Alt Left in the National News!

Well I am copying this from Rabbit’s fantastic blog. Rabbit of course is one of the pioneers of the Alt Left. Rabbit says his traffic has gone through the roof today apparently with folks searching for Alt Left. I do not think that the Alt Left really got mentioned in the news today. Instead what happened was that Hitlery gave a speech denouncing the Alt-Right and tying Trump to it. Now the national news is all abuzz with “What the Hell is the Alt Right?” stories, which of course will probably give these guys a huge shot in the arm.
So what is happening is that everyone is writing about the Alt Right today and no one is writing about the Alt Left. But that’s ok! In fact, Trump did mention the Alt-Left briefly when he said, “There is no Alt-Right or Alt-Left…we are just spreading love.”
Rabbit sort of has his own little wing or tendency in the movement. I see this as a multi-tendency movement with some general lines to be drawn around the tent that you have to fit into before you can be let in. Rabbit’s wing is much more racially oriented than I am. Rabbit is almost a Left White nationalist, or at least he hobnobs with them a lot. Anyway, he is quite unabashedly pro-White.
Whereas I would like to bring non-Whites into my wing of the Alt Left. My wing would be for anyone who is basically progressive or liberal especially on economics who has been driven up to here with the idiot antics of the Cultural Left Freakshow. So we are sort of the Old Left before all the Identity Politics insanity came in in the 1960’s. I would say though that non-Whites in my wing cannot hate White people. They have to like White people.
If I am against anything, I am against the constant demonization and bashing of Whites. I like Whites. I like my people. I like White culture. I like my culture. We are not bad people. Actually I think we are good people. I also think that White culture is worth saving. Even if White people go out, I would like to see non-Whites carrying on with the best of White culture.
Alternative Left! Alternative Left! Alternative Left! Alternative Left! Alternative Left! Alternative Left! Alternative Left! Alternative Left!

W e w lads!
Well, traffic to this site is booming after Hillary’s speech and the subsequent media coverage. I’ve noticed lately that a lot of oblivious idiots have started using the term “altleft” recently without bothering to google it or do any research as to how it emerged. It’s like they just wake up one day and start identifying as something without even checking to see if it already exists. The AltLeft originated with those of us race realists who rejected the anti-white social justice prioritization of the postmodern left and also understand that racial differences are real and acknowledge that multiculturalism transforms society in undesirable ways.
People like Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein are not “altleft” because they represent the dominant ethos. They parrot all the same social justice crap about “black lives matter” and promote mass immigration from the third world(which makes social programs, population control and resource conservation that much more unworkable.) Identity politics aren’t going away, and only whites think in terms of “colorblindness.” Other groups(with rare exceptions) simply work in their own ethnic interests unapologetically. Demographics matter for the future. That’s reality, though we don’t all agree on solutions.
So before you go on Twitter and change your twitter bio to “AltLeft” or create another misinformed altleft Facebook group, maybe read a few blog posts/manifestos here and on Robert Lindsay’s blog to get an idea if you really want to be associated with this label.

Robert Stark Interviews Rabbit about Futurism

Here.
Great interview. Rabbit is now a regular co-host on Stark’s program, which is great because it gives the Alternative Left more publicity. Also it seems to imply that Stark himself is identifying as Alt Left! Yay! And maybe more of Stark’s guests will start identifying as Alt Left. Wow, looks like we could really start to grow a movement here. I have noticed that Stark’s guests have become more Third Positionists or even “Alt Left-like” in recent months. It’s a great trend!
Really cool interview with Rabbit. Rabbit and Stark discuss me in the last 10 minutes of the show. Rabbit says he thinks that I am afraid to take much of a stand on race because I am afraid of being called a racist. You know what? He is right! I do not want my Alt Left wing to be associated with any sort of real, hardcore racism at all. Forget it. On the other hand, race realism, cultural critique and just straight up honest talk about race is fine.
If it’s just SJW’s calling me racist, I don’t care because they call everyone racist who doesn’t buy the lunatic Cultural Left line on race. And the modern anti-racist movement can burn in Hell. That said, racism does exist and at some point, you are just being a flat out nasty, ugly racist. That sort of thing is wincingly repellent and unacceptable in my book.
Rabbit’s Alt Left wing is much bigger on race, especially being pro-White, than I am. Rabbit for all intents and purposes is some sort of a leftwing White nationalist, or at least he is not afraid to hobnob with such folks. That’s fine for him, but I am going to have to pass. I am not into primarily emphasizing race and I am not a White nationalist. If you are more into being Alt Left in a ore explicitly pro-White sense, then  maybe you want to identify with Rabbit’s wing. Sadly, he does not have a comments section.
In his favor though, I will say that I think Rabbit is a brilliant thinker and a fine writer, and he’s doing something that has needed to be done for a long time.
To me, Alt Left means more left on economics and moderate on social issues (in between the insane Cultural Left and the regressive social conservatives). However, I would still accept people who are economically left and socially conservative. That actually describes a lot of the working class right there and we need to quite turning these people off and shoving them towards the Republican Party.
Rabbit blogs at AltLeft.com
Topics include:
Filippo Tommaso Marinetti & Italian Futurism.
Marinetti’s Manifesto of Futurism.
How Futurism emphasized speed, technology, youth, and violence, and objects such as the car, the aeroplane, and the industrial city.
How Hitler’s exhibition on “degenerate art” included Marinetti and other futurists’ work.
Italian Futurism’s connection to fascism and how that led to its marginalization.
How despite that, Italian Futurism had a major influence on culture, art, and architecture, including Cubism and Art Deco.
Antonio Sant’Elia and his Futurist urban vision which inspired the films Metropolis and Blade Runner.
Constantin von Hoffmeister’s National Futurism.
Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism.
Transhumanism.
A Short Trip through the Long View.

What I Mean When I Say This Site Is "Pro-White"

Jorge writes:

Why the fuck “especially working-class whites”?
I can insult working-class people from other races but not this? Sorry but I think that it is wrong and stupid.

Well, I will not support anyone targeting any workers just for being workers. But no one is really beating up on working class non-Whites on here. All of the abuse coming from some liberal commenters is towards working class Whites. It ticks me off because I am White. I am White, and I do not take kindly to my people being insulted.
Also this blog is pro-White in a sense. We do not believe in White-hating, and we see nothing wrong with White people being proud. We think it’s good to be White, not bad. We think Whites are good people, not bad people. We think Whites are a high achieving race with both genetic and cultural potential for continuing high achievement. Whites have been a major factor in the civilization and development of mankind in the last several hundred years. If left up to the non-Whites, we would not have come this far. The world owes a debt to us Whites.
I like being White, and I like White people and White culture. I have now experienced what is more or less non-White culture (mestizo culture) and trust me, it is inferior. Not dramatically inferior, but inferior. When a city goes from White to mestizo here in the US, it’s generally a downgrade. Not a huge downgrade, but a downgrade nevertheless. White towns also leave much to be desired (I have major beefs with them), but they are not a civilizational downgrade. If anything, they are too civilized.
Every morning I wake up, look up at the ceiling and think, “Thank God for making me White!”
This site is trying to do something a bit different. We like White people here, but I do not want to identify as pro-White because 99% of the people who identify like that are the worst racist punks on Earth. So we are about having a positive view of Whites but at the same time hopefully not succumbing to any sort of ugly racism. If you read this blog, you will see that I try to avoid ugly racism in general, and I have a pretty low opinion of people who engage in nasty racism, like the Alt Righters. That sort of racism is just not a Left value.
We have had a large non-White readership for years now. Non-Whites are very much welcome to this site, but it would be nice if they didn’t hate Whites. I am also very interested in anthropology (I worked as a cultural anthropologist for a while). This takes the form of an intense interest in a lot of both the Euro and non-Euro ethnic groups around the world.
And I am happy to talk about most any other ethnic group on here, including those of my commenters, hopefully in a nonracist way. You can see we have a lot of discussions here on Latin America, India and the subcontinent, the Arab and Muslim World and even Africa! on most discussions about these non Euro-White groups on here we try to be fair and evenhanded and avoid of nasty racist sentiment.

Obama May Be Set for Massive Amnesty

Here.
The horrifying Senate bill, a bipartisan adventure passed with both Republican and Democratic support, promises to do as bad or even worse. Up to 8 million illegal alien criminal invaders of our land could be granted work permits to obtain jobs in order to steal from from Native Born American People (NBAP) and up the unemployment rate about the NBAP’s.
This lunatic bill actually doubles are already insane numbers of legal immigrants allowed to flood our shore.
It also doubles the usually fake guest worker immigrants, who are mostly fraudulent cases, most notably Hindu 1-B job thieves who have utterly destroyed NBAP (mostly White) programmer labor market in the US. We Americans have ruined one of our finest talent pools – the White computer programmers – and replaced them with largely inferior and incompetent Hindu 1-B’s from fake, lying, cheating, fraudulent diploma mill “universities” in India.
A very large percentage of Hindu 1-B’s have completely fake resumes, which employers never bother to check as they assume that if it’s a Hindu 1-B, they are obviously using a fraudulent resume. Usually these elephant jockeys say they have a Master’s Degree in Computer Programming. In most all cases, they certainly do not. For instance, at the largest Indian organized crime diploma mills, a “Master’s Degree in Computer Science” can be obtained in a mere six months of study out of high school. Fake! Generally these are for-profit colleges, and for-profit universities are pretty much garbage everywhere on Earth. This is such a hard and fast rule of education that it is nearly on the level of a mathematical corollary.
The Hindu 1-B criminals form ethnic gangs at all of the places where they work. Soon a Hindu 1-B ethnic gangster is put in charge of Human Resources of Management. He quickly fires all White programmers under him and replaces them with his countrymen. Nepotism at an extreme level. Further, the Indians are engaging in blatant job discrimination that is nearly on a Jim Crow level. Yet such is the hatred for NBAP, especially Native Born American White Men, among our elites, that our elites gladly sell out their own people and their own homeland by siding with a group of vicious, bigoted, discriminatory and incompetent invaders of our shores.
This war isn’t really natives versus immigrants, it’s Americans versus Americans. On one side, we have the country-sellers, the traitors. The higher echelons and nearly all elected officials of both parties, Republican and Democrat, are largely made up of extremely unpatriotic Americans. These are the country-sellers, the sellers of the homeland, the traitors to their own people and their own land.
It’s often said that I am a traitor, but that is not true. I simply want the best for my country, which makes me much more of a patriot than any elected official in this country. Mass immigration is a catastrophe for my homeland and my people, so I oppose it with every fiber of my being. I am an American nationalist. What we hate more than anything are the country-sellers, the traitors to our great NBAP who built this fine land.
Our elites are now citizens of the world. They long ago revoked their right to citizenship by their treasonous behavior. They have no loyalty to the homeland, and they would sell it down the river in a New York minute, as they prove every day of the year.
If this law passes, or worse if Obama makes an executive action legalizing 8 billion illegal alien criminals who invaded our sovereign land, he will surely go down in history as one of the most treasonous Presidents who ever blighted our great land. Let’s hope, for the sake of all of us, that he doesn’t do it.
I must say that on the issue of illegal immigration, I am with the hardline members of the Republican Party and especially with the Tea Party. Of course I dislike them on most other things, but I will ally with Tea Party folks on this issue, the defense of the homeland against the country-selling traitors.

Caucasian Nationalism – A New Movement

Repost from the old site.
I just created this movement because no one else did. I did it because it is so dumb I do not expect anyone to join. It’s called Caucasian Nationalism.
I figure if you are going to be a racist, you may as well hate the fewest number of people possible. I don’t have a breakdown on the population of humanity by race, but being a Caucasian Nationalist will possibly allow you to love as many as 1/3 of all humans as brothers. You won’t like the other 2/3, but most of them have big lips or squinty eyes anyway, so why would you want to like them in the first place?
Compare this to Nordicists who hate anyone not a Viking, Arab nationalists who hate the 97% of humanity who’s not a towel-head, and Orthodox Jews who hate 99.7% of humanity because they aren’t Hebes.
I advocate for the cause of all Caucasians everywhere, including Jews, Indians, Berbers, Arabs, Iranians, Egyptians, Afghans, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Tajiks, and Uzbeks. You need to be over 50% to get in.
If you have less than 50%, we will still pause a moment in your presence to bow before the Great White Man within you. That goes for US Blacks, Hispanics, Mongolians, Ethiopians, Altai, Uighurs, most US Amerindians and possibly Siberians.
It is true that we will cleave off from a large section of humanity, but that is ok.
For the Asians, we will just fuck their women and take over their laundromats, and if the men object, we won’t care about these inscrutable yellow girly-men because they are skinny, wimpy, nearsighted and weak, and we will kick their asses. If they try to defend themselves with martial arts, we will just respond with firearms.
For the Aborigines, Papuans, Melanesians, Polynesians and Micronesians, there is not much to do. They all live on islands, and Caucasians mostly don’t dig islands. Abos are pretty much history anyway, so no worries. Polynesians will be offered jobs playing steel guitar and dancing in our tiki restaurants.
Melanesians and Micronesians barely exist to us, and are too messed up to attack us, so we will let them catch rays on their beaches and leave us alone. No one even knows what a Papuan even is.
For American Indians, if they are 51% or more White, they are in. Ok, that takes care of most of them right here. For the rest, we have not yet decided, but we will accept applications as White Man’s Squaw and for performing in our traveling cowboy and Indian shows. Other than that, they are sort of hopeless too, except for their casinos, but at any rate, they are not a threat.
If they ever get uppity and ornery, we will just mass-ship alcohol into their regions and get them all drunk like we did to the Chinese in the Opium War.
US Blacks will need to supply proof of at least 51% White ancestry to get in. The ones that don’t cut it, we will let them work as entertainers for our shows. We will also allow them to cook and wait tables for us in our fried chicken and rib joints. Other than that, we don’t have to worry much about them. Many US Blacks are too busy drinking, taking drugs, listening to gangsta rap and murdering each other to bother us anyway.
Mestizos will need to submit applications to see whether or not they are over 50% White. If they are, they are in like Flynn. Too much Indian, the door. If they don’t dig it, they can go pray to the dead Aztec Gods and cast spells on us with their fake witches.
We beat em many times in the past, and it was usually a 15-0 wipe-out on our side. They barely got to third base. They will never get off the couch to rise again, and most are too overweight anyway.
We don’t regard Amerindians, even with White admixture, as a serious threat to us. That they are considered a threat to entire nations is one of today’s best jokes. If they ever really rise up like Sendero, we will have to deal. Watchful waiting.
At first I thought that this was a brand-new movement, but unfortunately, one of the most horrible people on Earth, Alex Linder of Vanguard News Network, supports it too (although he wishes to excise all Jews and kill them). I’m a horrible person too, but I suspect that Linder has crossed the boundary of excess horribleness.
When I read that he was a pan-Caucasianist (except for the Jews), I had to respect him, or at least .0001% of him (like when I heard the Night Stalker loved cats). He wants to kill off a good portion of humanity, but at least he’s not a Nordicist, and he wants to save the East Indians, the Arabs and the Ainu. I felt there was a tiny speck of magnanimity amongst that black vision of his.
There is a very serious problem with Caucasian Nationalism. First of all, many of these folks will refuse to admit to being Caucasian. Others insist they are White, but no one else believes them.
Tell a Punjabi he looks White, and he will try to punch you. Tell a Malian they are White, and they will hug you and agree, but no one else will think they are. Turks hate the idea of being White even though they are. Jews truly despise the idea of being White, but they hate shvartzes even more, and Jews certainly are not Chinese.
Tell a Moroccan he is White, and he will embrace you, pack a bowl of hash for you in the waterpipe, invite you to marry his cousin, and start shouting about how the Berbers were the original humans. Tell a Pashtun he is White, and he will run up to you, kiss you on the cheek, invite you in for tea in the men’s room, and regale you with tales of being the original Aryans.
The real problem here is not one of identity; it’s that so many of our Caucasian tribes hate each other so much they will never get together to join the movement, much less have each other over for tea. At the moment, many of them are busy massacring each other. This time-honored tradition is expected to continue into the foreseeable future.

I See Race-Denying Idiots

Repost from the old site.
I see idiots.
I see race-denying idiots.
I see them everywhere.
I see them on the Egyptology Forum, in particular, linking to one of my posts, The Major and Minor Races of Mankind.
That post is a massive work undergoing continuous revision that is based largely on Cavalli-Sforza’s groundbreaking work in genetics. It divides humanity into 3 macro races, 8 major races and 90 minor races.
Hey! There is a race for everyone! Don’t despair, folks, there is probably a race out there waiting just for you, lonesome you.
It seems that post is upsetting everyone. White Nationalists hate it, and now, over on the Egyptology Forum, Black Nationalists or Afrocentrists or whatever those morons are called hate it too. If White Nationalism is dumb, Black Nationalism is dumber still.
Many of the things supposedly invented by Blacks have turned out on analysis to not to have been invented by Blacks.
I don’t blame Blacks for reacting this way in the face of incessant propaganda from White Supremacists and various other racists, backed up by “science”, that repeats with hammer-like insistence that Blacks are idiots, evil sociopaths and losers who have never amounted to a thing and never will, as is the destiny of their genes.
Hence the pitiful migration of Blacks into Egyptology, in a sad and sorry effort to claim the heritage of ancient Egypt for themselves.
It’s bizarre that Black Nationalists, while promoting the Black race, also love to claim that race does not exist. They somehow hold both of these opinions simultaneously. Don’t ask me how.
In that forum, I am described as a racialist (!) misrepresenting Cavalli-Sforza’s findings. But I did no such thing. I just used his data (and others) to divide humanity into races, based, almost exclusively, on genetic distance.
In a few cases, I had to go outside genetics. In North Africa, there were two cases where mostly-White folks were clustering with mostly-Black folks into single races. Instead of lumping Whites and Blacks together into single subraces, which seemed too weird, I had to (arbitrarily) send Whiter folks to Caucasian and darker ones to Black. The cases involved Algerians and the Beja in one case and Nubians and Berbers in the other.
Curiously, these cases do add weight to the race-denier’s arguments that race is a slippery concept. When you have Blacks and Whites lumping with each other genetically into singular small groups, what does it all mean?
For the record, Berbers are about 12% Black, and Algerians may be about 6% Black. The Beja and the Nubians are about 50-50 Black and White, although I think the Beja are 53% Black. The Beja are an interesting and attractive group of pastoralists who live in northern Sudan. The Nubians are the group of what are often referred to as light-skinned Blacks living in southern Egypt.
Photos of Berbers of various types, North African Arabs and dark-skinned Egyptians from the Aswan Dam area (possibly Nubians) are found on this blog in a recent post here.
Later on on the Egyptology thread I get called a racist (!) and White Supremacist (!). But my post makes no such claims at all to White Supremacy. It merely chops up humanity into groups based on genetic distance – nothing more, nothing less.
These guys are serious idiots.
The reason I am called a White Supremacist racist is because I am supposedly saying that their precious Black Nubians were actually White Berbers.
But I said no such thing. I merely noted that two disparate groups, one mostly-White (Berbers – though Black Berbers exist) and another 50-50 Black-White (Nubians) cannot be distinguished racially, on even a minor level, in terms of genetics.
Berbers are actually somewhat variable – the Moroccan Berbers are 5% Black and the Algerian Berbers are 10% Black.
That’s it.
The reason Black Egyptology idiots hate the notion of race in Egypt so much is because the ancient Egyptians were about 9% Black, just like the Egyptians of today. Further South, you get into their beloved Nubians, who were and are 50-50 Black-White, but the Nubians only ruled Egypt for 100 years or so at the very end of the Empire as it was completely falling apart.
On an anarchist blog recently, I was thrown off and banned for making a simple proposal: that Whites should be free to feel pride. I hedged that White pride is ok, as long as you can feel that way without becoming a racist asshole.
I base this on my experience with people from various different races, ethnic groups and nations all over the world. Virtually all of them were ethnocentric about their ethnic group or race, and that clearly went beyond mere patriotism for their state and flag in almost all cases.
It is only Whites in the US, Europe, Australia, Canada and New Zealand who are ordered to take no pride in themselves whatsoever, and worse, who are ordered to abase themselves as some sort of racial criminals for all of our nefarious acts down through the ages.
At the same time, White countries only are ordered to open their borders to anyone and everyone from the rest of the world (in particular, the non-White world) who wishes to flood in here.
It interesting that China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore are not also ordered to open their borders. Nor are the Gulf Arabs. In fact, many, or even all, of these states have ferociously racist immigration policies, but the Western Cultural Left has nothing to say about this. It is almost as if only Whites can be racist.
I realize that unfortunately this sounds like a White Nationalist rant, but it is sad that only the WN’s are making this perfectly reasonable argument, and on this argument, the WN’s at least are right on the mark.
There are some negative effects from this. I had a light-skinned Black girlfriend once for about a year. Once I told her I was not attracted to darker Black women, and she got all upset. I was racist! A White guy dating a Black woman, of all things, and he still can’t escape the racism charge.
White men have told me that they told people, when asked, that they were not interested in dating Black women because they were not attracted to them, and they were immediately denounced as racists.
As might be expected, hyper-aggressive young Black males are mass-targeting White females for sex in mixed-race high schools across our land. I don’t really mind, but it is a bit sickening, let’s face it. Are Black women really so horrible or ugly that these guys must mass-pester White girls?
In many cases, the White girls say no, and when they do, they are immediately hammered with the racism charge, which typically leads to White guilt, which I guess in some cases leads to the Black kid getting some White pussy.
I really need to say something here.
Your house, your state, your attractions and your sex life are yours and yours alone. You don’t have to let anyone into your home. You don’t have to make friends with anyone. You don’t have to let any immigrants into your country, or you can let any immigrants in that you want to. You can be attracted to anyone you want to. And certainly, you can have sex with anyone you want to.
You may be racist about who you let into your home, who you make friends with, and who you let immigrate into your land. After all, your borders are like the locked door on your home – you’re not really obligated to let a soul in.
You can be attracted to anyone you want to – your own race or any combination of others. You can obviously date, have sex with, and marry anyone you want to and you can limit your partners to your own race or any others.
There’s nothing racist about these intensely personal decisions, and the implicit demand that Whites are racist unless they are turned on Black booty or big Black guys, invite whole blocks of Black folks into their homes, invite 2 billion mostly Third World people to flood into their lands, or, most offensive of all, have sex with non-Whites, is utterly outrageous.
The demand that Whites self-abnegate all positive feelings about themselves and their heritage has had some nasty side effects.
12-20 million illegal Hispanic immigrants have flooded into the US, many into my home state.
Immigration are like seasoning on a dish. A little bit of it is nice, but in California it feels like someone dumped the salt shaker and some spice jars into the pan and ruined the casserole.
There is a very real and creepy feeling of living in a foreign land here, or of having been invaded, even invaded by a foreign army. Parts of California have reverted, in all intents and purposes, to provinces of Mexico.
This is jarring to Native Californians. Our cities and streets have Mexican names. I was taking Spanish lessons at age six, as my mother, in 1963, had already seen the writing on the wall. Growing up, our friends, best friends and girlfriends were Mexican-Americans. We didn’t hate Mexican-Americans then and we don’t hate them now.
We went on wild trips to Mexico to fish, chase women or just rampage around blasted out of minds on alcohol, marijuana and LSD. We always returned stunned at the horrible and cruel poverty we saw, and were always glad to drive through the border back to the US.
The illegal alien millions are essentially re-creating Mexico here in the US. If you have ever been to Mexico, you won’t think that is a good idea.
My point is that the destruction of White ethnic identity in even its most mild form is what allowed this lunatic invasion and de facto annexation of my state to a foreign Third World country to take place. Whites were neutered, so they sat by passively while this outrage occurred, or, even more perversely, cheered it on.

What's Wrong with Loving Your Family?

Inaki writes, sarcastically:

Robert, do you love your fellow mixed-race whites, like the Eurasians of glorious nation Kazakhstan, the mulattos of big booty Brazil, the mestizos of every American’s wet dream nation, Mexico, and the Australoid-Caucasoids of your most beloved and favorite nation, India?

Well, I love all people you know. But not everyone is family. Some are family and some are not. The Caucasoids are part of my family! I mean, I might love a non-White with all my heart and soul, but they’re not part of my family, hear?
There is a part of me that can respect a mixed person for having White in them, but it’s often hard to see with all the blending. I do like Hispanics that have a lot of White in them though. I like to see the White in them. It makes them feel like family. I feel pretty close to most Indians racially for some reason. I’m not sure why that is. I think it’s because on some level, they just look more or less Caucasian.
And I do have a special spot in me for mulattos, especially the guys. They almost feel part of the family, maybe distant cousins. Plus they often act a lot better. Light skinned Blacks are often not so caught up in the worst Black culture and are more liekly to “act White.” About Kazakh types, not sure. The Whiter looking ones I could relate to quite well.
I love women of all races. In particular, I’m a Rice King.

Why Do I Write About White People on Here?

A commenter asks:

Why the obsession with whiteness, Robert?

A few reasons. The first is that I love my people! I love them wherever they are on Earth. I support Pan-Aryanism, the unity of all the Whites or even Caucasians. I even or especially love my Caucasian brothers and sisters outside of Europe because they are so neglected and abused by some of my fellow Whites.
I love being White. I wake up every morning, look up at the ceiling, and think, “Thank God for making me White!” I think everyone else should be free to feel just as good about their ethnicity as I do.
But I want nothing to do with most pro-White people because almost all of them are racist jerks. I’m not interested in any kind of racist BS – I just love my people!
I would support an anti-racist or non-racist pro-White movement, but it would probably never happen. To me pro-White just means feeling good about being White. It doesn’t mean up with the Whites and down with everyone else. As an internationalist, all workers are my brothers. The only enemies of the workers are our class enemies, the rich and the upper middle class.
I am also very interested in the definition of Whiteness and how it is defined and whatnot. Caucasian is a real race for sure, not a social construct. The way Whiteness is defined, except by some Pan-Aryanists, is pretty much of a social construct, let’s face it. They define in everyone they like and they define out everyone they don’t like. Anyone who thinks Jews are not White needs to have their head examined. Just look at them.

Iranians and Mediterraneans – A Close Relationship?

Here.
A man, apparently a Southern European, had his DNA tested at an online site. He noticed that several Iranians matched his DNA profile. He then noted that three of his Iranian friends had DNA that tested closest to Southern Europeans (Mediterraneans, or Meds), closer to them than even South Asians or Middle Easterners.
This is what I have always thought about Iranians. In addition, when I meet Iranians, I often say, “You folks are White, right?” They always very enthusiastically nod their heads. “Yes! We are White!” One even told me that Iranians were “a European people.” It’s true that all of these folks were ethnic Persians and not members of other ethnic groups in Iran.
But there is something so White about Persians and Iranians. To me they have always seemed like “Europeans outside of Europe.” Looking at their Indo-European language, there is something to that. The same wave that brought Persian to Iran also brought the IE languages and genes to Europe.
So in this view, Iranians will be closer to Greeks, Turks, Italians, Spaniards and Portuguese than to anyone else. If you look at Persians closely, you can’t help but see the resemblance.
It is time we welcome the Iranians and Persians into our great White family. They will be right at home with us.

Look At How White Egyptians Look

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp3-GmILyPg
I was amazed looking at this video how Caucasian these people look. They don’t look like Black people at all, and modern Egyptians are even Blacker than the ancients. They look like Caucasians, and I was surprised how many many of them had pale White skins and blatant Europid phenotypes. Even the Arabid phenotype just looks like a White person with a funny nose and a tan. They’re simply desert-adapted Caucasoids.
Sure, they have a little bit of Black in them. So what? The overwhelming majority of the genome is Caucasoid. US Blacks have more White in them than the average Arab has Black. Therefore, US Blacks are not Black, instead they are White? Give it up.
Arabs are Whites, get over it.
Further, Arabs consider themselves White. I am friends with some local Yemenis, and I told them they are White just look me and they gave me the thumbs up. They’re not only White, they’re White Priders! WPWW camel jockeys!
“Of course we are White,” they said. They differentiate themselves from Blacks, who they consider a different race. They told me that there are many Blacks in Yemen, but they referred to them as if they were a different race. I also told them that the original European Whites were Arabids. If you go back 12,000 years, the European phenotype and genes look Arab.
“So Arabs are the original Europeans. They’re the original Whites,” I told them.
“Of course we are,” they said. “We know this.”
Look closely at the Arabid phenotype. It’s Caucasoid, and in many cases, it’s downright Europid. So they have brown skin, so what. Caucasian doesn’t equal White. Many Caucasians have pretty dark skins. A White person with a tan is still White.
Pan-Aryanism!

“Poor, White, and Invisible,” by Alpha Unit

“To be poor and White in America is a paradox.”

So wrote Joe Bageant in 2005. Joe Bageant, who died earlier this year, spoke for and championed the White poor in America. But don’t think that he romanticized poor people. He was unsparing in his portrayal of the proclivities and habits of the poor Whites he had grown up with. In “Poor, White, and Pissed,” he goes on:

America is permeated with cultural myths about White skin’s association with power, education, and opportunity. Capitalist society teaches that we all get what we deserve, so if a White man does not succeed, it can only be due to laziness. But just like Black and Latino ghetto-dwellers, poor laboring Whites live within a dead end social construction that all but guarantees failure.

If your high school dropout daddy busted his ass for small bucks and never read a book in his life and your mama was a textile mill worker, chances are you are not going to be recruited by Yale Skull & Bones and grow up to be President of the United States, regardless of our national mythology to that effect. You are going to be pulling an eight-buck-an-hour shift work someplace and praying for enough overtime to make the heating bill. A worker.

For certain, Whites have the lowest poverty rates in the country. But because of their sheer numbers, they comprise a substantial mass of the poor – nearly half, in fact. White poverty is not negligible. But as Joe Bageant and plenty of others have pointed out, the White poor in America are “invisible.” When people think of the poor, they generally don’t think of Whites. A lot of Whites don’t even think of Whites.

Many poor Whites in America – like poor Hispanics, Asians, and Blacks – are what people call the working poor. But some of them are part of a White underclass in which you will find the same pathologies people usually associate with Black ghettos – such as pervasive drug abuse, academic failure, out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and criminality. Again, these people are invisible to many of their fellow Whites. It’s one reason you will hear some Whites go out and confidently declare that there are some things White people never do.

A lot of Whites seem to have bought into this idea that to be White is to be middle class or above.

This frustrated the hell out of Joe Bageant. He criticized the White middle class and White liberal elites for their disdain and disregard for poor Whites.

America can no longer withstand the political naiveté of this ignored White class…Someday middle class American liberals will have to cop to fraternity and justice and the fact that we are our brother’s keeper, whether we like it or not. They’re going to have to sit down and actually speak to these people they consider ugly, overweight, ill educated and in poor taste.

In his essay “Revenge of the Mutt People,” he advocated some kind of affirmative action for poor White kids in Appalachia or the Deep South or “anyplace else where tens of millions of kids grow up in homes containing not a single book, except possibly the Bible.” He stated:

Education is everything. You know it and I know it. And what the White working classes don’t know because of lack of education has hurt you and me and them.

To Bageant, education was the way around being suckered by political and religious hucksters. He decried the way poor and working class Whites were voting against their own interests as a result of ignorance. The whole country was having to deal with the consequences. He called uneducated poor Whites “our intellectual peasantry.”

As a member of this peasantry, I quit school at age sixteen in the eleventh grade to join the Navy. I hated school, hated the social class differences in a small town that make life so miserable during adolescence, when one’s community and social status is being nailed down permanently for anyone planning on staying there.

As a former young White cracklet, I can say with all confidence that when you live with a rusty coal stove in the middle of the living room for heat, your old man smells of gasoline and motor oil no matter how much he bathes and your mom suffers from strange, unpredictable behavior due to untreated depression, you do not much feel like inviting the doctor’s daughter home. Or anyone else’s daughter for that matter.

Thus, he said, at sixteen and choosing options, “I decided that launching fighter jets from the deck of an aircraft carrier to kill gooks and the notion of pussy and booze on some exotic foreign shore looked damned good.”

When I think of what happened to my boyhood friends who stayed home and put in 30 years at Rubbermaid, my choice doesn’t sound that bad even today. They all became redneck ultra-conservatives, mostly out of some sort of fear and bitterness that I can never seem to put my finger on. But I knew these people in a younger, more hopeful time. I know they were capable of – not to mention deserved – more than they got out of life. Maybe their bitterness stems from that.

"Poor, White, and Invisible," by Alpha Unit

“To be poor and White in America is a paradox.”
So wrote Joe Bageant in 2005. Joe Bageant, who died earlier this year, spoke for and championed the White poor in America. But don’t think that he romanticized poor people. He was unsparing in his portrayal of the proclivities and habits of the poor Whites he had grown up with. In “Poor, White, and Pissed,” he goes on:

America is permeated with cultural myths about White skin’s association with power, education, and opportunity. Capitalist society teaches that we all get what we deserve, so if a White man does not succeed, it can only be due to laziness. But just like Black and Latino ghetto-dwellers, poor laboring Whites live within a dead end social construction that all but guarantees failure.
If your high school dropout daddy busted his ass for small bucks and never read a book in his life and your mama was a textile mill worker, chances are you are not going to be recruited by Yale Skull & Bones and grow up to be President of the United States, regardless of our national mythology to that effect. You are going to be pulling an eight-buck-an-hour shift work someplace and praying for enough overtime to make the heating bill. A worker.

For certain, Whites have the lowest poverty rates in the country. But because of their sheer numbers, they comprise a substantial mass of the poor – nearly half, in fact. White poverty is not negligible. But as Joe Bageant and plenty of others have pointed out, the White poor in America are “invisible.” When people think of the poor, they generally don’t think of Whites. A lot of Whites don’t even think of Whites.
Many poor Whites in America – like poor Hispanics, Asians, and Blacks – are what people call the working poor. But some of them are part of a White underclass in which you will find the same pathologies people usually associate with Black ghettos – such as pervasive drug abuse, academic failure, out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and criminality. Again, these people are invisible to many of their fellow Whites. It’s one reason you will hear some Whites go out and confidently declare that there are some things White people never do.
A lot of Whites seem to have bought into this idea that to be White is to be middle class or above.
This frustrated the hell out of Joe Bageant. He criticized the White middle class and White liberal elites for their disdain and disregard for poor Whites.

America can no longer withstand the political naiveté of this ignored White class…Someday middle class American liberals will have to cop to fraternity and justice and the fact that we are our brother’s keeper, whether we like it or not. They’re going to have to sit down and actually speak to these people they consider ugly, overweight, ill educated and in poor taste.

In his essay “Revenge of the Mutt People,” he advocated some kind of affirmative action for poor White kids in Appalachia or the Deep South or “anyplace else where tens of millions of kids grow up in homes containing not a single book, except possibly the Bible.” He stated:

Education is everything. You know it and I know it. And what the White working classes don’t know because of lack of education has hurt you and me and them.

To Bageant, education was the way around being suckered by political and religious hucksters. He decried the way poor and working class Whites were voting against their own interests as a result of ignorance. The whole country was having to deal with the consequences. He called uneducated poor Whites “our intellectual peasantry.”

As a member of this peasantry, I quit school at age sixteen in the eleventh grade to join the Navy. I hated school, hated the social class differences in a small town that make life so miserable during adolescence, when one’s community and social status is being nailed down permanently for anyone planning on staying there.
As a former young White cracklet, I can say with all confidence that when you live with a rusty coal stove in the middle of the living room for heat, your old man smells of gasoline and motor oil no matter how much he bathes and your mom suffers from strange, unpredictable behavior due to untreated depression, you do not much feel like inviting the doctor’s daughter home. Or anyone else’s daughter for that matter.

Thus, he said, at sixteen and choosing options, “I decided that launching fighter jets from the deck of an aircraft carrier to kill gooks and the notion of pussy and booze on some exotic foreign shore looked damned good.”

When I think of what happened to my boyhood friends who stayed home and put in 30 years at Rubbermaid, my choice doesn’t sound that bad even today. They all became redneck ultra-conservatives, mostly out of some sort of fear and bitterness that I can never seem to put my finger on. But I knew these people in a younger, more hopeful time. I know they were capable of – not to mention deserved – more than they got out of life. Maybe their bitterness stems from that.

Racialism Versus Racism

Repost from the old site.

There is a difference between racism and racialism. Racism is what most folks think it is. To me, it means to dislike or not wish to associate with a given individual based on their race or ethnic group. I don’t agree that disliking or wishing to avoid certain groups in their aggregate is racism.

For instance, it is certainly possible to look at US Blacks and say that, globally, they seem to have lower morals, high rates of sociopathy, lower IQ, less civilized behavior, much higher crime rates, higher rates of dishonesty and a tendency to break the rules, etc.

All of these things are more or less proven by empirical research, or, if not, based on my life experience, they are true anyway. I really don’t need science to prove that; I can see it with my very eyes. These differences appear most common at lower income levels. At greater income levels, I see less and less difference between Blacks and other races.

Where racism goes wrong, in my opinion, and where it is irrational, stupid and just plain immoral, sinful and wrong, is that it lumps all individuals of a given group into the average of the whole group. For instance, racists apply the negative portrayal above of the Black group to each and every individual Black that they meet. This is madness.

Despite the fact that I believe that the Black group does have greater rates of the negatives above, it’s clear to me that any given individual Black may be just as good and decent of a person, if not better, than any White friend I have or have ever had.

And there are many, many Blacks that do not have any of the qualities listed above. Therefore, it seems wrong for me to decide to have White friends and not to have friends of other races. That’s just a personal decision on my part.

I would also say that it is possible to have racist feelings while realizing that they are wrong and struggling against them. This is the essence of Christian morality. Obviously, it’s best if we limit our sins to the minimum. But many of us sin nevertheless. Regardless of the sin, one must recognize it’s immorality and strive to reduce or end the immoral behavior.

Now, I happen to think that the overwhelming majority of racists do not feel the tiniest bit guilty at all, but there are some that really do feel bad about their racism and work on ending it.

In fact, there is an entire field called Whiteness Studies, which, in spite of being ridiculous race-deniers, takes this as a given in its theory. Whiteness Studies authors, usually White, often write about how they battle against their own internalized racism against non-Whites. Some say it will be a lifelong journey and they do not expect to ever completely overcome it.

Although this entire field is mocked by White racists, I applaud these honest individuals and their efforts.

Racists are usually trying to give intellectual or moral cover to their feelings. For instance, it is quite common for White racists to just say that they are cutting their losses as far as other races. Sure, they may be a few good Blacks out there, but why bother trying to winnow through the good from the bad in trying to figure out who is worth associating with? Why not just be done with the entire group and avoid them?

I really do not believe that most White racists are just cutting their losses (they just use that as a phony excuse for their racism), though do I feel that there are a few like this, and I sympathize with them. I’m not even sure if they are really racists.

Racialism is actually a completely different term with a different meaning. The Wikipedia article gives a pretty good picture of the formal meaning of the term. Unfortunately, the term racialism has been taken over by White racists in an effort to cover up their racism with fake and nice-sounding words.

Even the Wikipedia article talk page shows that both anti-racist boneheads and White nationalist liars have taken over the article and tried to mangle it to serve there ridiculous or dishonest agendas.

Strictly speaking, racialism simply means that one accepts the existence of various races of mankind. I doubt if it really means anything more than that. Many racialists feel that there are real and objective genetic differences between the races, but I do not think that that is a requirement to be a racialist.

A racialist would look at things like IQ scores, the makeup of 100-yard dash winners in the Olympics and the NBA, crime rates, etc. and would say that race is a common factor behind these scores. The race-denier would say that, first, there is no such thing as race, and second, that race has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with these discrepancies.

So a non-racialist is, strictly speaking, a race-denier. This position, that there is no such thing as race, has become quite popular lately, but I think it is complete nonsense. A non-racialist would also argue that because race does not exist, all differential racial attributes on various performance, membership and incidence variables is strictly coincidental.

Yes, I do believe that there are races and there are average differences between them on various variables. I do not believe that race does not exist.

Nowadays, most folks who call themselves racialists are just racists, almost always White racists. I’m going to step out of the closet and become one of the first anti-racist racialists to publicly identify oneself.

The objective of the race-deniers is clear. Once one cuts past the nonsense and crap, it seems there is a laudable agenda here. The race-deniers believe that the more people focus on race, the more racist they become. Unfortunately, it is probably true. So, by saying that race does not exist, they hope to strike a blow against racism. This is a noble goal and I sympathize.

However, I do not believe in abusing science and truth to achieve societal objectives. The existence of race is an objective fact to me, and I am not interested in denying it to further some anti-racist objective. Perhaps I’m contributing to racism by doing this. I doubt it, but even if I am, I don’t really care. There are no truths that are so horrible that they should not be discussed or revealed.

There has also been a lot of confusion about me supporting White Pride. Well, I think that most every other race or ethnic group out there seems to have quite a bit of ethnic pride. Except Whites. This is denied to us.

The reason is that White Pride has led to some pretty nasty and horrible outcomes in the past 70 years or so. In wishing to avoid the recrudescence of such movements, people just want to do away with the sentiment altogether.

In other words, your average White who gets into the White Pride thing turns into, at worst, a raving Nazi or racist fascist fuck, or, at best, into some sort of genteel white bread polite racist type. So we have the strange scenario in which Whites all over the world deny that there is anything good about being White, deny any pride in their heritage, or even apologize for being White.

I think that that is a bit silly. I look in the mirror and see my White features and I like them and feel good about them. I’m comfortable with White folks, White behavior and White features because that’s what I’m used to, and also what I believe in and am attracted to. I don’t agree that we are bad or evil or need to apologize for ourselves. I do not think we need to be bred off the face of the Earth to protect the planet.

That’s all I am talking about. If the above really bothers you so much and you think I’m a racist jerk, well, fine, you really don’t have to come around here. We are not dying for readers; we get ~3,200 readers a day and can easily lose some.

I hope that that clears things up.

I See Race-Denying Idiots

Repost from the old site.
I see idiots.
I see race-denying idiots.
I see them everywhere.
I see them on the Egyptology Forum, in particular, linking to one of my posts, The Major and Minor Races of Mankind.
That post is a massive work undergoing continuous revision that is based largely on Cavalli-Sforza’s groundbreaking work in genetics. It divides humanity into 3 macro races, 8 major races and 90 minor races.
Hey! There is a race for everyone! Don’t despair, folks, there is probably a race out there waiting just for you, lonesome you.
It seems that post is upsetting everyone. White Nationalists hate it, and now, over on the Egyptology Forum, Black Nationalists or Afrocentrists or whatever those morons are called hate it too. If White Nationalism is dumb, Black Nationalism is dumber still.
Many of the things supposedly invented by Blacks have turned out on analysis to not to have been invented by Blacks.
I don’t blame Blacks for reacting this way in the face of incessant propaganda from White Supremacists and various other racists, backed up by “science”, that repeats with hammer-like insistence that Blacks are idiots, evil sociopaths and losers who have never amounted to a thing and never will, as is the destiny of their genes.
Hence the pitiful migration of Blacks into Egyptology, in a sad and sorry effort to claim the heritage of ancient Egypt for themselves.
It’s bizarre that Black Nationalists, while promoting the Black race, also love to claim that race does not exist. They somehow hold both of these opinions simultaneously. Don’t ask me how.
In that forum, I am described as a racialist (!) misrepresenting Cavalli-Sforza’s findings. But I did no such thing. I just used his data (and others) to divide humanity into races, based, almost exclusively, on genetic distance.
In a few cases, I had to go outside genetics. In North Africa, there were two cases where mostly-White folks were clustering with mostly-Black folks into single races. Instead of lumping Whites and Blacks together into single subraces, which seemed too weird, I had to (arbitrarily) send Whiter folks to Caucasian and darker ones to Black. The cases involved Algerians and the Beja in one case and Nubians and Berbers in the other.
Curiously, these cases do add weight to the race-denier’s arguments that race is a slippery concept. When you have Blacks and Whites lumping with each other genetically into singular small groups, what does it all mean?
For the record, Berbers are about 12% Black, and Algerians may be about 6% Black. The Beja and the Nubians are about 50-50 Black and White, although I think the Beja are 53% Black. The Beja are an interesting and attractive group of pastoralists who live in northern Sudan. The Nubians are the group of what are often referred to as light-skinned Blacks living in southern Egypt.
Photos of Berbers of various types, North African Arabs and dark-skinned Egyptians from the Aswan Dam area (possibly Nubians) are found on this blog in a recent post here.
Later on on the Egyptology thread I get called a racist (!) and White Supremacist (!). But my post makes no such claims at all to White Supremacy. It merely chops up humanity into groups based on genetic distance – nothing more, nothing less.
These guys are serious idiots.
The reason I am called a White Supremacist racist is because I am supposedly saying that their precious Black Nubians were actually White Berbers.
But I said no such thing. I merely noted that two disparate groups, one mostly-White (Berbers – though Black Berbers exist) and another 50-50 Black-White (Nubians) cannot be distinguished racially, on even a minor level, in terms of genetics.
Berbers are actually somewhat variable – the Moroccan Berbers are 5% Black and the Algerian Berbers are 10% Black.
That’s it.
The reason Black Egyptology idiots hate the notion of race in Egypt so much is because the ancient Egyptians were about 9% Black, just like the Egyptians of today. Further South, you get into their beloved Nubians, who were and are 50-50 Black-White, but the Nubians only ruled Egypt for 100 years or so at the very end of the Empire as it was completely falling apart.
On an anarchist blog recently, I was thrown off and banned for making a simple proposal: that Whites should be free to feel pride. I hedged that White pride is ok, as long as you can feel that way without becoming a racist asshole.
I base this on my experience with people from various different races, ethnic groups and nations all over the world. Virtually all of them were ethnocentric about their ethnic group or race, and that clearly went beyond mere patriotism for their state and flag in almost all cases.
It is only Whites in the US, Europe, Australia, Canada and New Zealand who are ordered to take no pride in themselves whatsoever, and worse, who are ordered to abase themselves as some sort of racial criminals for all of our nefarious acts down through the ages.
At the same time, White countries only are ordered to open their borders to anyone and everyone from the rest of the world (in particular, the non-White world) who wishes to flood in here.
It interesting that China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore are not also ordered to open their borders. Nor are the Gulf Arabs. In fact, many, or even all, of these states have ferociously racist immigration policies, but the Western Cultural Left has nothing to say about this. It is almost as if only Whites can be racist.
I realize that unfortunately this sounds like a White Nationalist rant, but it is sad that only the WN’s are making this perfectly reasonable argument, and on this argument, the WN’s at least are right on the mark.
There are some negative effects from this. I had a light-skinned Black girlfriend once for about a year. Once I told her I was not attracted to darker Black women, and she got all upset. I was racist! A White guy dating a Black woman, of all things, and he still can’t escape the racism charge .
White men have told me that they told people, when asked, that they were not interested in dating Black women because they were not attracted to them, and they were immediately denounced as racists.
As might be expected, hyperaggressive young Black males are mass-targeting White females for sex in mixed-race high schools across our land. I don’t really mind, but it is a bit sickening, let’s face it. Are Black women really so horrible or ugly that these guys must mass-pester White girls?
In many cases, the White girls say no, and when they do, they are immediately hammered with the racism charge, which typically leads to White guilt, which I guess in some cases leads to the Black kid getting some White pussy.
I really need to say something here.
Your house, your state, your attractions and your sex life are yours and yours alone. You don’t have to let anyone into your home. You don’t have to make friends with anyone. You don’t have to let any immigrants into your country, or you can let any immigrants in that you want to. You can be attracted to anyone you want to. And certainly, you can have sex with anyone you want to.
You may be racist about who you let into your home, who you make friends with, and who you let immigrate into your land. After all, your borders are like the locked door on your home – you’re not really obligated to let a soul in.
You can be attracted to anyone you want to – your own race or any combination of others. You can obviously date, have sex with, and marry anyone you want to and you can limit your partners to your own race or any others.
There’s nothing racist about these intensely personal decisions, and the implicit demand that Whites are racist unless they are turned on Black booty or big Black guys, invite whole blocks of Black folks into their homes, invite 2 billion mostly Third World people to flood into their lands, or, most offensive of all, have sex with non-Whites, is utterly outrageous.
The demand that Whites self-abnegate all positive feelings about themselves and their heritage has had some nasty side effects.
12-20 million illegal Hispanic immigrants have flooded into the US, many into my home state.
Immigration are like seasoning on a dish. A little bit of it is nice, but in California it feels like someone dumped the salt shaker and some spice jars into the pan and ruined the casserole.
There is a very real and creepy feeling of living in a foreign land here, or of having been invaded, even invaded by a foreign army. Parts of California have reverted, in all intents and purposes, to provinces of Mexico.
This is jarring to Native Californians. Our cities and streets have Mexican names. I was taking Spanish lessons at age six, as my mother, in 1963, had already seen the writing on the wall. Growing up, our friends, best friends and girlfriends were Mexican-Americans. We didn’t hate Mexican-Americans then and we don’t hate them now.
We went on wild trips to Mexico to fish, chase women or just rampage around blasted out of minds on alcohol, marijuana and LSD. We always returned stunned at the horrible and cruel poverty we saw, and were always glad to drive through the border back to the US.
The illegal alien millions are essentially re-creating Mexico here in the US. If you have ever been to Mexico, you won’t think that is a good idea.
My point is that the destruction of White ethnic identity in even its most mild form is what allowed this lunatic invasion and de facto annexation of my state to a foreign Third World country to take place. Whites were neutered, so they sat by passively while this outrage occurred, or, even more perversely, cheered it on.

Racialism Versus Racism

Repost from the old site.
There is a difference between racism and racialism. Racism is what most folks think it is. To me, it means to dislike or not wish to associate with a given individual based on their race or ethnic group. I don’t agree that disliking or wishing to avoid certain groups in their aggregate is racism.
For instance, it is certainly possible to look at US Blacks and say that, globally, they seem to have lower morals, high rates of sociopathy, lower IQ, less civilized behavior, much higher crime rates, higher rates of dishonesty and a tendency to break the rules, etc.
All of these things are more or less proven by empirical research, or, if not, based on my life experience, they are true anyway. I really don’t need science to prove that; I can see it with my very eyes. These differences appear most common at lower income levels. At greater income levels, I see less and less difference between Blacks and other races.
Where racism goes wrong, in my opinion, and where it is irrational, stupid and just plain immoral, sinful and wrong, is that it lumps all individuals of a given group into the average of the whole group. For instance, racists apply the negative portrayal above of the Black group to each and every individual Black that they meet. This is madness.
Despite the fact that I believe that the Black group does have greater rates of the negatives above, it’s clear to me that any given individual Black may be just as good and decent of a person, if not better, than any White friend I have or have ever had.
And there are many, many Blacks that do not have any of the qualities listed above. Therefore, it seems wrong for me to decide to have White friends and not to have friends of other races. That’s just a personal decision on my part.
I would also say that it is possible to have racist feelings while realizing that they are wrong and struggling against them. This is the essence of Christian morality. Obviously, it’s best if we limit our sins to the minimum. But many of us sin nevertheless. Regardless of the sin, one must recognize it’s immorality and strive to reduce or end the immoral behavior.
Now, I happen to think that the overwhelming majority of racists do not feel the tiniest bit guilty at all, but there are some that really do feel bad about their racism and work on ending it.
In fact, there is an entire field called Whiteness Studies, which, in spite of being ridiculous race-deniers, takes this as a given in its theory. Whiteness Studies authors, usually White, often write about how they battle against their own internalized racism against non-Whites. Some say it will be a lifelong journey and they do not expect to ever completely overcome it.
Although this entire field is mocked by White racists, I applaud these honest individuals and their efforts.
Racists are usually trying to give intellectual or moral cover to their feelings. For instance, it is quite common for White racists to just say that they are cutting their losses as far as other races. Sure, they may be a few good Blacks out there, but why bother trying to winnow through the good from the bad in trying to figure out who is worth associating with? Why not just be done with the entire group and avoid them?
I really do not believe that most White racists are just cutting their losses (they just use that as a phony excuse for their racism), though do I feel that there are a few like this, and I sympathize with them. I’m not even sure if they are really racists.
Racialism is actually a completely different term with a different meaning. The Wikipedia article gives a pretty good picture of the formal meaning of the term. Unfortunately, the term racialism has been taken over by White racists in an effort to cover up their racism with fake and nice-sounding words.
Even the Wikipedia article talk page shows that both anti-racist boneheads and White nationalist liars have taken over the article and tried to mangle it to serve there ridiculous or dishonest agendas.
Strictly speaking, racialism simply means that one accepts the existence of various races of mankind. I doubt if it really means anything more than that. Many racialists feel that there are real and objective genetic differences between the races, but I do not think that that is a requirement to be a racialist.
A racialist would look at things like IQ scores, the makeup of 100-yard dash winners in the Olympics and the NBA, crime rates, etc. and would say that race is a common factor behind these scores. The race-denier would say that, first, there is no such thing as race, and second, that race has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with these discrepancies.
So a non-racialist is, strictly speaking, a race-denier. This position, that there is no such thing as race, has become quite popular lately, but I think it is complete nonsense. A non-racialist would also argue that because race does not exist, all differential racial attributes on various performance, membership and incidence variables is strictly coincidental.
Yes, I do believe that there are races and there are average differences between them on various variables. I do not believe that race does not exist.
Nowadays, most folks who call themselves racialists are just racists, almost always White racists. I’m going to step out of the closet and become one of the first anti-racist racialists to publicly identify oneself.
The objective of the race-deniers is clear. Once one cuts past the nonsense and crap, it seems there is a laudable agenda here. The race-deniers believe that the more people focus on race, the more racist they become. Unfortunately, it is probably true. So, by saying that race does not exist, they hope to strike a blow against racism. This is a noble goal and I sympathize.
However, I do not believe in abusing science and truth to achieve societal objectives. The existence of race is an objective fact to me, and I am not interested in denying it to further some anti-racist objective. Perhaps I’m contributing to racism by doing this. I doubt it, but even if I am, I don’t really care. There are no truths that are so horrible that they should not be discussed or revealed.
There has also been a lot of confusion about me supporting White Pride. Well, I think that most every other race or ethnic group out there seems to have quite a bit of ethnic pride. Except Whites. This is denied to us.
The reason is that White Pride has led to some pretty nasty and horrible outcomes in the past 70 years or so. In wishing to avoid the recrudescence of such movements, people just want to do away with the sentiment altogether.
In other words, your average White who gets into the White Pride thing turns into, at worst, a raving Nazi or racist fascist fuck, or, at best, into some sort of genteel white bread polite racist type. So we have the strange scenario in which Whites all over the world deny that there is anything good about being White, deny any pride in their heritage, or even apologize for being White.
I think that that is a bit silly. I look in the mirror and see my White features and I like them and feel good about them. I’m comfortable with White folks, White behavior and White features because that’s what I’m used to, and also what I believe in and am attracted to. I don’t agree that we are bad or evil or need to apologize for ourselves. I do not think we need to be bred off the face of the Earth to protect the planet.
That’s all I am talking about. If the above really bothers you so much and you think I’m a racist jerk, well, fine, you really don’t have to come around here. We are not dying for readers; we get ~1,500 readers a day and can easily lose some.
I hope that that clears things up.

What Would a Sane Pro-White Movement Look Like?

Repost from the old site.
A pro-White movement (whatever that means) could go somewhere in the US. Recall my quote in an earlier post from a Time Magazine poll that found that 77% of US Whites were ethnocentric and felt that White culture was valuable and deserved to be preserved.
Now I don’t know exactly where these folks stand, or what policies they would support, but I assure you that even out here in California, among liberal and even Leftist and Communist Whites, there is support for the 77% fraction of that poll.
A reasonable pro-White movement would be expected to speak for those 77% of US Whites who are “ethnocentric, and think White culture is valuable and is worth preserving”, without offending them or turning them off with a bunch of racist crap.
The problem is that there is no such movement. When any group or webpage says “pro-White”, prepare your gag reflex and get ready to take off running. Even if they aren’t praising Adolf Hitler, they are surely praising Bull Connor. The pro-White movement in the US is not moderate – it’s only extreme. Even the most moderate elements are far too extreme for even the ethnocentric Whites that I know.
Let’s look at what the pro-White movement in the US supports, who they like and who they dislike:
The WN movement supports segregation, hates MLK, Obama, Nelson Mandela and Rosa Parks, loves apartheid, cheers the genocide of the American Indians and pours scorn on the Indians defending their land, loves White colonialism and praises it to the skies, supports White separatism, cheers on the South in the Civil War and Jim Crow, minimizes lynching, hates civil rights laws and anti-discrimination laws, hates Blacks and almost everyone who isn’t White except for maybe some Asians, and hates interracial dating, sex and marriage as “race mixing” or “miscegenation”.
Further, many even moderate WN’s support throwing out all non-Whites from the US, and especially sending Blacks back to Africa. And it’s standard White nationalism across the board that the only real Americans are White people.
Jesus man.
Do you have any idea how that resonates with the ethnocentric Whites I know? Like a lead balloon.
Let me tell you where they stand, who they like and who they hate:
They hate segregation, love MLK, Rosa Parks and Nelson Mandela, they’re voting for Obama, hate apartheid, hate the conquest of the American Indians and support the Indians’ defense of their land, hate White colonialism (in general – anyway, they don’t praise it to the skies), think White separatism is idiotic and laughable, hate the South in the Civil War and side with the North even if they had relatives on both sides, hate Jim Crow, think lynching was “terrorism against Blacks”, support civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, are indifferent to interracial dating and marriage, though they were initially dubious about it (because so many young Whites are doing it, including their relatives), don’t hate other races or groups – even Blacks, find even primitive groups in the Third World fascinating and are sympathetic to them, and will give you a hate look and walk out of the room if you even say the words “race-mixing” or miscegenation.
If you start talking about throwing non-Whites out of the US or sending Blacks back to Africa, they will probably swear at you, may try to hit you, and might either throw you out of the house or just walk out of the room. If you tell them that only Whites are real Americans, they might try to hit you in the head with a frying pan.
And yet, they are ethnocentric, feel White culture is valuable, and feel it should be preserved. Who will speak for them? Apparently no one. Way to go, guys.

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 20%. But on the other hand, they claim that 90% Hispanic and 90% Black is diverse.
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 13% Black, and then things start going downhill. And just like Fred Reed said (I got this idea from him) when these Blacks start acting really bad, just throw them out! Throw them over to Psycho Kids Central High or wherever where they can screw off all they want. That is a completely reasonable position. Most people, especially most White people, would support it. I don’t know about Blacks, whether they will support it.
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 5-10% of the population for these radical things that they want to do. And what’s the point of that? What’s the point of being a total loser? I don’t get it.
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 70-80% White. It was 80% White in 1970, and it was 70% White in 1980. So it was about 75% White during that era. I spent most of my time in a White community, but I was totally comfortable with a California that was 25% non-White. That was normal to me, it felt good and OK.
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.

Some Sensible Positions For Liberal Race Realists and White Advocates

The problem with White advocates, even those who are not explicitly White nationalists, is that far too many of them are simply out and out racist assholes. Be that as it may, but you won’t get a lot of support for those views here in America. White advocates need to take reasonable stands that the majority will support. People will look at that stance and say, “Hey, that makes sense.” The Left will still scream racist on and on, but it will sound increasingly silly. Your average person will look at the Left screaming racist and say, “Why are they calling this guy a racist? He seems reasonable to me.”

  1. Amend the Constitution to get rid of the anchor baby thing. The Left is playing this up as super-radical, but most sane Americans think it’s perfectly reasonable.
  2. Avoid overthrowing civil rights laws. Aside from the moral question, it’s pretty clear that the major civil rights legislation is here to stay, Rand Paul and the Tea Party notwithstanding. Instead, we should focus on the 1991 amendment to the Civil Rights act that deals with disparate impact. The concept of disparate impact is insane, and most reasonable people hate it once they learn about it.
  3. On immigration, instead of saying we want to get rid of non-White immigration (ain’t gonna happen), instead call for IQ tests for some immigrants. The test could be waived for spouses of citizens. In particular, focus on problematic immigrants who cause lots of trouble. Call for IQ tests for Hispanic immigrants for starters. Say Hispanics need to have 98 IQ to come to the US. The average IQ of the US is 98. It’s quite probable that the Hispanics that cause so much trouble fall below the 98 IQ cutoff. Those at 98 IQ and above will generally be good, productive citizens of the type most Americans could be proud of.
  4. Support immigration of White Hispanics to the US. This will drive people insane, because it will be hard to call us racists since the anti-racist nuts keep implying that Hispanic is a race. In addition, it will drive a wedge between Hispanics.
  5. Call for getting rid of US colonies! This is great because no one in the US advocates this except for the hard Left. That puts White advocates in bed with the Left , but that’s not so bad! Call for independence for Puerto Rico, Micronesia, American Samoa, etc. One problem is these places are the source of many problem immigrants because they the immigrants are unscreened, as moving from Samoa to the US is like moving from New York to California.We also come off as anti-imperialist, which once again puts us in bed with the Left, but that’s not so bad! This stealing of the Left’s principled positions will drive the PC Left insane. They will either be forced to defend colonialism in the PC or..? Or what? Or I don’t know. Mostly it will make the PC crowd very confused and angry.
  6. On schools, forget fighting Brown vs BOE. Done deal. Instead focus on busing. Say it’s ridiculous, a waste of money, and it insults Blacks by saying they can’t learn with their own kind but only with Whites. Say we support neighborhood schools. If a neighborhood is mixed, the school is mixed. If the neighborhood is White, the school should be White. If the neighborhood is Black, the school should be Black. The PC folks will be forced to attack this totally reasonable position and will come across like fanatical ideologues.
  7. Say we need to start getting serious about throwing out seriously disruptive students. This is Fred Reed’s view. They can all go to The Psycho Kid’s School for all we care. They have no right to ruin it for everyone else. If Blacks get tossed out more than others, as long as its racially fair (should be investigated), oh well. Maybe Black students should start acting better to not get thrown out of school.
  8. Say we support affirmative action, but only if the Black, etc. is just as qualified as the White he is competing with . This will drive people crazy. Of course, the whole problem with affirmative action is that less qualified non-Whites replace Whites. This will force the PC folks to defend what they have been defending all along, which is the hiring of less qualified non-Whites in favor of more qualified Whites. It’s seen as pretty indefensible, and rightly so.
  9. Say we have no problem with well-behaved Blacks living with Whites who wish to fully integrate into White communities and adopt White culture. Promoting “freedom of association” will get us no where; it’s doomed. Point out that Black culture leaves much to be desired, and Blacks benefit from adopting White culture. This will force the PC crowd into the dubious role of defending Black culture (ahem) while paradoxically attacking White culture as somehow pathological, which is ridiculous. They’ve been doing this all along, but this will force the point.

Most of this stuff will make White nationalists furious, but so what? We will more than make it up with new more moderate followers. Right now, White advocates preaching to a tiny choir.
These positions will drive our enemies insane! They will be totally confused by these views, and they won’t know what to make of them. It will throw a monkey wrench into the whole “White advocates are racist” thing.

Must Diversity Be a Fetish?

Frank BD points out the silliness of our modern elevation of seemingly mandatory integration everywhere in the name of diversity:

Probably the stupidest idea yet to gain common currency is that residential neighborhoods need diversity. I can see where public-contact employees might need to represent the community, like police officers or salesmen. But a residential neighborhood is supposed to consist of people with common expectations of community behavior. Diversity is not a strength if singles want to stay up partying at night while parent are putting kids to bed; or children want to ride bikes on the same sideways senior use.Do you think the residents of a quiet residential street do or should value the diversity of rap music blaring from rolled-down car windows?

I agree. This is ridiculous. No neighborhood, city or town “needs” diversity. Diversity is interesting, some people like it, and people of course can go live anywhere they want, but the idea that a monoracial place automatically sucks and “needs diversity” is some kind of ridiculous diversity fetish. There is nothing per se good about diversity! There is nothing per se bad about it either, but it’s not some inherent good that needs to be strived for all the time.
You see articles in the media now about this or that town or city that is in dire need of diversity. Curiously, it’s always a nearly all-White place. LOL, is there something automatically terrible about a White town or city? Are there going to Nazi marches pretty soon or what? White places are good and bad, but on the whole, for me as a White person, they are often more peaceful and less problematic than living in the Diversity. For one thing, I’ve suffered a lot more crime in the Diversity than in Whiteville.
If a place is White, fine, that’s the way it is. If non-Whites wish to move there, that’s their free choice in America. If a place is Black, fine. Is it possible that Blacks like it that way? I know Blacks who live in 90% Black towns in the South who say they like it that, and like to live with their own people. There are places that are almost completley Hispanic in the US now. So be it, perhaps they are happy that way.
The point is that White towns, Black towns or Hispanic towns or whatever towns are not necessarily in need of any kind of diversity. Maybe they are OK the way they are. The Diversity Fetish acts like there is something sick about a racially monolithic place, but maybe sometimes it’s OK, if it’s done on a voluntary basis. If others wish to move to Black, White or Hispanic places, that is their right of course.
This post is not to be taken as a segregationist post. We are integrationists here at Robert Lindsay, but that only means we believe in the right to integration. We don’t believe that every place in the US needs to have as many racial ingredients as a cake recipe.

Why Are Only White Populaces, Regions and Countries in Need of Diversity?

In the comments to the post Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans, Latin America for Latin Americans, White Countries for Everyone!, tulio says:

My point Robert is that mass migrations of one race displacing another race has always been happening. For much of the last 500 years it was whites displacing non-whites off their land. The resources of the Americas, Africa and Asia were used to make Europe wealthy and give it a big economic boost above others. Now these white countries are the wealthiest so they attract economic refugees.

These Indians moving to England aren’t moving there because they want to. Think about it, who wants to move to the other side of the planet where they are going to basically be aliens? They’re simply going out of economic necessity.

Add to that the fact that whites reproduce below replacement level and you have jobs to be filled. It’s just push-pull economics. Not some grandiose “non-white” conspiracy to eradicate the white genotype. If Europe was poor and China was rich, you’d see whites going to China looking for jobs. People follow the money, it’s just that simple.

First of all, bad example. The Indians moving to the US are the middle class and upper middle class. They are on the high end of Indian society, and they live extremely well for Indians. They only come here because they can live better here, and their country is a shithole, mostly because they have turned it into one. So they are not moving here out of any economic necessity. They just want to move up in the world.

The examples tulio used you previously used were of invasions, conquests, settler-colonization projects, ethnic cleansings and even genocides.

It’s frankly stunning that he compares “invasions, conquests, settler-colonization projects, ethnic cleansings and even genocides” to the mass migration to White lands. It implies that possibly this is what is occurring in White countries. It also implies that the mass migrations to White countries are not a good thing.

Sure, people follow the money. OK, then why is the 3rd World not flooding into Taiwan, South Korea and Japan? Why do the Western elites and Leftists not demand that Taiwan, South Korea and Japan open up their borders to diversity and mass invasion displacing their cultures and genepools? They only demand this for White countries.

It’s only White countries that need diversity! Now why is that?

We also see many articles in the US press about certain US cities, towns and regions that are “too White.” These places are said to be in need of diversity. How come Detroit doesn’t need diversity? How come Bell, California and Monterey Park, California don’t need diversity? Why do only White populaces and regions need diversity? The critics are not answering the question.

Add to that the fact that whites reproduce below replacement level and you have jobs to be filled.

This is another one of the lies of the Diversitoids, that White countries are not making enough babies, so they have to experience 3rd World Nile-like floods every year. Otherwise…otherwise what? The sky will fall? There are no labor shortages in White countries. Certainly not in the White country that I live in. In the US, the low birth rate is not a problem that needs mass immigration to be remedied. The low White birth rate here is not creating some horrible labor shortage that can only be fixed by having Calcutta crash through the gates.

I think there are several things going on here:

1. Anti-White grudge politics. Most non-Whites don’t like Whites too much. They think we stole all of our money and got it through exploiting them and the people of the 3rd World. In many cases, they say that we invaded their countries and subjugated them. So turnabout is fair play. Since Whites invaded, conquered, colonized, genocided and exploited non-White lands, non-Whites get to do it right back to us as revenge. There can be no other explanation for this mindset.

2. The notion that White lands do not deserve their wealth. Supposedly we stole it, and non-Whites demand that we share it with them in the interests of fairness. But Marx never said that the way to make revolution was for the poor countries to invade the rich countries.

3. The notion that White countries are automatically racist and possibly White Supremacist/Nazi. Most non-Whites and even Jews have been fucked over by Whites at some point in the past. They see a White country, and they think crackers or Nazis. The best way to reduce the crackerness or Nazitude of the place is to mass invade it with non-Whites.

Jews in particular have this worry. A top Jewish figure in the US commented on the declining White percentage in the US and the projection that US Whites will dip below 50% in 2050. “At that point the project will be complete,” he said. “Then, we will never have to worry about the possibility of a White Supremacist Nazi state arising in America again.” The Jewish mindset here is “Never again.” No more White countries = no more possible Nazi states.

4. Naivete. Blacks in particular think that White countries suck because “we be all raciss and shit.” They think by diluting the White population and turning White countries into Brazil or something, things will get better for Blacks. But that’s dubious. We Whites have been pretty nice lately. If Blacks think Whites are bad, Blacks should wait until they have to deal with Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Latin Americans, or East Indians. Living under White rule will seem like paradise.

All of this suggests to be that non-Whites are not our allies on the question of immigration to White countries. They are always going to support mass immigration to White lands for one of the reasons above, which makes you wonder why we should even let them in in the first place.

The Problem with “White Countries for Everyone”

In the comments section for the Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans, Latin America for Latin Americans, White Countries for Everyone! post, Erranter, a new commenter who is one of my smartest commenter, writes:

So, what can you do?

I really doubt my Numbers USA faxes have had much effect.

In fact, I’m beginning to accept the fact that “diversity is the future”. It won’t be all that bad. I look around at kids and see all colors playing together like never before. Sure, the multiculturalist philosophy has infiltrated our schools and brought a great deal of mediocrity, but without the myth of racial equality, wouldn’t there just be continuous conflict?

It seems necessary at this point, especially in CA where over half our population is non-white. I mean, you can’t tell 12 yr old that certain ones of them have higher IQs. And I’m not about to start deporting people en mass. I’d just like to see a drastic decrease in immigration, and mostly for population stabilization and not white preservation.

Sure, the average might go down a little bit but I never had much in common with the average and there will still be smart people here and there. Might be a little bit rarer, but oh well. We don’t breed. It’s our fault. It’s not like they’re doing anything wrong by being dumb. They can still be moral, helpful people, so long as they’re educated.

I mainly fear that the tribe will take over and all smart people will be taken out of positions of power due to excessive affirmative action in govt. Now that would be a disaster. As long as we have wise leadership we can get by. Human history is just getting by anyway. There’s always new problems.

Also, white American culture has shot itself in the foot because it readily has given up its culture and heritage for the sake of materialism and money. It’s not like people are listening to Bach and Beethoven and discussing Schopenhauer and Descartes in these little all-white towns. They might be quainter and cleaner than New York, but they tend to be culturally bankrupt and prefer it that way. Urbanity is hypocritical but it offers you a wider view of life.

This is probably just a typical liberal argument. Suffice it to say I still get pissed off driving through Oakland, Stockton, Richmond . . . (I could go on) and any other urban hellhole brought about by stupid, unrealistic policy.

As far as deporting people, the illegals have to go. I’m not interested in deporting anyone else.

The reason for the title is the hypocrisy of it all. The White elites, and of course, the rest of the world, have decided that White countries, and only White countries, need to be mass-invaded by non-Whites for a variety of reasons. Diversity, anti-racism, bla bla. But it’s only White countries that need to be mass-invaded by non-Whites in the name of diversity and anti-racism. Nowhere else on Earth is this invasion necessary. Only in White countries. What’s up with that?

The tipping point in Detroit was 20% Black. All the way up to 20% Black, things were quite manageable in Detroit. The crime rate only increased a bit at 10% Black. Even at 20% Black, it was not much higher. But after 20% Black, the crime rate simply exploded exponentially. It’s reasonable to assume that Detroit had a carrying capacity of 20% Black and not much more.

This goes along with my philosophy of, “A Black a block. Spread em out and civilize em!” Mass concentrations of large numbers of Blacks in the US do not seem to be a good idea either for Blacks or for anyone else. Black culture in all its worst aspects takes over and the place goes to shit.

I don’t mind a little diversity. After all, I grew up in a California that was 20-30% non-White. To me, that was “normal.” It was not objectionable in any way. But now I live in a California that is 58% non-White. Whole new ballgame, and I don’t like it. A simple doubling of that minority % made all the difference in the world. Further, I enjoyed being a majority. Going from a majority to a minority is one Hell of a shitty feeling. It’s understandable that any humans would resist that.

Right now, I drive through town after town that looks and feels like it is a part of Mexico. There is a part of Los Angeles stretching for miles that looks and feels like San Salvador. In the San Gabriel Valley, you can drive for what seems like 10-20 miles through what looks like Taipei or Hong Kong. Most places in the world that look like downtown L.A. require a passport to get into them.

Here in California, we’ve always had immigration. The Mexicans, Blacks, Latin Americans, Samoans, East Indians, Filipinos, and Chinese are an integral part of this state. They’ve been here from the very start, or maybe 20-70 years afterwards. They’re part of the neighborhood. But for most of my lifetime, the immigration did not come in floods. I could go back to 300-400,000 legal immigrants a year no problem.

On the other hand, mass immigration to California, legal and illegal, has quite simply gone insane. It feels like we’ve been hit by a non-White foreigner tidal wave here. We never voted on this. No one ever asked our opinion on whether we wanted to be Foreigner Tsunamied or not. If put to a vote, most of us would have voted against it. We California Whites got race-replaced in our own homeland. Try it sometime. It doesn’t feel so good. Not only that, but the race replacement of California Whites has not led to a better California. Instead, it’s fucked up the whole state.

Many Blacks speak out in favor of turning the US into the United Nations. I’d like to ask them, “What exactly is in this for you?” How are you benefitting from the US being turned into a living zoo of Homo Sapiens? And I’d like to point out that we US Whites have been better to you Blacks than any of these immigrants replacing us will be.

What is Cultural Marxism?

This is a question that requires a long answer. This is as good an answer as any.

Abagond and the whole crowd over at his site = Cultural Marxism. Tim Wise, Robert Jensen, that whole crowd, that’s Cultural Marxism. Idiot radical feminists who hate men, that’s Cultural Marxism. Hispanic Aztlan revanchist shitheads are Cultural Marxists. Afrocentrist dumbasses wailing against Whitey, that’s Cultural Marxism. Radical queers pushing extreme pro-gay lunatic politics, that’s Cultural Marxism.

The Cultural Marxists pushed Identity Politics in the 1960’s. The result was the retarded division of White men from White women, White workers from Black and Hispanic workers, straight workers from gay workers, and all sorts of idiotic bullshit. Divide the workers, you know. The game the Right always does.

Except this time it was “Left” retards doing it. It defined Whites and males as the enemy, and Whites and males acted as you might expect: they fled from it like smoke from a burning building. Straight into the arms of the enemy, the Right. But the Left gave them this shove, or kick in the butt, in the first place.

That’s what it is, in a nutshell. Personally, I think it sucks, but that’s just me. It all goes back to Herbert Marcuse in the 1960′s. Originally it was a Left philosophy, so it was sort of ok in a way, but now it’s been taken over by bourgeois characters, mostly Black and Hispanic bourgeois who are not really Left people and often push rightwing economics. They just use it as grudge politics to try to get a bigger share of the loot for their bourgeois ethnic group, and a grudge against the bourgeois Whites supposedly not being nice enough to the Black, Hispanic, etc. bourgeois.

At worst, it is simply bullshit anti-White politics for the bourgeois of any race:

Whites are evil, Whites are evil, Whites are evil, Whites are evil, Whites are evil, Whites need to give up stuff, Whites need to give up stuff, Whites need to give up stuff, Whites need to give up stuff, Whites need to give up stuff.

Combine that with rightwing neoliberal multinational corporate capitalism. Mystery Shit Anti-White Worker Casserole!

There is absolutely nothing whatsoever here for any White worker. It fucks him when he walks in and fucks him again when he walks out. No one wonder it sells to White workers as fast as turd cupcakes. White workers are not as stupid as you think.

There’s nothing progressive about this politics!

Anti-White propaganda + neoliberal corporate multinational, multicultural, invite the world politics does not benefit White workers in any way, shape or form!

What Is Pan-Aryanism?

A friend of mine went over to the Skadi Forum (basically Nordicists or Germanicists) and read an essay on Pan-Aryanism. I don’t know what sort of Pan-Aryanism they referred to, but I doubt it was the kind that I subscribe to. They were upset that the essay opposed race-mixing. Well, I’m a Pan-Aryanist, and I don’t oppose race-mixing.

Pan-Aryanism just means taking pride in your racial family. Just as the Blacks, various Asians, Amerindians, Arabs, East Indians, Hispanics, etc. take pride in their various racial families, such as they may be. Most folks you meet in the US, who are “Priders” of this sort, while often strongly ethnocentric, are not opposed to race-mixing or inter-ethnic breeding. So support for race-mixing can and does go hand in hand with ethnocentrism, even extreme ethnocentrism. In fact, that has probably been the tribal human norm for a very long time now.

The Pan-Aryanism that I subscribe to is found on the Pan-Aryanist Forum (now members-only I think). They say that all natives of Europe are White. Also that there are White Turks (35%), White Arabs and White Berbers. Also a few Whites in North India, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

They also hold that all Georgians, Armenians, the Caucasus and Iranians are White.

I just like it for their expanded definition of White. It would be like, say if you were Black, and some small group of Blacks decided that they were the only real pure Blacks. And they ruled out maybe 50% of Blacks as being some sort of inferior or mongrelized scum race. So the Pan-Africanists (the Black analogue of Pan-Aryanism) would be about uniting all of the Blacks into one Black Race and screw all the superior-inferior stuff. If you were Black, you would go along with that I am sure. In fact, if you are Black, I think you already do.

It’s all about being part of a family. In the last few years anyway, my race is my family. I simply want to extend the rather limited idea of my family to take in a lot more extended relatives. Why? Because I like having a great big family!

The other races: the NE Asians, SE Asians, Aborigines, Papuans, Oceanians, Amerindians, Africans, mestizos, mulattos, well, a lot of them are perfectly fine people. Often better than my racial family on an individual basis. But it’s the difference between friends (or lovers) and family. They can never be part of my family. They can only be friends, or at best lovers.

I expand the Net Pan-Aryanist definition thus such that most anyone who looks like they could have come from Europe is White.

Whites are:

All native Europeans
All Europoid Russians
All Turks
All Jews
All Assyrians and Kurds
Many Berbers
Most Arabs
All Georgians, Armenians, Azeris, Caucasus
All Iranians
Many Afghans (especially Pashtuns)
All Nuristanis
NW Pakistanis
Some Indians (mostly NW Indians)

All of the other Caucasian or quasi-Caucasian types are non-White Caucasians. They might be part of the family, but they are sort of like 2nd or 3rd cousins, so far apart they are almost more friends than family.

As far as the real Net Pan-Aryanists, they are a bunch of assholes. Sure they are against mixing, but they allow European Whites to mix with 100’s of millions of more humans! And most of them are a bunch of Nazis too. Bastards.

Transcript of My Latest Interview July 7, 2010

Interview July 7, 2010 with Reason Radio Network. The comments at the end of the post are hostile, but the site’s audience and hosts tend to be some mixture of paleoconservatives, White nationalists and anti-Semites. That’s not exactly where I am coming from, but I will interview with anyone, and most of the Left won’t touch me with a 10-foot pole.

I’ve been looking over your blog, and we talked about these labels as in Left versus Right, and I know you were describing yourself as a liberal, but you’ve been getting people describing you as a Third Positionist. The 3rd Positionist movement is a nationalist movement, but it’s not necessarily ethnonationalism – it could just be putting your country first. But they reject both Communism and capitalism, but they could sometimes incorporate some Marxist ideas. What is your take on being described as a 3rd Positionist?

I don’t know, I’m totally confused about 3rd Positionism – I don’t really know what it is, I don’t know what they want. They’re Euros, but the 3rd Positionists of the past were fascists and Nazis. But clearly they are pretty sui generis, and they are hard to pigeonhole and understand.

It’s a difficult movement to define. They don’t have a figure like the Marxists have Karl Marx and the capitalists have Adam Smith. I know that the 3rd Positionists have been smeared by being described as fascists.

It isn’t necessarily fascism, but it is true that when the fascists came to power, they said that they were nationalists, and that they were against the Communists and the capitalists. But you could be a 3rd Positionist and you could be a civil libertarian or you could be very authoritarian. Even among 3rd Positionists, there are a lot of different nuances within the ideology.

3rd Positionism is about as hard to pin down as fascism. Fascism is hard to pin down too. The fascists said that they were against both capitalism and Communism, but they just said that to get people to go along with them. It’s always been a rightwing movement. It’s never been anti-capitalist. The Nazis had the Night of the Long Knives, and they killed all of the socialist and anti-capitalist Nazis. There was a Nazi guy who was a big 3rd Positionist hero, but I can’t remember his name (Note: Gregor Strasser).

Is it Godfrey Feder?

No.

He was their economist.

No, see, when Hitler first started out in 1921, they drafted this Set Of Principles, and they called themselves National Socialists, and they had a pretty socialist, anti-capitalist economic project. And they got a lot of support. There were people on the Left who were even going Nazi, and there people who were going back and forth between the Nazis and the Communists in the 1920’s during all of that turbulence.

And in the early 1930’s, the Nazis were getting funded by major German industrialists. They were getting funded by the corporations. This is what almost nobody knows. The German corporations were behind the Nazis all the way. That’s where they got their money.

But there were bankers funding Bolshevism too. Like Jacob Schiff helped finance the Bolshevik Revolution. So there definitely were industrialists financing both sides. But I think they just want to make a profit. War is one of the most profitable things.

Why would a banker finance Communism? The international bankers generally did not finance Communism. That’s simply not true. There’s no money in it for them! Communism is the biggest money loser in the whole world for capitalists.

But the government still needs to borrow money whether it’s Communist or capitalist. The other thing is that when the Czar was in power, he was more of an economic nationalist and he did not want to do business with these bankers, so the bankers did have some incentives for financing Bolshevism.

Those Jews like Schiff, they did not make any money at all off of Russia going Communist. It was a gigantic money loser. The whole thing with Schiff was all about Jewish ethnic politics.

Yes, because the Czar was anti-Jewish, so it was more an ethnic thing than an economic thing.

Believe me, that’s all it was – revenge on the Russians. And a lot of the Communists were Jews. It was just let’s get rid of these anti-Semites and put some pro-Jews in power. Schiff was not acting in his class interests by doing that. This whole idea of bankers funding Communism, well, hey, I’m kind of a Commie myself. I mean, I wish they would give us some money!

There weren’t any Gentile capitalists who financed Communism.

Why would they? There are a few rich people who are Communists, but that’s rare. If you study Marxism, then you understand class, and so many things that people do are based on their class interests. People have class interests. Why would a rich capitalist finance Communism? Why would I buy someone the guillotine that’s going to chop my head off? It’s totally operating against your class interests. There’s no point to it unless you’ve got some kind of ulterior motive.

They have an ulterior motive unless they are already in power. But there’s socialism in different forms. There is socialism that is directed against the rich and also it’s possible that the elites are using a form of socialism to keep down the middle class. That’s not true Marxism, but it’s selected socialism to target a different class.

I don’t agree with that sort of rightwing populism. That’s just crazy. The elites hate socialism period. But there are some elites who go against their class interests and ally with the poor because, well, maybe they grew up poor or maybe they’re just nice people. But they are basically supporting a project that is going to cut their income.

And why would they do that? I mean a few of them will, just because they’re good people or they are self-sacrificing. But in general, the rich pursue their class interests, which is to retain their wealth or increase it. And they certainly do not support projects that are going to decrease their wealth.

You don’t think that rich liberals have ulterior motives?

Rich liberals are just nice people. They’re just nice people who feel guilty, and they’re willing to give up their money and share it with others, and that’s all there is to it. They’re self-sacrificing people. They have no ulterior motives or any of that. The notion that they do is rightwing populism. It’s crazy.

But 3rd Positionism ties in with populism. You’ve heard of that label producerism is the idea, not so much Right or Left, that the middle class is being exploited on both ends by both big government and by big business, especially the banking elite.

Well…The middle class typically is exploited by the rich under capitalism. Studies have proven that under neoliberalism, which is radical capitalism, the bottom 80% of the population loses money, and the top 20% gains money. So historically the only middle classes that benefit from hardcore neoliberalism are the upper middle class. And the upper middle class typically aligns with the rich and the capitalists, the corporations.

A lot of the middle class people align with the rich, the capitalists and the corporations too, but they are not really acting in their class interests when they do that. The middle class does not understand their class interests. They want to be rich. They typically align with the rich. But it often doesn’t make much sense for them to do that.

But you said that the Left doesn’t really represent the middle class either mainly because the Left is for Open Borders. You wrote a recent article where you said both the Democrats and the Republicans, the Left and the Right, is one big Corporate Party.

In the US, that’s true because the Democratic Party isn’t really a Left party anymore. It’s sort of a rightwing party instead, and it’s all just corporate politics. They just represent the corporations, the rich and the upper middle class. The Democrats are sort of for the middle class to a greater extent than the Republicans are, but I don’t think either party is for the poor or low income people anymore. Supporting them is considered to be a total loser.

The Democrats used to be for the poor, the low income and the workers, but supposedly, that’s why they were losing elections, and that’s why they went to the DNC model. The corporate Democrats decided that this is the way to win elections – be pro-corporate, get the corporate money, beat the Republicans at their game. That’s the DNC – the Democratic National Committee, and that’s where they’re all coming out of now. Even Obama, he’s a DNC guy.

I noticed that you commented on the new American 3rd Position Party. We were discussing on our show about the pros and cons of explicit racial activism, but you mentioned on your site that the A3P is probably one of the most pro-worker and anti-corporate parties in the US.

I think that what’s interesting about that is it’s showing you that these labels about the Left and the Right don’t make a lot of sense because a lot of people might hear about the A3P and they might think of it as a rightwing party, but you were saying that you looked over their platform, and you agree with a lot of what they have to say.

Well…it’s just a sad statement on the state of affairs of the Western Left. It exemplifies the total failure of the Western Left to support the workers, especially White workers, or just workers period, the low income, the working class, the poor. Especially the Whites.

They are opposed to all of these people, and the Western Left pushes anti-White politics. They are pro-non-White. They’re pro-Hispanic, they’re pro-Black, and they’re anti-White. And when they are pushing mass immigration, that’s just a spear into the heart of the White worker…the low income, the poor and the working class Whites, who are my people…those are my people. It’s just a sad comment when these rightwingers, who are almost fascists…when the fascists are the only people who are standing up for workers anymore.

Hold on now, when you make a statement referring to them as fascists. Now you’re entitled to your opinion, but if you look at the platform, they say they’re for Constitutionalism. What specifically about the platform is fascist?

Well…I think they said something about encouraging non-White immigrants to go back to their countries. “We’ll even give them money to go home.” But there’s nothing much in there that’s specifically fascist. It’s a very moderated program. Yet they are calling themselves 3rd Positionists, and 3rd Positionist is fascist…And the A3P is explicitly pro-White in the US.

The leaders of the party are White Nationalists. Kevin MacDonald is a White Nationalist who is sympathetic to fascism and Nazism. The leader of the party (Note: William D. Johnson) is an explicit White Nationalist who called for throwing all non-Whites out of the country 20-30 years ago (Note: Book penned in 1985 under the pseudonym of James O. Pace). That’s where these people are coming from.

Those are their leaders – they are coming out of the White Supremacist movement, the White Nationalist movement, which is a pro-fascist movement in the United States. And that’s how they totally failed, because, in being pro-fascist, they have blown off the entire White racist, White supremacist – especially Southern White Supremacist – segment in the United States.

Most White racists and White Supremacists in the US of the old White Supremacist types – they hate fascism, they hate Nazism. They fought in WW2. The Southerners fought in WW2. They were slaughtered in WW2 by the Nazis.

Southerners are pro-British. Their roots are in the UK. Hitler attacked the UK. The pro-White movement in the US – the White nationalists, the White supremacists – they’re pro-Nazi, they’re pro-fascist! That is the biggest loser project! I know White people. Most White people want nothing to do with fascism or Nazism. Why does pro-White politics have to be fascist and Nazi? That’s no good. These people are losers. That’s the biggest failure in White politics right there.

The Left likes to link the Southern nationalist types with Nazism but most people don’t know this but along with Jews…White Southerners and Jews were the most gung-ho groups about fighting WW2.

My mother was present in that era and I asked her, “Well, those Southerners were racists. Wasn’t Hitler’s seen as a pro-White regime?” and she said, “Oh no! I lived during that era and everybody hated the Nazis.” There were more pro-Nazis in Pennsylvania than there were in the entire South! The only Americans who were pro-Nazi were ethnic Germans, and then after Pearl Harbor, they basically just disappeared or went underground or shut up. The Nazis had zero support in the South.

The Southern White Supremacists liked democracy. My Mom said that Americans hated the fascists because they were a dictatorship…and they were persecuting Jews. And Southerners didn’t really care anything about Jews back then. Who cares about Jews?

And the Nazis were not seen as pro-White at all. I mean every White person was pro-White back then. Why would you line up with Nazis? And the people that the Nazis were fighting were pro-White. France was pro-White. The UK was pro-White. Denmark, everyone in Europe was pro-White back in those days.

So being pro-White was the norm, but what happened was the Establishment took it up, and they tried to link being pro-White with being with Hitler. But it’s a psychological thing, because if your enemy is telling you that if you’re pro-White, you’re like Hitler, psychologically, you’re going to think, “Well, maybe Hitler wasn’t such a bad guy, and maybe I should be pro-Hitler.” Would you say that that’s the roots of it?

Well…I’m not sure, I don’t know why the pro-White movement has gotten into Nazis and fascists and all that, because I think that’s the biggest mistake they ever made. For instance, there are probably still a lot of White racists down in the South, but I don’t imagine that most of those people like Nazis or fascists.

I think it’s one faction of the White Nationalist movement that might be Nazi. But it’s a problem that it might be guilt by association because in the White Nationalist community, they are going to network together, and if one person is their friend…if they have a political associate who might say something pro-Hitler, it’s going to rub off. So you’re saying that that’s one of the biggest barriers, because groups like the ADL along with the media – they’re going to try to link anything that’s remotely pro-White with Nazism and fascism.

Well…that’s simply not true. The old White Supremacists in the South, the neo-Confederates, and there are still many, many, many Southerners who believe in this stuff, and there are even White racists all over the country who subscribe to that, and they don’t want anything to do with Nazism, and they don’t even like fascism either. So the White movement is simply insane. Why have they taken up Nazism and fascism? I don’t know.

But for 20 years after WW2, White Supremacism and White racism was going gung-ho all through 40’s, the 50’s and into the early 60’s the Civil Rights Movement. They weren’t waving Nazi flags or supporting fascism. They were pro-democracy, pro-American, pro-European, and they hated Nazis and fascists.

If you look at the A3P, they are pro-democracy and pro-Constitution, so I don’t want to smear that party because I agree with what they are doing, but you do make a legitimate point that through guilt by association…maybe someone is affiliated with someone who may have those views, but the party itself, the platform and agenda put out by the party, is a Constitutionalist party that’s for democracy and individual rights.

Yes, the A3P could hardly be called a fascist party. There’s not a whole lot of fascism around anymore. Even the European Right, the Hard Right in Europe, they’re not all that classically fascist anymore – the BNP, the British National Party – is not all that fascist, they’re democrats last time I checked. They support civil liberties. The old fascism of the 20’s, 30’s and 40’s – it isn’t really coming back.

You see, fascism mutates. Pinning down fascism is like pinning down a blob of mercury. Fascism is like a chameleon. It changes colors, it changes shapes, it can be anything. It will take on the forms of other things. Who’s that guy who wrote Babbitt? Sinclair Lewis?

He said that fascism, if it comes to the US, will be wrapped in a cross and an American flag.

Exactly. Fascism takes on whatever forms it needs to take on to get in. It’s this very weird movement that’s very, very difficult to study, to define. They’ve been studying it since the 1920’s, and there’s some really good literature coming out in recent years – a lot of it can be found on a blog called Orcinus. There are some excellent pieces there that talk about something called “pseudo-fascism.”

Some of the top research right now on fascism is coming out of Political Science departments. They are trying to exactly figure out…what it is! Because…nobody…really knows…what fascism is! And the fascists are experts are concealing their motives, at lying, at not calling themselves fascists, at calling themselves anti-fascists.

You talked about Sinclair Lewis, well, Huey Long, who was a popular political figure in the US in the 1930’s, he said that fascism will return to the US, but perhaps under the title of anti-fascism.

That’s what they do. I’ve seen fascists on the Net, and they called their enemies fascists! It’s really weird and confusing. If you hang around Usenet sites that have a lot of fascists, after a while, your mind starts spinning around, and you start wondering if you are a fascist yourself. And they try to convert you to their movement.

They are like these shape-shifting forms that change into these other things and say all this contradictory stuff, and they’re just all over the place. They’re sneaky, and they’re tricksters, and mainly they confuse you. They confuse people, and that’s how they get people to support their project because often people don’t really know what they are supporting. They’re not up front about their aims – that’s another aspect of fascism. It’s basically a popular movement against the Left.

And populism can be a good thing, but fascism, it is an ultra-authoritarian movement. So I don’t think that being a racist automatically makes you a fascist. Even if you are a White Supremacist, one aspect of fascism that is essential to it is a reliance on a totalitarian form of government.

Well…certainly that is true, and all of those old-style racists in the US, and especially in the South, they’re anti-fascists! They hate fascism, they hate Nazism, and this crazy pro-White movement has blown all these people off by cheering on fascists and Nazis. What’s the matter with them? I don’t get it. For some reason, Hitler is held up as a hero of the White race. No he wasn’t! Hitler probably killed more White people than anyone in the 20th Century. What kind of hero is that?

Hitler did kill millions of White people, possibly even more than Stalin. I don’t get it. I think it’s just psychological where the enemies of people who are pro-White, they keep labeling pro-Whites as Nazis, and then they end up taking that label. Because when someone keeps calling you something, psychologically, you take up that label.

Well…that might be part of it. You call a man a thief enough, and eventually he might start stealing. “Well, if you’re going to call me a thief anyway, I might as well just start stealing.” And with the White Supremacists, since the 60’s, there’s been a total war on White racism coming out of the anti-racist movement. And that’s one thing the anti-racists have done really well – we pathologized racism, in particular, White racism, because, well…White racism is nasty, it has a bad history, and most White people don’t want to be racists anymore!

I think most Whites are racist in minor ways, but hardcore White racism has been so pathologized that most Whites will not take extreme, explicit racist stances anymore. So the only people out there taking explicitly pro-White stances are people who are so crazy that they don’t even care.

So it further stigmatized it so there’s no room for a healthy or more moderate pro-White movement.

There are no moderate pro-White movements!

Well, Pat Buchanan, he seems to have the best model because he basically is pro-White. He writes in his book, Death to the West that he does have a strong preference for White culture, and he laments the demographic change. But he’s able to appeal to a lot of people that White Nationalists can’t, and he has a following among conservatives where even people who are not White can admire him.

Well…Buchanan is basically…White politics. White politics isn’t really White Nationalism. The Tea Parties are White politics. The Republican Party, increasingly, is White politics. But you know Buchanan is sort of pro-Nazi himself. That’s a real problem with him.

Well, he’s not really pro-Nazi. Instead, he takes the position that the conservatives around the time of WW2, they were not explicitly pro-Nazi, but instead, they took the position that the Communists were a lot worse than the Nazis, or that defeating the Nazis wasn’t really worth it because Eastern Europe fell to Communism and Western Europe fell to multiculturalism. So that’s sort of where Pat Buchanan is coming from.

Break

The conservative movement around WW2 was under a lot of pressure, and the conservatives later changed their position – some conservatives nowadays will say that the Nazis and Communists were equally evil – there are even some who go out of their way to say that the Nazis were worse. I saw Denis Prager speak several years ago, and he said that he thought that the Nazis were even worse than the Communists, and that’s usually the position that the Left took.

Isn’t he a Jew though?

Yes, he is, so that’s a logical position but part of it is this Jewish influence for the neoconservative movement that has had a huge impact on the conservative movement in the US.

Well…I’m coming out of the WW2 Left, and those are my heroes, my comrades. The fascists and the Nazis are my enemies. They killed my comrades. If they ever come back in power, they will kill me, and I have no sympathy at all for those guys. And it’s not even a question of overall who was worse. See, I don’t think Stalin killed 20, 40, 60 or 110 million. I think Stalin killed 2.5 million. I don’t agree with those figures. Those are Nazi lies as far as I’m concerned.

I don’t believe that that famine was a deliberate famine, you know, the Holodomor, that fake famine that the Ukrainians go on about? Do you know what that famine is? The Ukrainian famine, the Holodomor?

Yes, I know what you are talking about, but it’s important to note that there is definitely a double standard when it comes to Communist atrocities, there can be an open discussion. But if you debate the Nazi atrocities, if you’re in Germany, you can actually go to jail for that.

Well…you can still debate the Nazi atrocities. And the legitimate figures for how many Jews were killed ranges all the way down to 4.2 million. So you can say that there were no 6 million killed, there were only 4 million, and that doesn’t make you a Holocaust Denier. And there are people who say it was over 6 million.

Anyway, historians pretty much agree about the basics. The debate’s over about the Holocaust. They did kill anywhere from 4 million to over 6 million Jews. That’s just the bottom line. There’s no further discussion about it. And the Holocaust Revisionists and the Holocaust Deniers have an ulterior motive, which is to bring back Nazism and to do the Holocaust all over again, and this time do it right.

So you’re saying that people who try to downplay the Nazi atrocities, their goal is to bring back the Nazis.

That’s correct, exactly.

For European nationalism, the accusation of Nazism is used as a weapon to suppress that nationalism, to make it pathological. But the other argument with regard to Zionism, if you look at Norman Finkelstein. His parents were actually Holocaust survivors. He wrote that book, The Holocaust Industry. And Israel has long stood by that, and they’ve used as a shield to be immune from any criticism.

Well, yes, there’s a good argument about the Holocaust as a religion. And Finkelstein does a good job on that. Finkelstein is not a Denier or anything like that that he is accused of. That’s not true. The Dean of Holocaust Studies is a guy named Martin Gilbert. I think he’s dead by now, but he puts the figure at 5.1 million. I don’t think it was 6 million myself. I think it was 5.7 million. Just because you say there were no 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust doesn’t mean you’re a Denier. There is still a lot of debate on the issue. There’s no real debate on the basics.

But you think there are similarities…You were saying that Israel has been going in a fascist direction.

Right. Well, on the Left, we’ve always called Zionism fascism. We think it’s fascism for Jews. It’s been a fascist movement from Day One, from the very start. We on the Left don’t like any ethnonationalism.

The reason that the Left doesn’t like Zionism is because they see it as kind of a hyper ethnonationalist movement. But I think there is also an anti-Zionist Right. They see Zionism more as a form of internationalism.

Zionism? As a form of internationalism? See, that’s crazy though. That’s nuts. That’s just anti-Semitic whackery.

But they are occupying another people’s land.

It’s a colonial project. It’s a settler-colonial project. It’s an imperialist project. It’s an ethnonationalist project. It’s a fascist project. There’s nothing progressive or Left about it. Where’s the internationalism? Internationalists don’t persecute minorities in that fascist way like the Israelis do. That’s not what an internationalist does.

Well the thing is that the Israel Lobby is by far the most powerful lobby in the US.

It’s one of them. There’s actually another one that’s more powerful. I think that the Oil Lobby or the Military Lobby is bigger.

The Military-Industrial Complex.

They are the most powerful ethnic lobby, for sure. Our elections are all about Jewish money. And the whole pro-Israel thing is all about Jewish money. The Jews have the US Congress by the short hairs, and they control the US Congress and government on the Israel issue to a pretty significant extent.

I think that that is why the anti-Zionist Right says that Zionism is internationalist. Because they manage to simultaneously support things like multiculturalism and immigration and also Zionism. I think it’s this extreme double standard.

Well…They’re supporting fascism for Jews over there in their homeland. Fascism for Jews is good for Jews over in Israel, but on the other hand, there isn’t any fascism for Jews over here in the US. Fascism in the US, or anywhere else in the world, is bad for the Jews, always, and so is ethnonationalism, because it’s always going to turn on the Jews. So in the Diaspora, the Jews always promote multiculturalism and whatnot as a way of diluting their enemies and making the Diaspora societies more friendly to the Jews. It’s all about what’s good for the Jews.

That’s where you get that word “internationalist” that Henry Ford wrote about.

Henry Ford was a great man! I like Henry Ford. I think he’s unjustly maligned. The International Jew is a good book, and I like it. But he’s wrong about some things. See, the main thing is that back then, Jews were internationalists because they didn’t have roots to the land. They were internationalists in the sense that their only allegiance was to their international Jewish community.

They weren’t real true internationalists. It’s more that they weren’t nationalists. They were basically traitors! The Jews have always been traitors, and they still are to some extent nowadays because their primary loyalty is to their international Jewish community and not necessarily to their own homeland. And they will screw their own homeland if it’s good for the Jews. When it comes down to either supporting the homeland or supporting the Jews, they will support the Jews! And that’s the big problem with the Jews. That’s why the nationalists hate them.

Yes, it’s definitely the cause of anti-Semitism. You’re saying that you’re against anti-Semitism.

Right.

But you support rational criticism of the Jews.

Right.

But how do we deal with this? Because there is a flaw in anti-Semitism since the Jewish leadership relies on anti-Semitism to get their followers more radicalized and ethnocentric. But at the same time, I don’t want to give the Jews a free pass either. How do you propose that we deal with these issues?

Well…when you get into anti-Semitism, you are basically falling into the Jews’ trap because the Jews want you to be an anti-Semite! That’s the way I see it. Now, personally, I don’t think the Jews are very important!

The only people who think Jews are important are:

1. Jews.
2. Anti-Semites.

I don’t think that Jews deserve all this attention that we are giving them. They’re just this little pissant tribe, and I don’t think they are deserving of all this interest and obsession. When you go anti-Semite, you’re giving the Jews what they want. You’re telling the Jews that they are important, when they are not! And…anti-Semites created Israel!

You’re strengthening Zionism. Because the whole idea of anti-Zionism is that we anti-Zionists want the Jews to be able to live peacefully in the Diaspora. We don’t want them all running to Israel because of Diaspora anti-Semitism. If you’re an anti-Semite, you’re chasing them over to Israel!

It’s interesting because Helen Thomas was saying that Israel should be dismantled and they should all move here but if Israel was dismantled…I know some on the anti-Zionist Right who support returning that land to the Palestinians. But what would happen is that they would all move to Europe and the US. So I can sort of see what you are getting at.

Do the anti-Semites really want that? I know anti-Semites who support Israel. Their attitude is, “We sure as Hell don’t want the Jews in our country!”

I’m not sure if the BNP is anti-Semitic or not, but they support Israel.

The BNP has anti-Semitic roots, but they recently did a turnaround and now they are pro-Jewish, they are Judeophilic, they are pro-Israel, they are Zionists. And it’s all because they are anti-Islam. It’s all because they don’t like Muslims. The BNP doesn’t care that much about Jews. Jews are not that big of an issue in the UK anyway. The Jews in the UK are very well assimilated, and they don’t have a lot of power there.

The big problem in the UK is not the Jews, it’s the Muslims. They’re setting off bombs!

Well, with Europe and the US, we have to look at them differently because they do have very different issues. If you look at Europe, the Muslim issue is huge there. In the US, the Muslim community here is pretty small. With the Muslims, they try to stir up fears about Islam to get support for wars in the Middle East.

The Muslim community here is as big as the one in Britain! The ones in the UK are just not assimilated very well. They are Pakistanis from the former British possessions, and they are just not doing well. It’s more a question of assimilation rather than numbers. We are fortunate in the US to have such a well-behaved Muslim community…so far!

But you think there could be an issue here in the future.

Yes, definitely, definitely. I mean I would not want to allow millions more Muslims to flood into this country willy-nilly. No, not at all. And I think we need to be very careful about the Muslims that we let in here. We need to make them take things like loyalty tests. I don’t know, I don’t know. Muslim minorities in non-Muslim countries are not that great of a thing. They tend to get really agitated and radicalized. They tend to make demands for Sharia law.

They’re…they’re like the Jews! They’re not loyal! They have dual loyalty. Their primary loyalty is to the Ummah and barely, if at all, to the nation. They will actually set bombs against their own nation because the nation is fighting the Ummah. The Ummah is the Muslim community of the whole world. U-m-m-a-h.

You do think that they have an imperialist agenda too. We are being kind of imperialistic towards them in the Middle East, but they do want to spread their religion through demographics and move throughout the world and have as many kids as possible.

Islam is extremely imperialist! That’s a definite fact! One thing you can say about the Jews is they are not imperialist. They don’t want converts. They don’t want to take over. If you want to convert to Judaism, you go to a rabbi, and tell him you want to convert to Judaism, the first thing he’s going to ask you is, “Why? Why do you want to convert to Judaism? Why do you want to do that? What do you want to do that for?”

Do you think that is for racial purity reasons?

No…Jews just don’t convert. Religions either proselytize or they don’t. Jews used to proselytize and take a lot of converts, but they haven’t been doing it lately for some reason. Jews just don’t convert people. It’s not their thing. There are other religions like that too, especially in the Middle East. That philosophy has its roots in purity stuff, but it’s generally not a very good idea for your religion to not accept converts. It’s a way to make your religion go extinct – don’t accept converts.

I haven’t really studied Islam. I haven’t looked at the texts, so I don’t want to make claims about a religion if I haven’t studied it. But if you study the history of Islam, it’s definitely a pretty imperialist religion. With Europe, the Muslim leaders definitely have a goal to take over Europe.

Sure! And so do the ones in the US! If you read the statements of CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, it’s run by Islamists, and they say the same thing as the ones in Europe do – that their goal is a Muslim America. And that’s what’s scary about these people. I don’t think we should be letting a lot of them in. As long as they are only 2% of the population, what are they going to do? But what happens when they get to be 5%? 10%?

What is the level of growth in that community in the US?

Not that much in the US. They have a few converts here and there. Actually, a much greater problem in the West in terms of Islam is that a lot of Muslims leave Islam. In the UK, 15% of all Muslims are leaving Islam. In Africa, millions of Muslims are leaving Islam every year. In Russia, 100,000’s of Muslims are leaving Islam every year. It’s a problem for Islam that when Muslims are a minority, a lot of Muslims leave Islam. Especially in an Islamic-hostile country.

Has that happened in Europe at all?

In the UK, about 15% leave, yes. Pakistanis. They don’t like Islam. In a few cases, they try to kill them for leaving, but so many leave that there is only so much the radicals can do. It’s hard to be a Muslim in a Western society! There are all those temptations. Do you really want to be a Muslim? If you’re a woman, do you want to wear that bag? If you’re a guy, do you want to shine on chicks, not look at porn, not date women, be a virgin until you get married? I mean, Western culture is pretty fun!

Do you think it’s a motivation for terrorism to come from a sexually repressed culture, and they see the West as being sexually immoral. You’ve heard that argument. How much of a role do you think that plays?

Hmm…I’m not sure. They kill women for violating Islam, but they also kill men. In Muslim-majority countries, they will kill guys for leaving Islam. The thing about Islam is that, from the very start, Islam has not accepted people leaving their religion. They do not accept apostates! They kill them! They’ve always done this, from Day One.

I was talking to my Mom about that, and she just acted like, “Well, that’s just the way they are. Muslims don’t like that. They’ll kill you if you leave.” She didn’t say it like they’re evil, but more that this is just the way that they are. They’ve been this way for about 1,300 years. It’s the nature of their religion. But that’s their imperialist nature right there! Because they accept lots of converts, but they won’t let anybody leave! It’s like a house that’s an Open House. Anybody in the neighborhood can come in, but once you’re in there, they lock the doors, and you can never get out.

It would be like a country that took in all these immigrants, but will not let anyone leave the country.

Yes! Especially with the goal of, “We’re going to be the biggest country in the world and take over all the other countries.” And they have emissaries all over all the other countries in the world trying to make their Muslims dual citizens. It’s true that Islam has a world conquest agenda, and Al Qaeda and folks like that are absolutely explicit in their goals of taking over the world. I’ve read Al Qaeda’s statements. And I’ve been interviewed by the FBI too about Al Qaeda. Because I did some research on them.

Yes?

Yes I know something about Al Qaeda. It was funny, I called the FBI back one time, and I asked for the Bin Laden Division, because they’ve got this Bin Laden Task Force. And it was Friday night and they said, “Oh, they’re gone for the weekend!” I thought that was lame. I think the Bin Laden Task Force should be working 24-7. This FBI guy called me back and they did an interview with me. I didn’t really like it too much because they always treat you like you’re a suspected terrorist.

Yes, they think you’re a suspected terrorist if you’re going to them with information.

Yes, I don’t like to be interviewed by cops either. They always treat you like you’re a suspected criminal. That’s just their nature.

I don’t think that’s intentional, but it’s just what they are used to doing as part of their job.

Well, he wanted to find out if I was a Muslim! He was like, “Are you a Muslim?” I was like, “No way!” And he was breathing easier. I told him I was a Leftist, a Left-winger, and he was like, “Oh well, we’re not worried about you.” The FBI is worried about American Muslims, especially converts. White guys like me convert. And quite a few of those guys go super-radical. Because converts are often crazy.

They’re more radical than the people who are born into it because they joined just for that purpose, to embrace that belief system.

In many religions, even the converted Jews…the Jewish converts often go really nuts.

I’ve met Christians who converted to Judaism. They started out as Christian Zionists and that was their motivation for joining Judaism.

The Jews say that the Jewish converts are simply nuts in many cases. They’re like these fanatical Jews. And it’s interesting too, because the Jewish converts often take on a lot of these supposed “Jewish genetic tendencies.” They become extremely ethnocentric, they become paranoid of the Gentiles. These are not genetic tendencies! The ethnocentrism, the paranoia of the Gentiles, the tribalism.

Some people think that those traits are genetic.

Yes! I don’t agree with that.

But who’s been saying that it’s genetic? I think it’s cultural. Who’s been saying that?

Well, the Nazi thing was that there was something wrong with their genes.

Well, I see what you are saying. I know that way of thinking.

Kevin MacDonald has suggested that too, and boy is he wrong.

He has brought it up. I read his blog a lot, and I think that MacDonald’s main view is that it’s a culture, a political ideology. Do you think that he has mentioned the genetic aspect?

I think he mentions something about that. If you read his Trilogy of books, he suggested that Jewish character traits might be genetic. I think that’s crazy. Supposedly the Jews are really aggressive verbally and in business, and they can be rude.

Well, I think that’s cultural too, because the Jews are verbally and in business, extremely aggressive. But physically, Jews are not aggressive at all. Jewish guys have a reputation for being wimps. Jews commit almost no physical violence or violent crime. Jews are bad at sports. So…what did they inherit? Some sort of gene that made him extremely verbally aggressive but at the same time extremely non-aggressive as far as physical aggression goes? That doesn’t make any kind of sense.

Well, Jewish behavior is definitely cultural, since it also depends on where they grew up. If they grew up in New York or if they grew up in a small town in the Midwest is going to make a huge difference. I was reading about this story. There was this rabbi, he went to Peru and he got these Peruvian Indians and he took them to Israel and they turned into these fanatics after about 5 years.

Yes, they probably started acting more Jewish than Jews in New York that are 500 years Kosher. That shows you that one can take on those psychological tendencies of the Jews. It’s simply a cultural thing. I could be like that. I could be like that if I converted to Judaism. I could get really paranoid of the Gentiles and really hyperethnocentric, I could get really acquisitive, really verbally aggressive…

You grow up in a culture like that…and those people from around the Mediterranean, they tend to be that way anyway. They tend to be verbally aggressive, really emotionally expressive…They’re really into business too. Jews act a lot like Arabs, that’s the thing. They get in your face, but they’re really warm too, they embrace you, and when they’re talking to you, they’re like two inches away.

White American Decline: A Confession

I have a confession to make.

Part of me wants to retain White culture as the dominant American culture.

Problem is that US Whites are unspeakably rightwing. So with White decline in the US should come to the decline of this horrible White US conservatism. White decline should lead to a more liberal America, which I support in most ways.

The US non-Whites are very liberal. The young CA Hispanics are almost Communists or socialists. A non-White America could finally give us a shot at a socialist America, like the socialist states in much of the world. So my preferences for White culture clash with my politics. This crap could all be avoided if US Whites would just be sensible and vote liberal. But they won’t. As it is, it’s pretty much a wash, and a strong part of me wants White decline due to the political benefits.

I like White culture, but I hate this ridiculous conservatism, so out of step with civilized humanity. Non-Whites oppose this nonsense much more than Whites do. Looking for someone to blame because your Senator or Representative is a conservative dinosaur? Look no further than the White % of the district.

I like liberalism and socialism, but I’m not wild about Black and Hispanic culture. But increasingly, non-White areas are just developing the “multiculture” instead of some explicitly Black, Hispanic or otherwise culture. The multicult is hard to describe, but it’s not White culture, at least politically, and it doesn’t dive into the depths of Black or Hispanic culture. It’s common among civilized Blacks and 2nd generation people of all ethnicities, not just Hispanics.

As you can see, I’m torn. At this point, it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other. I live in a non-White town in a non-White state, and it’s not exactly the end of the world. I figure we are going to transition towards a Latin American model with a White elite anyway. I’m White. What’s not to like?

Excellent Shot Across the Bow at the Nordicists

This is a great comment from an earlier piece I wrote, The Racial Makeup of Hispanics. It has attracted many an idiotic comment, especially from ignorant Hispanics. However, this comment was a nice one. It was written by a Spaniard in response to a stupid comment by a Nordicist claiming that ancient Greece and Rome were Nordic and that Mediterranean types were inferior non-Whites.

Spain a bastardized race? Britain is by far more bastardized.

Tacitus, a Roman historian made a clear description of how the Romans, Greeks, Celts, Germanics and Middle Eastern Scythians were.

First of all, Roman historical documents describe Carthaginian port towns as far as in Ireland. Carthaginian traders were originally from Phoenicia. These documents from around 300 B.C. clearly describe the phenotype differences of the Romans from other Barbaric tribes.

The Roman description of themselves is clearly the same as modern day Spanish person, Roman nose profiles resemble a Spanish nose profile. Romans describe themselves as having pale, easily tanned skin, dark hair and mostly having amber, light brown and more commonly hazel eyes.

The Celts, contrary to common ignorant beliefs, were described in 300 B.C. as having pale skin that could tan, dark hair and to a large degree, blue eyes.

Many Hibernians (Irish), however, were describe as having brown skin and dark eyes. Others as White with dark eyes and large noses. Ireland was then inhabited by a majority of Basques, some Celtic tribes and many Carthaginian traders.

The Germanic tribes were described as tall, blond and and light blue eyed, and reddish white skin.

Scythians originated in what today is Kazakhstan and were describe by Tacitus as tall, grey eyed and red haired.

These historical descriptions explain why Italians, Spaniards, Southern French, Portuguese, and to some degree Romanians look alike. Romans were never a Nordic race, nor did they ever have blue eyes. The Mediterranean people are not a result of a bastardized race.

The Roman Empire extended its influence to Britain, and many Roman Nobles moved in what is today known as Wales. As an obvious result, a great % of Welsh people have hazel eyes, Roman nose profiles and Mediterranean skin, perhaps paler due to the fact that Britain is located in a Northern region. Some might even still look Basque. The only reason Carthaginian or Semite phenotypes became uncommon is because of a constant absorption by other ethnicities.

Greeks thought that blue eyes were a sign of cowardice and uncivilized people.

Romans viewed Celtic, Germanic and other tribes, except Greeks, as inferior to them. Before the Roman conquest, technologically and culturally speaking, they were right; they possessed a poor writing system, did not have massive constructions and lacked a truly organized state. Germanic tribesmen rarely possessed any metal armor and fought naked. For Romans, Celtic or Nordic features were barbaric.

Ignorant people think mestizo people look like Indians or Arabs. I’ve been to Mexico and have some friends who are blond, blue eyed and both their parents look Indian; some others have green, hazel and grey eyes with white reddish skin, and some are even red haired with swarthy parents.

I’ve seen mixed people in Sweden (a great % of population) who come from Sami parents (who came from Siberian Mongoloid tribes) and are light blond haired and light blue eyed. The same in Finland and even in Greenland. This mix happened thousands of years before the Viking invasion, so DNA tests prove that English people have Sami blood to a certain extent too – they just lack the phenotype.

Ignorant people think mixed races among European and non-European have to look non-White, which is really stupid.

Hungarians are also a mixed of Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, Magyar and Mongols. Many Russians absorbed Sami, Ugric and Mongoloid people for centuries. And Jews have also been mixing for almost a thousand years with some Europeans. If Jewish people hadn’t preserved their religion, they would be considered European. In Germany many blond Nordic looking folks were accepted in the Army even when their parents were Jewish.

The final point is that when mestizo populations are constantly absorbed by another group, over the centuries they become part of the culture that absorbed them. That is also the main reason why our languages constantly change; all Germanic languages used to be one but got mixed and changed. Same with Romance, Slavic and probably every single language in the world.

Some very nice comments here. First of all, my prejudices. I regard Nordicists as splitters who are trying to divide out great White race. Further, I like Med Whites a lot, and I surely consider at least all of the Meds in Europe as fully, 100% White, whatever their petty genetics may look like. If you look White and act White, you’re White. Real simple. As far as Extended Mediterraneans in North Africa, the Middle East, etc., it’s a much more mixed bag, but I think there are a lot of White Berbers and White Arabs too. It probably mostly boils down to individual phenotype.

This comment makes clear that Meds and Spaniards are not some bastardized race, instead, they are simply the Meds, an ancient White people who are the direct ancestors of some of the greatest Whites that ever lived, the Romans and the Greeks.

Furthermore, the commenter notes that the British are quite mixed, with many Med types and Med features, especially among the Welsh. There is substantial Phoenician and Semitic (Middle Eastern Arab) blood in both the Irish and the British. Going back 2,300 years, the Irish were a dark haired and dark eyed people with heavy inputs from the dark Basques and Phoenicians and Celts.

Even the Celts, romanticized as uber-Nordics, are proven here to be have been dark haired with skin that tanned easily. They were very different from the Germanic types. Further, it is important to note a huge Celtic component in the Spaniards and Portuguese, especially in the north of Spain, in Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria, the Basque Country, Argaon and Catalonia. There is substantial Celtic input in northern Portugal in the Lusitania region.

Celts are considered to be uber-Nordics, but the Spaniards are heavily Celtic, so are the Spaniards Nordics or what? The whole Nord vs. Med debate starts to get absurd because there has been so much Nordic-Med mixing over the millenia.

I laughed when I read that the ancient Greeks and Romans thought that Germanic Nordic types and features were inferior and barbarian phenotypes and peoples. How the world has changed, but it goes to show that all this crap is pretty subjective and there’s not a lot of “science” going on in the intra-European fights.

Surely the Hungarians are part Asiatic. You can sometimes see it in their eyes. Definitely, Russians are part Asiatic, mostly Siberian, as are Swedes and Finns, who have considerable Sami in them.

And of course Hispanic mestizos look like everything under the sun. One or both parents can be quite dark and indigenous looking, while one or more of the kids can be quite light, and vice versa. In the Caribbean, it works the same way, but the mix is Black and White. A genetic approach to Whiteness is nonsensical when denying Whiteness to someone who looks and acts White.

Anti-Racist Idiot Goes to Haiti, Gets Raped, Is Thankful for the Experience

The White nationalists just love this stuff. They can’t get enough of it.

But it does seem to show the sheer idiocy of some White anti-racists.

Amanda Kijera, a White liberal anti-racist (Facebook page here), went to Haiti to volunteer to help the Haitian people. After a few months there, she was raped one night by a Black Haitian man on a rooftop. After the rape, she says she feels grateful for having had this experience (Huh?!) and blames Whites for so screwing up Black guys all over the world that they do fucked up stuff like raping women. It’s all Whitey’s fault. You know, we’re forcing all these Black guys to rape women by oppressing them and all.

As she was being raped on the rooftop, she pleaded with her “brother” to stop and told him she was a Malcolm X scholar. I doubt if the illiterate punk even knows who Malcolm X was. As you might expect, this had no effect on the rapist.

If this woman goes back to Haiti without an armed guard, I say she’s an idiot.

Amanda Kijera, silly White woman from the Tim Wise School of Anti-racism, goes to Haiti, gets raped by a Black guy, then blames Whites, like a good anti-racist should.

Haiti’s rape rate is off the charts. I recently heard on the radio that 70% of Haitian girls have been raped. I guess that means that 70% of Haitian females get raped before they are even adults. In adulthood, even more get raped no doubt. Looks like almost 100% of Haitian women probably get raped at some point in their lives.

After the earthquake, there were widespread reports of Haitian men raping Haitian women and girls, even in the temporary camps set up to house them. That Haitian men have about a 6% HIV-positive rate makes the rape epidemic even more terrifying.

This reminds me of the Amy Biehl case in South Africa during apartheid. This young liberal White woman went to South Africa to show her solidarity with the oppressed Blacks. At some point in her visit, she was surrounded by a mob of South Africans, including females, and stabbed to death. A radical group, the Azanian People’s Liberation Army, claimed responsibility for the murder. Apparently their revolutionary style was to murder any Whites in South Africa at random. They were responsible for a number of terrorist attacks on innocent South African Whites.

There was another fairly famous case of a young leftwing White woman who moved alone to a US ghetto to work with the oppressed. She was not there long when one night she was murdered by a crowd of young Black men by being set on fire in an apparent hate crime.

I’m not trying to make a case here that young Black males are so dangerous that all White females should avoid them. But there are some places a young White woman should not go to alone, like Haiti, a US ghetto at night and a South African Black township.

A lot of White liberals are actually secret race realists who are cynical about Blacks. They are non-racist to anti-racist in their views and politics, but nevertheless, they are frightened of Blacks and generally try to avoid them.

They live in White towns and send their kids to White schools. I admit I’ve been afraid of Blacks most of my life. That certainly doesn’t apply to all Black people, but it’s a general feeling. No doubt the standard anti-racist view is that this fear of mine makes me a racist. Well, fine, perhaps it does. OK, I’m a racist then. I’m comfortable with that, and I’m also still alive at 52.

I’m Ethnocentric and I Don’t Care If Whites Go Extinct

Someone asked me how one could feel pride in being White, but then not care if Whites go extinct. They inferred it was a conundrum.

But it isn’t. This is simply the way that all tribes have been all down through time. Few tribes, other than the Jews, have cared about genetic purity. Tribal membership or nationality was defined by, you know, sane things, like a common language, culture, religion, etc.

You could always marry into the group, as long as you assimilated to their language, culture and religion, in general no matter what your genes looked like. American Indian tribes were like this. They took Whites and Blacks into their tribes, and of course intermarried with other tribes, as they cared not one whit for genetic purity. The White or Black simply became just another Cherokee by marrying into the tribe and adopting their culture, language and religion.

That’s really the only sane way to be ethnocentric, and it’s the way that ethnocentrism has worked for millenia in human tribes.

As far as pride in being White, well I’m happy to be me, and I love my people, but I’m not concerned about our continuing existence or White extinction.

There’s nothing weird about that – I figure most Whites are like this. Careful surveys have shown that ~73% of US Whites have some sort of White pride, it’s just that they don’t say it. But almost none of them care if Whites go extinct. It isn’t going to happen for a long time anyway, so who cares? Anyway, most Whites regard the very question as so absurd  it is laughable.

Actually, you will find this in most groups. I worked for an Indian tribe, and there was one full-blood left out of 800. The remaining ones were continuing to intermarry like crazy with non-tribals and even non-Indians. Obviously, genetic extinction is very important to them, but they never mentioned it once. They simply did not care about genetic extinction.

Nevertheless, the ethnocentrism of this tribe was off the charts. They were as ethnocentric as White nationalists, or worse.

Do Blacks care if Blacks go extinct? What does it mean anyway? WN White extinction means pure Whites will be gone. Well, pure Blacks are already gone in the US, so Blacks are already extinct here. Since Blacks are already extinct in the US in WN sense, why worry about Black extinction?

Do Hispanics care about extinction? Of course not? What sort of line even exists that could go genetically extinct? Hispanics are a genetic Cuisinart turned on high. There’s nothing to go extinct; there’s no pure race to take out.

Few, if any, tribes or nationalities on Earth are concerned about going genetically extinct, even tribes that ought to be. I’m not sure why that is, but I think it’s because most sane humans don’t care about the genetic purity of their race. It’s not healthy human thinking. Most sane humans think of tribal extinction in terms of the loss of language, culture, or religion, things like that. But it’s proving almost impossible to stop even those sorts of tragic losses. Life marches on nonetheless, and the appeal of global culture and an improved life is a strong one.

Most tribes around the world have figured out that you can’t regulate marriage and sex. Some of the more ethnocentric ones try to maintain the tribal language or religion even after intermarriage, but intermarriage has a way of taking those things out. The general attitude among endangered cultures and languages around the world seems, “There’s nothing you can do about it.”

Have you noticed that the only group on Earth yelling about the genetic extinction of their race is the WN’s? That’s because pretty much only WN lunatics care about genes and genetic purity. Most others think it’s a laughably stupid argument, and mass intermarriage is an unstoppable juggernaut anyway.

New Liberal Race Realist Blog

Here.

I know who this guy is, but I won’t name any names. I have not read much of what he’s written here other than the opening statement, but I’m in agreement with this project. He also has some liberal race realists in the comments section. I had no idea that there were so many of us. Rather than pushing some sort of “liberal racism” – the typical PC rejoinder to liberal race realism – he is simply trying to find a way to fashion a liberal or progressive project out of the rather discouraging (to us) facts about race, as they come to light.

Clearly, the whole race realist/human biodiversity (HBD) project is now in the hands of the Right, and it does have some major ideological challenges to the Left and liberalism. Nevertheless, I think we are up to the task. There’s no reason to give this whole issue to the Right while continuing to protest with arguments that increasingly seem like disgusting but well-meaning lies.

Furthermore, there are a lot of Whites and males, and especially White males, who are sick and tired of the whole “White People/Men are Evil” line pushed by the PC crowd.

If you go to a California university now, you have to take a Diversity Curriculum that consists of classes that might as well be called White People and Men are Evil. I’ve talked to some White guys who just came out of that program, and they are hopping mad. The general tendency is for folks like that to move to the Right politically, since the Left and the Democratic Party is seen as hostile to Whites and men.

Well, the Left is hostile to Whites and men!

But I’m all about economics, so I’m not about to support rightwing economics (the enemy) just because the Left is bonkers on race, gender, sexual orientation and other crap.

Liberal Race Realism, along with a Liberal analogue to Masculinist Movement, now completely in the hands of the Right, stands a chance of rescuing some of these White and male souls before they take off into rightwing populist la-la land.

It’s time for some real navel-gazing on the Left. It should be clear by now that 40 years of Identity Politics on the Left, now embodied as Queer Theory, Gender Feminism, Critical Race Theory and other forms of jazzed up bullshit soft science, hasn’t done the slightest damn thing for poor people, and especially for poor minorities, in particular for poor Blacks.

Worse, it empowered a horrible rightwing backlash and siphoned a lot of Whites and males off to the neverworlds of rightwing populism. And if we on the Left are working for anyone, it’s for the working classes, the poor, the lower income people, and in particular the minorities among them, who are hurting most of all.

Liberal Biorealism site goes beyond this one by accepting many race realist presuppositions as facts on the ground. It’s notable that they assume that genetics explains most of the B-W IQ difference.

I’m not willing to do that here, at least not yet. As long as that line can still be credibly disputed, and there is no hard consensus on it, I will hold to this optimistic position. My point instead is to say that the tests are valid, and there are intelligence differences among races and ethnic groups, whatever the Hell is causing them. At this sad point, even that is pouring gasoline on the fire of public discourse.

I realize that there is not much in race realism for Blacks, but Blacks should maybe come up with a pro-Black project that takes race realism into account, since this view is only going to grow in the future. For Blacks to throw the whole thing over to hard racists in the Libertarian and Conservative movements, who have nothing but ill will for Blacks, is a mistake.

For instance, it’s typical for rightwing race realists to argue that HBD means that we need to cut off all or most social spending to minorities, since they are genetically inferior, and you’re just throwing good money after bad. Almost all conservative race realists also want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws. There’s nothing in that but harm for Blacks period, and not just poor Blacks. By not formulating some sort of a pro-Black response to race realism, Blacks risk throwing the ball over to their worst enemies.

Stop the Western Left Before It Kills Again

In the comments section to Alpha Unit’s latest post, Patrick writes:

We’re all a bunch of idiots who have been lied to. There is no need to export our manufacturing jobs to China. America used to have one of the highest living standards in the world due to our manufacturing being based here in America. These greedy capitalist worms will do anything in order to pay a lower wage for their workers and then they print economic textbooks full of lies so that morons will believe that losing our jobs and having a low minimum wage will somehow help us.

At this point I’m not sure who will support the worker. The mainstream in the democratic party is not for the worker. When the standard of living for the workers is better the result is that crime is reduced and the quality of products are better. Helping the worker helps everyone.

Americans have been just so brainwashed with the idea that helping the worker is bad and they think that living in a crazy society is somehow good. I don’t know what the answer is. I dont know what party can do it or if pro-worker people can infiltrate the mainstream parties.

Patrick’s comment is excellent, and so exquisitely written I wish I could have written it myself.

The dominant theme in White US culture is that everything good for US workers is bad and everything bad for them is good. Everything good for US business is good and everything bad for it is bad. The pro-business, pro-corporate, anti-worker mindset is across the board to the extent that it’s not common to meet pro-worker US Whites. Even most US White workers that I meet have this attitude.

US White workers are completely insane. They hate the workers and love the bosses. In other words, they hate themselves and love their enemies. They don’t want higher wages or good benefits. They like being fucked over and shat on. Even the lowliest worker peon in the US is typically in effect a pro-management traitor.

Pro-worker consciousness, even on the part of the workers, where it ought to be if it’s anywhere, is almost nowhere to be seen. The US worker is in love with his exploiter and at war with anyone on his side who wants to help him. A part of me says that US workers deserve the river of shit that logically flows from this “Love your enemy, hate your friends” masochism, but then I even feel sorry for idiots, and letting the country go to the dogs is not option, as I have to live here too.

The entire media, every large newspaper, all of the large newsweeklies, most of the large topical monthlies, many of the small intellectual journals, almost all topical radio stations and almost all of US TV promotes the screw the worker, enrich the boss line, so this is why US workers eat this gruel and proclaim it’s the finest caviar. They’ve been brainwashed. They’re also re-enacting The Emperor Has No Clothes every day.

Not only are both parties resolutely anti-worker as Patrick notes, but the entire media spectrum, from top to bottom, is the same. The only exceptions are public TV and radio, and they are under relentless rightwing attack. The rightwing is furious that they only have 95% of the airways, and the people have a tiny child’s voice crying in the desert.

Some softie might hear that voice and instead of letting the baby die as capitalist culture mandates, try to be human and help it. That’s the rightwing’s nightmare, a nation where workers pursue their own interests and people give in to “soft” emotions like charity, kindness, fairness and justice (together, coded as mercy). In an atomized America, only lust, gluttony, greed, avarice and, if you have the money, sloth, are allowed.

America, the most floridly Christian large nation, disallows the very and specifically Christian notion of mercy above and the respect, evenhandedness and self-defense that flows from it.

The Western Left is almost equally useless. The entire left wing of the political spectrum is aligned with an Open Borders position that mandates a continual flood of low wage workers, both skilled and unskilled, from the Third World. That this pro-corporate project devastates US workers is clear. Hence, the Western Left, on this issue anyway, is the handmaiden to the very corporations that they claim to despise.

The Western Left has also, incredibly, promoted the rightwing strategy of splitting the working class by gender and race. Via Identity Politics, woman is set against man, non-Whites against Whites, and as one might suspect, the result is that all of the workers are divided and at war. Just as the rightwingers always do. Once again, the Western Left serves its corporate accomplice, willingly or not.

Now that Economics has almost been erased from the Western Left, all that remains is the sorry yet ludicrous detritus of Identity Politics.

Defend the queers and their right to screw 20 guys a night in bathhouses and spread AIDS everywhere! Why? Why not? Better than defending the workers.

Defend the “immigrants” who flood illegally into the land, devastate native workers, pulverize the wage scale and create locust storms of crime, social decay and ghettos everywhere they go!

So not only does the US worker lose his job or see his wage crash into the the bottomless well, he gets his nice neighborhood turned into a crime and trash blighted slum in the process. Win-win! Win for the bosses, win for the Useless Western Left!

Defend the transsexuals! You know, the chicks trapped in dudes’ bodies! Why? Who cares? Better than defending the workers!

Defend the women! Turn them into men, have them assaut men’s masculinity and wage gender jihad against us! Why? Why not? Better than defending workers.

Defend the criminals! Now that we’ve imported gigantic armies of low-skilled Third Worlders who logically created vast dope, crime and gang infested slums, obviously we’ve created tons of crime where there was none before. Therefore, let’s defend the criminals that we created in the first place!

If you go to a US university now, you will have to take an entire syllabus that may as well be called Anti-White Studies. There is no purpose to this curriculum other than attacking Whites and especially White males. It’s pro-gay, pro-woman, pro-immigrant, and pro-non-White.

On Economics, bizarrely enough, it’s neoliberal, and promotes a ferocious pro-corporate agenda that could have been scripted by the National Association of Manufacturers. Open Borders is part and parcel of this weird Multiculturalism/Neoliberal Project.

The people teaching it are usually called liberals or even leftwingers, but there is nothing remotely pro-worker or economically Left about their agenda. They make very good money and live in very nice, mostly White, neighborhoods far away from the bitter blots of criminalized degradation, the  Diversity Squalor they created.

Stop the Western Left before it kills again.