
        Maybe that is why so many die-hard “Muslims” here in the U.S vote Republican. Even after 9/11 and nearly a decade of having their civil rights trampled in the dirt.
        They know fellow ideological travelers when they see them.

        1. @Cyrus
          Boo Hoo! Poor Muslims
          Yes I know about Muslims especially the ones in the Mid East and there BS Wahabism.
          Their exploits are well document.

          Evangelical Christians are not funding orphanages and schools for Muslim kids brainwashing them to become fighters and Muslims are the only groups that is currently fighting various different religions Hindu, Jew, Buddhist, Catholic and Orthodox Christianity as well as other Muslims.
          Look around the world most of the conflicts involve Islam.
          Anyway Evangelical Christianity is a fraud and not Christian which phoney teachings are only recognised by idiotic Americans created by the Jewish White Supremacists to support the state of Israel.
          And they are not recruiting the down trodden in fact most jihadist terrorist come from Middle class families from universities like the 9/11 hijackers.
          Christians do not use churches as a recruitment ground to jihadist terrorism or part of a worldwide jihadist movement supported by international Muslim organisations.
          It is the Muslim immigrants in Europe that are causing all the problems just look at France.
          Modern religion is an ideological industry.
          And Islam is Murder Inc.
          ISLAM + UNCLE SAM = NWO

    1. AJ, you clearly haven’t interacted with “Middle Eastern” folks in the U.S.
      Ever wonder why the E.E.O.C defines them as “White,” and they do not get any of the benefits of affirmative action and minority status? It is because they consider themselves as “White.”
      Thus, no bullshit Uncle Sugar handouts for them, just on the basis of race or ethnicity.
      Hell, even the “model minority” Asians get that!
      As for Europe, which “Muslims” are you talking about? The North Africans in France? Sure, they are a bunch of losers, no doubt. You know what caused it? French guilt. Just like White guilt here in the United States. Same dynamic. The Pakis in the U.K also suck, I might add. They as you know, happen to be from a Muslim society as well.
      Of course, then you have the Turks in Germany. I don’t give a damn what some closet Nazi Deutschlander says. The Turks are model working class immigrants, and they are needed.
      I served in the U.S Army in Germany. I have also spent a great deal of time in Germany with relatives there. Iranian Turks, ironically. Wealthy ones who own a transportation corporation that employs a LOT of Germans.
      I can tell you this for a fact. Modern Germans are useless, spoiled, lazy brats who have no experience with manual labor of any sorts. East Germans included. Without the Turks, nothing in that society involving getting ones hand’s dirty would ever get done, and that is a fact.
      The Turks are the Mexicans of Central Europe.
      Of course, this should cheer you up. The Turks are starting to leave. Thanks to capitalism and neo-liberalism, Germany is increasingly more like a third world economy. There is more opportunity for the Turks back in Turkey, which thankfully never joined into the E.U. The stupid Europeans, just like us Yanks, outsourced all of their industrial capacity overseas, and Turkey, just like China and Mexico, was on the receiving end of it. Unfortunately for the Mexicans, they didn’t take much advantage of the fact…
      All this would make me laugh my ass off, expect for the fact that I happen to really like Germany.
      As for other groups in Europe that are “Muslim”…There are the Persians, aka Iranians. They are rich, rich, rich in Europe. Just like in the U.S. Same goes for many of the Lebanese, Palestinians, and even Egyptians you meet. Business is there game. You kick them out, they take their money with them. Probably come to the U.S with it all.
      Sort of like beating up on the Jews, I suppose.
      You also meet some Malaysians and Indonesians in Europe. Don’t know a whole lot about them, so I digress. They may be Muslim for the most part, but beyond that…
      I met a lot of poor Muslims in Europe, who are 100% European. Victims of the wars in Eastern Europe. I guess the Serbians thought they were a problem…Sort of like our boy Geert Wilders does.
      Ah yes, I can’t wait for good-ole’ fashioned European ethic cleansing to start up again. 😀

  10. Robert, good idea on IQ tests for immigration and citizenship, by the why.
    This should be a deadly serious issue, and no one in politics has the testicular fortitude to bring it up.

  11. Also Robert, as a fellow Californian, I could not agree more on what we have become.
    The “California Dream” is largely no mas…

  12. Dirty Bull
    You say IQ tests show intelligence. So therefore base everything on IQ. Give all top positions to those with the highest IQ. Don’t have election just base that on IQ.

  13. Entertaining interview. But I too am ‘not entirely comfortable’ with all this stuff about low black IQs, and I’m not convinced that IQs show much but previous experience of the sort of thinking they test for.
    Whatever black Americans have got that threw up Robert Johnson, John Lee Hooker, Lightnin’ Hopkins, T. Bone Walker, Muddy Waters, B.B. King, Freddie King, Albert King, Albert Collins, Buddy Guy, Billie Holiday, Louis Armstrong, Dizzy Gillespie, Charlie Parker, Thelonius Monk, Charles Mingus, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Chuck Berry, James Brown, Joe Tex, Otis Redding, Aretha Franklin, Tamla Motown, Jimi Hendrix, Taj Mahal… whatever they got that gave rise to all these, if it isn’t a high IQ, it’s something better.

  14. JohnUK
    As per the “proxy wars.” Can’t they be regarded as tactics to keep the victimized countries from obeying US foreign policy edicts? At any rate, the founding of Israel set a dormant Islamic militancy in motion.

    1. @Ken Hoop
      At any rate, the founding of Israel set a dormant Islamic militancy in motion.
      Actually that’s not true.
      The modern Islamic militancy has its origins in the Balkans during WW2 in the Balkans linking Mid East militants with those of Russia’s North Caucasus and ethnic Bosnian Muslims as part of Operation Blau to seize the Caspian oil basin (which was reinitiated in after the collapse of the USSR) and later during the Cold War in Central Asia where some of the groups active today like Hizb ut-Tahrir was established in Jerusalem in the 1953.
      After USSR broke off relations with Israel after screwing the Arab states in the 6 day war to keep trade relations western intelligence support Islamic extremism to undermine Arab nationalist movements like that of Saddam’s Iraq.
      In the Mid 70’s US projecting Europe’s future dependency on Eurasian oil dependency then under control of the USSR Britain and the US with their allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan started creating and financing international Islamic terrorism like BCCI starting with covert training of Islamic militants to attack the Soviet aligned government in Afghanistan to lure them into a trap and use that as a base to train Islamic militants in Central Asia, Xinjing, North Caucasus and the Balkans to create US friendly or dependent governments.
      That’s where we are today reasserting Afghanistan as a terrorist base and drug production haven for Islamic groups seeking to destabilise Eurasia.

  15. so what? all the great white people outnumber all the great black people. there was an argument over at Listverse when they listed the 20 most influential scientists ever, and guess what? they were all white! coincidence? i think not.

  16. I’ll give you the acoustic Hopkins and even the acoustic Hooker, whose electric fans criticised him when he briefly reverted to “the plantation music.”
    When country blues became citified/electric it started its decline.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)