Alt Left: Is US Immigration Dysgenic?

Sami: Very good points, Thinking Mouse.
The majority of our immigration comes from Latin American, average present IQ 90-95, and from East Asia, average present IQ 100-107. This averages out to close to 100 as it is, if you look at those two groups in combination. And this doesn’t take into account the Flynn Effect (though, unfortunately, I doubt Mexican American Barrio culture, as it presently is, at least, is something that would do much to accelerate the Flynn Effect, sorry to say.
And we get smaller input from places like the Middle East, present average IQ 84-90, if Richard Lynn’s methods for assessing this are valid (highly questionable, at best). However, Arab Americans and Iranian Americans both have average incomes and average levels of educational attainment — both considered to be rough proxies for average IQ — than the White American average. So, it is clear, that within American culture (in stark contrast to the case with Europe) those groups seem to be Flynn-effected upward.
In short, I am unconvinced that our present immigration policy is dysgenic.

Instead of simply not being Flynn-effected, I would argue that barrio culture is actually IQ-impairing. I don’t have any evidence for that, but I can hardly think of a more aggressively, belligerently, arrogantly ignorant culture in the US. Even US Black culture is more educated and intellectual than US barrio culture. Isn’t that pitiful?
Latin America does NOT have an average IQ of 90-95. Most of the immigration is from Mexico, IQ 90. The rest is from Central America, IQ 85-90. Average IQ of Hispanics in the US is ~90. We don’t get that much immigration from East Asia. China is where most of it comes from, IQ 105. Combined together, you get IQ 96, but there are many more Hispanics, so that lowers it to ~93. At the end of the day we don’t know what the IQ of immigrants, legal and illegal, is in the US.
Hispanic IQ in the US is not undergoing any Flynn rises compared to Whites. It just stays at 90. Arab and Iranian IQ is not high, but in the US, they may be selected. Anyway, they appear much smarter than Hispanics here in the US, whatever their IQ’s are.
You have only to look at large Hispanic communities to see that the IQ is not the same as a nearby White town. This Hispanic city here may have an IQ of 93. I came from a nearby White town which probably had IQ of 100. The differences were so stark it was shocking. So you can see that even seven IQ points at a macro scale like that has a huge effect on the intelligence of a city. You can really see IQ differences when you look at whole cities full of people of different IQ’s.
US IQ has always been 100. In recent years it has fallen to 98. How did that happen?

Alt Left: Who's White? A Caucasian Roundup, or Ultra-Pan-Aryanism

Thinking Mouse: I didn’t read the article and now see you disagree with me, but I’ll explain why I think this category is appropriate.
Since I’m largely anti-HBD (though the African non-African dichotomy might have some merit), especially to the traits affecting many types of social capital, I really just see race as the social constructs and their origin. So when people look different, that could have an affect on the perception people have, and it used to in the past.
I think its that you are raised in America with its diversity, and maybe your lack of racism has made you accept more swarthier people as fulfilling the roles of good citizens, and therefore get an pass to the all so important group. In my view, by your criteria for an race, we might as well say that an Frenchman with dark hair and large nostrils/bulgy nose is Chinese cause they don’t look “that different”. Blue eyes and pink nipples are almost unique to Whites, that’s like indispensable right there.

Of course Arabs are White, especially North Africans like Moroccans and Algerians. However, there are Black people in those countries and they don’t count. Most Libyans are White. So are most Tunisians and most Egyptians. There are non-White Egyptians in the South. I had an Egyptian girlfriend once who would be more properly characterized as a light skinned Black woman. Light Egyptians and Moroccans openly identify as White.
Most Saudis and Yemenis are White. The Yemenis we have here are all White and identify as White. All Syrians are White and the ones here also identify as White. Palestinians, Jordanians, Lebanese, Iraqis and Gulf types are mostly White. However there are a few Blacks among these people in Iraq and the Gulf. Prince Bandar is not a White man.
Of course Persians and most Afghans are White. Afghans even identify as White. The ones I know told me they are Aryans, the original Whites. But some Afghans are Asiatics, like the Hazara. Most Pakistanis are White, and some even identify as White. There are some non-Whites down in the South, but all the ones I have met are as White as I am.
Many but not all North Indians are White, especially Punjabis, many of whom are as White as I am. Quite a few Uighurs and Nepalis are White, but many are not. Groups like the Mansi are similar and you have to look at them on an individual basis.
Of course Chechens, Azeris, Georgians, Armenians and the rest of the people of the Caucasus are White. Also Azeris, Armenians and Chechens at least identify as White.
Most Turkmen, Kyrgyz, Kazakhs, and Uzbeks, etc. and many Siberians from around the Altai are best seen as mixed race. Many Tatars and Bashkirs are also mixed race. All of these groups are so mixed with Asiatics that they can’t really properly be called Whites.
I would look at facial and bone structure. Really all Caucasoids are simply Whites. Look at the face and if the face looks like a White person’s face, no matter the skin color, they are White.

Intellectual Cultures Around the World That Are Superior to America's

One thing I have noticed is that people from other cultures acknowledge the existence of intelligence far more than Americans.
Arabs, South Indians, Afghans, Pakistanis, Iranians, Turks, Khmer, and especially Chinese people have extreme reverence for intelligence and education.
If they spend any time with me at all, almost all of them act like they are almost stunned to the point of fainting by the breadth of my knowledge. They simply don’t believe that I learned it all from reading. I must have lived in these countries that I talk about.
Mexicans come from a complete retard culture in Mexico itself, but the less intelligent ones, especially if they were born in Mexico, often acknowledge that some people are wicked smart. If they were born here, they were born into Mexican-American culture, one of the most retarded and ferociously anti-intellectual cultures on Earth. Like I said, even Mexico has a more intellectual culture than US Mexican Americans. Mexico’s higher level culture is even more intellectual than that of America itself.
When you get down to South Americans, they are much more likely to acknowledge that intelligence is a thing and a good thing at at that. This is because South America in places like Colombia, Peru, Chile, Uruguay, and Argentina have retained a lot of the intellectual culture of Old Spain, including a reverence for literature and what my Argentine girlfriend called “men of letters.” Peruvians and Argentines in particular are very intellectual and especially literary.
Brazil’s culture is pretty stupid, but at the higher levels where people are much Whiter, it is highly intellectual and often very educated. In particular they take pride in their knowledge of the Portuguese language, which is not an easy language to completely master at all. The extreme hedonism of Brazilian culture, even among White Brazilians, somewhat masks the intellectual culture of the Whiter Brazilians.

Incels in Middle Eastern Culture and the West: A Comparison

Eric Blair: So a heterosexual man in these societies with a flawed personality…maybe he is unusually passive, crippled by shyness or overly emotional and thus has difficulty attracting a woman and engaging in the usual banter and one-upmanship with his male peers…would he be considered a ‘not man’ and gain a measure of acceptance? My guess is ‘no’ but I then again I didn’t know about the two-spirit thing either.
In the West he might be part of the ‘PUA’ scene for a while (which has been around long before the media discovered it, and at its core is basically a hetero male self-improvement club), or maybe he’s a ‘nice guy’ who hangs out in the ‘Manosphere’ bitterly nursing a grudge against women, or a self-loathing loner hooked on drugs or video games.
If he fails to overcome his character flaws and isn’t mistaken for a homosexual, our society classifies a guy like this a loser of the failed heterosexual variety and leaves him to his fate. It’s mostly an unspoken thing though. And it demonstrates the official feminist/SJW/media line about our era of ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusivity’ is bullshit. Nobody loves an awkward straight guy.

Hi George! I know you don’t like gay men very much, but that’s quite all right, as homophobia is a normal and natural reaction for any healthy straight man. Anyway, Spender and Auden are long since dead, so I think you can relax. Your attitude is a quite logical reaction of revulsion stemming from the experience of English public schooling.
First of all, not-men (nancies or pansies in your lingo) in Iranian society are simply gay men, not trans men. Gay men are very much loathed in Iranian society. But even Gordon Comstock would be happy to note that this man probably would not be considered gay.
In cultures like that you can actually be a lifelong bachelor. I taught some Arab students and one told me about an uncle on his who was in his 40’s and had never married. “I don’t think he likes women very much,” he said with a chuckle. These societies are pretty misogynistic, so that’s a good excuse.
But they are not so homophobic that they run around accusing straight men of being gay. I have spent a lot of time with Arabs, especially Yemenis. Gay men simply do not exist in their societies. All men are automatically assumed to be straight. If you are not successful with women, it’s no big deal, and someone will probably fix you up anyway. Anyway, most single men in that society are not successful with women because premarital sex is hard to come by.
This insane suspicion we have of straight men who do not act straight enough or get laid enough as being gay does not exist on those countries. You are assumed to be straight until proven otherwise. Most men accused of being gay in that country are almost certainly gay.
In those societies, they don’t engage in a lot of banter and one-upmanship because you don’t talk about your sex life in that culture, and all of the men act “Alpha” so in a sense, all men are macho and quite equal. It’s a society of equal macho guys. I have to admit that that is one very nice thing about a patriarchal society like the Arabs have: the very warm camaraderie among relatively equal masculine men.
The single guys are not getting any sex anyway. So there is not a lot of strutting around, “I’m getting laid and you’re not” crap like we have here in the West. Also all men act very macho, and even this man in your example would probably act macho because that’s how most all men act over there. If you are straight and you act masculine, you are in with the Arabs and probably the Iranians.
You are correct that in our society this man would fall into the various roles you described, would likely be down and out so to speak, and he would also be widely hated and rejected. I assure you that he would be much more accepted in Iranian and Arab society!
 

Who's White? Who's Not White?

Zamfir: If we say Whites are basically people derived from indigenous European populations, or the Euro branch of the Caucasian race, then lots of Southern Italians are borderline cases. Same for many Jews, possibly Berbers, etc.

Whites

A few things.
Spaniards and Portuguese are very White. The most Southern Portuguese are 4-5% Black. That doesn’t count.
Sicilians are ~5% Black. That doesn’t count either.
White Berbers are very White.
Jews are some of the purest Whites of them all.
My position is that Arabs are Whites.
Everyone in Turkey, the Caucasus and most of European Russia is White.
All native Europeans including Samis are White.
Iranians, Afghans, Pakistanis, and Northern Indians are more or less White people.
Many Latin Americans are White. Latin Americans up to ~25% White are considered White in Latin America. The rest are mulattoes, mestizos or zambos, or maybe people more properly called mixed race people of some type.

White-non-White mixes too mixed to Be Considered Whites, Maybe Best Called Part-Whites

Some Arabs and Berbers might have so much Black in them that we can’t call them White anymore. It’s hard to call Prince Bandar a White man. Neither are Southern Egyptians or the Blacker Berbers White.
A lot of Indians have so much South Indian in them that they are not really White anymore.
Many people in Eastern India and Nepal are too Asiatic to be called White. Quite a few are pure East Asians.
The peoples of the Stans, Siberia, and East Turkestan are properly seen as mixed race people, but some are White enough to be seen as Whites.  Some people of the Urals are also too mixed to be White.
A lot of these people are more properly seen as mixed race people. Many are Asiatic-White mixes who might be more properly called Eurasians as a mix of Europoids and East Asians.
Many Indians are a different mix altogether, more of a White-Australoid mix for which there is no racial name.
Obviously many Black-White mixes are more properly seen as some form of mulatto.
Many White-Indian mixes in Latin America are best seen as mestizos.
With a lot of these folks, it boils down to more of a case by case basis to determine whether a given Kazakh, Saudi, Mari, Yemeni, Moroccan, Egyptian, Uighur, Egyptian or certainly Latin American is White or is too mixed to be considered properly White. Generally most people with up to 20% Black in them look and act White enough to be considered White. This is probably true for Asian mix. Once you start getting over 20%, things get a lot dicier.

Socialism, Populism, and Neoliberalism in the Arab World

Sisera: The CIA’s coups have been out of control for decades, agreed.
But you support minority rule governments in the Middle East (Saddam Hussein, certainly and possibly Assad who is at least an ethnic minority. Hezbollah operated for years in a largely Christian country, etc.) because the alternative would mean Americans die in terror attacks from those countries becoming terror bases.
I don’t know that you could argue any Latin American oligarchy was more brutal than Saddam Hussein.
So you just value certain American interests that are different than his.

Saddam was brutal but he was a populist. He just didn’t tolerate any minority rebellions or opposition really. But in return for that he was a great socialist and populist leader who did great things for his people. Saddam’s rule was not oligarchic rule by a ruling class. Actually when the Ba’ath took power, they took out the local oligarchs, confiscated their land, imposed heavy taxation, nationalized many industries, etc.
Saddam was a man of the people. He was for the little guy, the average Joe Iraqi Workingman. You could also argue that Stalin and Mao were brutal in similar ways. Leftwing regimes can be pretty brutal. I am not one to dismiss that. But leftist and Communist regimes are not cases of ruling class rule or the rule by a small group of rich and capitalists over everyone else.
The whole time Hezbollah was around, Lebanon was a minority Christian country. It hasn’t been majority Christian since the 1960’s or maybe 1970’s. Anyway the Christians are not in opposition to Hezbollah. One of the Maronite leaders, Aoun, is in an alliance with Hezbollah. Hezbollah has Christian and Sunni militias in Christian and Sunni areas. The Greek Orthodox have always supported Hezbollah. It’s a populist movement. Hezbollah only came into existence because of the Israeli invasion.
You may be correct about Syria. Democracy may well vote in radical Islamists, and that would not be a pretty picture. The Syrian rebels give you a taste of what life would be like without Assad.  We already know what life in Iraq was like post-Saddam. A sheer Hell of a charnelhouse. Surely Saddam was better than what came after.
Assad is a populist. He works for everyone. It’s not a matter of the rich running the place and fucking everyone over. They just had elections for Parliament and 85% of the seats were run by Sunnis. The Sunnis run the business community. The army is full of Sunni generals. The minority rule thing is sort of dumb. Assad cuts everyone in because he has to. Anyway, if you go the democratic route in the Middle East, you end up with Islamists.
I actually do not mind popular or populist dictatorships that serve the people. That’s fine. Assad appears to have majority support too. It’s not like the majority want Assad gone and he just usurped them.
Saddam was difficult, but there were 1 million Shia Ba’ath Party members. Shia were persecuted not for being Shia but for being Islamists. Anyway, Saddam was the best choice. Look what happened when he was gone.
For whatever reason, the rich and the capitalists in the Arab World are not evil like in Latin America, the Philippines, Indonesia, etc. Everyone wants socialism in the Arab world. But Arab socialism allows businessmen to earn money, so everyone gets cut in. You don’t have hard-line socialism or Communism because you don’t have diabolical ruling classes like you have in Latin America. If the rich and the capitalists are willing to go along with a socialist or populist project, why can’t they have full rights?
Hezbollah does not control Lebanon. Anyway, Lebanon is minority rule and has been forever. Christians are guaranteed 50% of seats in Parliament but are only 30% of the population. Hezbollah is not a ruling class group. They are basically socialists like most Islamists.
You see, radical neoliberalism, Latin American style economic conservatism, Republican Party politics, etc. is a no seller in the Arab World. Literally nobody but nobody but nobody wants it. The only people proposing it are Lebanese Maronites because they are close to Europe and they are trying to distinguish themselves from Arabs by being individualists and different.
You can’t sell any sort of oligarchic rule, ruling class rule, economic conservatism of any of that in most Muslim countries. Because Mohammad, if you read him closely, was a pretty socialist fellow. Now the ruling classes in the Arab world used to be feudalists who worked the fellahin like serfs.
But the Arab nationalist revolutions that rocked the Arab world got rid of all of that. All rulers wiped out the feudal holdings and liberated the peasants. The large landowners tried to justify their rule by saying that Mohammad said there are rich and there are poor and that is fine. They got corrupt Muslims clergy to go along with this, similar to how the ruling classes get the Catholic Church to go along with the project of the rich.
This alliance was most notable in Iraq, but it existed in other places like Palestine. Egypt was largely feudal before Nasser. Nasser was not only an Arab nationalist but also a working class hero. Leftists all over the Arab World used to have pictures of Nasser on the walls. He too liberated the Muslim peasants. Feudal rule ended in Palestine in the 1930’s in the midst of an Arab nationalist revolution there.
Getting rid of oligarchic and feudal rule was easy in the Arab World because the masses never supported the oligarchs or feudalists. Rather, they hated them. So Arab socialism was an easy fit all over the region. Even the business communities gladly went along.

Why Do Some Countries Lack a Class Conscious Working Class?

John Engelman: Contrary to what Karl Marx said, for most people most of the time loyalties of nation, race and ethnicity are stronger than loyalties of class. The working class in the United States has always been more diverse than the working class in European countries. It is becoming more diverse with the influx of non whites.

To get class consciousness you really need a homogeneous working class. It helps if the working class is ethnically distinct from the upper class. In Scotland the upper class is English, or Anglicized Scottish. That is to say Scottish, but educated in England, and often speaking with English accents.
The clear majority of Scots vote for the British Labour Party. English workers are more likely to vote for the British Conservative Party.
The argument is circular in a sense because as you look around the world, generally what you see in most cases is an ethnically homogenous working class.
Would you describe the working classes of Latin America as homogeneous or diverse? They seem to be a mixture of White, Indian and Black and the mestizo, mulatto and Zambo mixtures, correct? Yet the diverse working classes down there have high working class consciousness despite their diverse nature.
Aren’t North African and Gulf countries fairly mixed between Blacks and Arabs?
Certainly in Arabia, lands with diverse working classes of Kurds, Arabs and Iranian working classes are all very left.
I believe Sri Lanka even with the vicious Tamil versus Sinhalese war, the diverse working class is leftwing. In Burma the working class is very left although there have been wild ethnic wars sputtering on for decades.
In Russia and other nations of the former USSR, there are many ethnic minorities, but the workers are still working class.
A recent exception is Ukraine where workers have gone radical Right. The former Yugoslavia is still very leftwing even after all of the ethnic conflict and even slaughter of past years. Spain’s working class is very radical despite an armed conflict in the Basque region and separatists in Catalonia. The different religions hate each other in North Ireland, but the Scottish Protestant workers are as class conscious as the Irish Catholic ones. Switzerland is divided between three ethnic groups – French, Germans, and Italians – yet it is a very leftwing country.
The extreme tribalism in Africa has not prevented the working classes from being class conscious.
Is the working class of England voting Tory yet? Or do you just mean that they are more likely to vote Tory than the Scots are?
Most workers in Europe, Arabia, North Africa, Africa, the former USSR, China, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, Japan, South Korea, Nepal are the same ethnicity as the ruling classes of those places, yet workers have a high degree of class consciousness in all of those places.
The places where working class consciousness has been harder to develop were those that had a Chinese ruling class as in Philippines and Indonesia.
I think we need to come up with some better theories about the poor class consciousness of the US working class. If you are looking for examples elsewhere, India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Taiwan, Australia, the Baltics and Colombia are places with quite poor working class consciousness.
In Australia it is recent as US style conservatism is imported.
A similar trend is underway in Canada and has been since Thatcher in the UK. But the UK is in nearly a revolutionary situation. A lot of the working classes are militant and radicalized, while a lot of the country has at the same time gone Tory. When Thatcher died, there were anti-rich riots in housing estates across the land. Thatcher was burned in effigy in the streets. Can you imagine that happening in the US?
The recent riots in the UK also had a class undercurrent. I was dating a British woman at the time, and she told me that local storeowners who treated the community well were spared by rioters. Rioters focused on stores selling upscale goods to the rich. Many corporate outlets were also smashed.
She told me that a number of those outlets had a reputation for not paying taxes to the UK by hiding money offshore. She said the rioters knew who those companies were, and they were brutally singled out. Many outlets were burned to the ground. Can you imagine heavily Black rioters in the US having class consciousness like that?
The Baltics are a case of entire nations full of complete idiots who hate Communism so much that they went into an extreme overreaction against Communism and turned against anything socialist, left, liberal or mildly progressive. Fascist heroes including many Nazis with a lot of Jewish blood on their hands were celebrated. Communist parties were outlawed, and Russian minorities were viciously maltreated.
Radical rightwingers were elected in all of these lands, and Chicago Boys Friedmanite experiments were undertaken. The results were predictable. In the recent economic crash, the most neoliberal European countries were the most devastated of all. Estonia was eviscerated, and Latvia was almost wiped off the map. 1/3 of the Latvian population left the country, including almost all of the educated people.
The Philippines and Indonesian cases are up for discussion, but these are Latin American situations of a ruling class of a different ethnicity than the working classes holding forth brutally and anti-democratically over the people. In addition, the workers have little consciousness.
Taiwan has a similar legacy where extreme hatred of Communism resulted in being ruled by reactionary fascist anti-Communists for decades. There is a nascent Left now, but it has little power yet. The wealth of the country seems to have gotten in the way of working class consciousness. Probably the extreme anti-Communism helped too, as any working class movement could be quickly portrayed as Communist.

Israel: Journey to the End of the Night

Very nice piece by our great commenter Judith Mirville.
There is a much nicer way to state what you’ve stated. When as usual I hear people from various religious backgrounds, no matter Jewish, pro-Jewish, anti-Jewish, or half and half, asking me to pray for Jerusalem, I always answer: “The day nobody is praying in Jerusalem any longer, that day will be a great day!”.
When I hear people talking about the deep spiritual golden aura one bathes in when strolling in Jerusalem, I answer: “I lived in Jerusalem (more accurately half-way between Jerusalem proper and Bethlehem, not that far from the wall of shame), and there is less spirituality there than in Ottawa, Canada around the American Embassy. The golden light and the foliage hues are much more soul-nourishing there in early autumn.
Israel is some offshore suburbia of Hollywood where as you put it everybody plays a second-grade actor’s part and each employee’s salary depends on his art of unknowing the truth about the plot of a the fictional TV series episode projected all around the world at six and ten: there can be no peaceful end of any kind, as it would prevent the series to go on and sell, since gratuitous ever-increasing suspense is the name of the game.
I saw one Israeli checkpoint employee humiliating transiting Arabs telling them they would never be able to perform like Woody Allen due to their low IQ: traditional biblical law required all performing actors to be beheaded on sight and that rule remained in vigor up to the 19th Century Jewish emancipation in the Pale of Settlement.
There is no light at the end of the tunnel as you say, though there is a final dead end: Israel was originally founded to be a purely secular state, but as the state committed more and more and ever more faults against all human decency, they flew ever deeply into fictional religion of the most stinking kind so as to daze themselves out of reality. They are now entrapped by their own cheapest religious script.
They are condemned, so as not to answer for their broken promises, to build the infamous Third Temple. They will mobilize all sorts of crowds in the the world, Jews, philosemites, and also antisemites to suggest that building it together with animal sacrifices will make accrue to them the riches of all nations for eternity by its very magic divine presence, except that no divinity or shekinah will show up, as the whole Holocaustian theology is based on the idea of the absence of any divine presence in the world.
One day the Temple will enter into operation. It will have been built very rapidly, all pieces ready to be assembled like LEGO blocks. They will have already put the whole Arab world at war when they destroy the Dome of the Rock. The stock exchange places in Asia will conclude that after all those Jews which had been mistaken for a people of geniuses are one superstitious Arab tribe among so many others of about mean 95 IQ (in Israel).
In a few hours or so all Jewish fortunes will melt like Groenland under the freakish polar weather. Much graver: the conclusion of most Oriental assessors of dying Western cultures to be studied and preserved or not will be that Jewish expertise, though not negligible, had been grossly overrated in nearly all fields compared to that of so many other nations.
Israel will end up as poor as Nauru after the extraction of the last phosphates, level with Yemen, and without any means to buy the energy they need to guzzle just to export Jaffa oranges, now toxic because of over-irrigation and heavy metal accumulation.
The only alleged domain of superiority that will remain to them and bring them some clients will be their power as masters of Kabbalah, level with Haitians and their voodooists and Romanian Gypsies with their divination techniques.
All countries that count on the biggest temples of the world to crown themselves into eternal superiority (whatever their faith may be) end up like Ivory Coast after the completion of the greatest basilica of Christendom in Yamoussoukro.

The Deep Ties Between the Jews and the House of Saud Go Back Over 75 Years

Weizmann_-_Churchill_-_Boss_of_Bosses
In this comment, Churchill got Prince Ibn Saud to agree to let the British put the House of Saud in power in Saudi Arabia in order that they could control Mecca and Medina and to allow the Saudis to become “the Kings of the Arabs.” In recent, Ibn Saud would agree to let Weitzmann invade, conquer and usurp Palestine’s Arabs to create a Jewish Homeland.
It appears to be dated March 4, 1941, but the deep alliance between the British and the vile House of Saud goes way back before that.
 

(((Saudi Arabia)))

Unbelievable.
The Saudis have been very closely allied to the Jews forever now. This is one reason why the royal regime is so hated. Any real democracy in Saudi Arabia would end this stupid alliance once and for all. The Saudis talk a tough game when it comes to the Jews, but at the day when they lie down to sleep at night, there’s Queen Esther in bed with ever prince.
The Saudis are traitors to Islam and mostly to Arabism. It’s just sickening the way they lie down with the Israeli dogs. Now wonder they are covered with fleas when you wake up. Lie down with Israeli dogs, wake up with fleas.
In Syria, Jordan, Qatar, the UAE and Turkish intelligence have been working closely with Mossad agents. In fact, these Muslim intelligence operatives are embedded directly inside Al Qaeda where they work directly with the Mossad, CIA and MI5, all of which have agents embedded directly inside Al Qaeda forces in North Syria.

Long Past Time to Destroy the Middle Eastern Plagues in Our Midst

It’s a (((tumorous growth))) at the heart of our very existence as a state. The only things you can do with a tumor are cut it out with a knife, radiate it or poison it. However you do it, you have to kill it one way or another.
While we are at it, it is long past time to excise the Saudi and Gulf cancer in our midst. That’s almost worse than the Israeli one. And this notion that the Sick Man of Europe for many centuries, one of the worst countries on Earth, the resurgent Ottoman Empire formerly known as Turkey, is one of the US’ closest allies is going to drag us down like an anchor of death. You lie down with nations of dogs, you get up with an infestation of political bubonic plague on your shores, replaying the fated landings in Sicily of those deadly ships 3/4 of a millenia ago.
It was 770 years ago, or it was next year. The plague came at night from Genoa, on ships of death, to the shores of Messina. It was dark as the sky above. The people waited but did not know. It was over before they knew what hit them.
The people gathered to the shore that warm October night, cheering as the death ships slowly moved into port. The cheers were stopped dead in their throats when they soon realized that most of the sailors on board the ships were already dead. The rest were deathly ill and could not keep any food down. Worst of all, they were covered with pustulating wounds of oozing sores. The panicked authorities ordered the death ships back to sea, but it was too late.
The sickness came from the South, the Mediterranean. Really it came from the East, where just a few years before it had blasted a trail from China to Palestine.
Their Plague came from East, and so does ours. From the East, where life is cheap, blood is hot. and mercy is scarce and weak with the exile of the Church from its native soil.
Within only seven years, the Dark Night had spread across all of Europe. It would not be before long 20 million humans, fully one third of Europe, lay dead.
The plague-carrying ships of today carry our Middle Eastern allies and their noxious citizenry infected with blackened political death. The dark Middle Eastern buboes and their fellow travelers move slowly inwards to the heartland draped of black robes and carrying scythes. In the Flyover States, the reapers of the Near East are welcomed with cheering crowds. Little to they know that they raise and roar for their very own doom.
Lie down with dogs, wake up with deadly fleas. Famous last words of ‘Murrica.
United States of America 1776-2017. RIP.

We cannot allow our friends in the Middle East and Persian Gulf to play our hand for us, for it is all too often in their interests to have us come fight their wars, which are not necessarily our wars.
The Israeli cancer, in the body of the United States, has spread so much that there are only two outcomes;
1. The patient will eventually become so corrupt that it will die a moral death, or
2. The cancer will be surgically removed. That means all ties to the cancerous state of Israel must be severed.
We are fast approaching the first one and if we want to avoid this outcome, we the people, must rise and demand our gutless representatives to think of America first.
Our leaders need to take care of the Americans first. We must stop our expansionist policies in the world. They need to ask questions of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the State Department, such as; why are we in Africa? what national interests do we have in that far away land. (49 of the 63 countries have American forces present). Why are we in the Middle East? Before the creation of the Zionist state of Israel, Arabs, Jews, and Christians lived in harmony. Since its creation, the British, the French, and now the United States has caused mayhem in those countries. Now, Muslims are fighting Muslims while Israel enjoys the freedom every individual must have.
The Pentagon and the weapons industry have gone amok. The industry makes new weapons and the Pentagon is eager to try them out at the expense of innocent people. The Golden Rule that, “do unto others, what you want them do unto you” has been turned upside down. Now we “do unto others (Muslims) what we don’t want them do unto us.”
If we don’t come to our senses, there is going to be a big payback someday. Mark my words.

We either kill this cancer or it kills us all. Doesn’t seem like much of a choice, does it?

ISIS Attacks Iran, and the "Qatar Shunned by Gulf as Sponsor of Terrorism" Lie

Here.
This is part of ISIS’ endgame – unleashing total civil war in Iran with the goal of conquering the nation. This is one of the principal goals of the organization.
That’s pretty serious. Bottom line is blame the Gulf Arab states for this attack. This is what the Saudis, Bahrainis, UAE and Kuwaitis want. It’s all about “get Iran.” The pitiful and laughable Trump tour of Saudi Arabia recently where he gained the support of the Gulf in the war on terrorism is a joke! The US then signed a deal to sell the malign Saudis billions more in weaponry.
Oh and the deal was the the weaponry from US weapons manufacturers which was said to be made in the US was then shifted over to Saudi Arabia! So the weapons we are selling them won’t even create jobs in the US. Trump exported a huge amount of US jobs! Not a single word this pathological liar of a President says can be trusted.
Then Trump tweeted about how Qatar is failing in the war on terrorism and how the Gulf countries are cutting off ties with Qatar due to Qatar’s ties with terrorism. This is laughable! Yes Qatar has ties to terrorism, but so does Kuwait, Bahrain and especially UAE and Saudi Arabia, two of the worst. So the Gulf nations are forming a “common front against terrorism” against Qatar and the US is going along with this phony, lying charade. Pitiful! And not one US MSM outlet will ever tell you the truth about what is going on over there. Since none will, I will do that right now.
As I said, the other Gulf countries sponsor just as much terrorism as the Qataris. The reason for the “anti-terrorist: shunning of Qatar is because in recent days, Qatar has developed close ties with Iran. Now how this ties in with Qatar’s support of the Al Nusra Front (Al Qaeda in Syria) and their war against the Shia, I have no idea.
 
Another problem is that Qatar is very friendly with the Ikhwan or Muslim Brotherhood. Yes this is a fundamentalist Islamic organization but it is a huge group with vast support across the Arab World. In the last Egyptian elections, the MB won 75% of the vote. That’s how popular they are in Egypt.
Hamas is actually the Palestinian branch of the MB, a fact that they try to keep on the down low because Palestinians are some of the most secular people in the Arab World and the MB has never been very popular there.
The MB has significant support in Jordan where they are seen as a threat to the dictatorship. Much of Parliament is made up of MB people.
The MB is frankly who is running the entire war in Syria against the Assad regime because the MB has always been the major opposition group in the land. The MB simply dissolved into countless jihadi groups which  have proliferated across the land during the civil war, including Al Nusra and ISIS, both of which have MB roots. The MB has also been a significant factor in the civil war in Iraq.
Saddam repressed them to some extent, but after the US conquered Iraq and turned it into a US colony, the MB was legalized and had quite a bit of support.
Al Qaeda itself was created by MB radical preachers exiled from Egypt and Syria who came to Saudi Arabia in the 1980’s on and mingled with the Wahhabis, who were largely quietist at that time. This toxic stew brewed for a long time under it cooked up a dish called Al Qaeda. In that sense, Al Qaeda definitely has MB roots.
Although they share the same beliefs, the MB is very heavily repressed in Saudi Arabia and UAE and I am not sure of its status in Bahrain and Kuwait. The MB is very popular in Saudi Arabia, and the problem is more that the Saudis see them as a threat to Wahhabi power of the Royal Family.  There is a similar problem in UAE.
On the other hand, Qatar has long been friendly to the MB. This is why Hamas for a long time had one of their major headquarters in Qatar. However, with the mess in Egypt with the MB winning elections followed by the military coup by General Sisi, the Gulf states have gotten a lot more worried about the MB.  Recently Hamas was forced to vacate their long held offices in Qatar due to pressure from the other Gulf states. However, Qatar continues to have friendly relations with the MB, so Qatar is now on the enemies’ list of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan and Egypt because they fear and hate the MB.
The MB does have terrorism ties but not in a formal sense. The MB itself renounced armed struggle and is sworn to take power peacefully. However, it is constantly producing radicals who spin out of the organization and take up arms to join the jihadi groups. At that time, they are not formal members of the MB anymore. And former jihadis spin back into the MB on a regular basis. So the MB is not a terrorist organization so much as an incubator for jihadis and terrorists. Hence, the shunning of Qatar for its close relationship with “the terrorist MB” was another one of the laughable, fake and lying  reasons for the shunning. This was reported with a straight face by the “free press” in the US.
They’re lying to you. Every day. All day long. They’re lying to you. Get it in your heads. The US MSM is a formal propaganda system as effective or more so as the propaganda media systems in Communist countries.

Arab Men as Classic Hypermasculine Heterosexual Men

I am friends with the local Yemeni Arab men at the corner store. These men are aggressively masculine and even sexist in all of the stereotypical ways, so it should be instructive to examine them to see how normative hypermasculinity and homophobia works in general straight male culture.
Now these guys never bring up the subject of male homosexuality, however, which is probably the way it ought to be. Most straight men would probably prefer to talk about such things as little as possible.
These guys are quite sexist, but they also really like to fuck. They love to talk about sex. The father man is my age, and we talk about screwing women all the time. He’s a classic dirty old man, and I get the feeling that that is normal in their society.
And they are extremely macho, but not in an exclusionary way like so many American men. For instance, all of those macho Arab guys accept me completely. The way to get along with those guys is simple: act macho, act masculine. You do it, and they do it back. You have to act like a man. That may be all you need to do to get their acceptance, but I would argue that is it necessary to get their respect. If you don’t act masculine, they will probably not respect you.
You do not actually have to be married to be accepted by Arab men. There are men in Arab society who never marry. As long as they act very masculine, no one is going to care. Some of these are known to not like women very much, but most Arab men will laugh about that, as they are brutally sexist themselves. There’s generally not a suggestion of homosexuality in an unmarried man in that culture.
If you are a single man, you are pretty much ok, but you can become much more ok if they know you screw women. In their culture, single men can’t screw women at all, so if you are a single guy screwing women without marrying them, to them, that is a source of amazement and jealousy. Those guys have seen me with goodlooking women from time to time, and they know that women come stay with me from time to time. They also know that I go stay with women sometimes. Also I have picked up women and phone numbers and dates with them right in front of their yes. And women sometimes come in the store asking the guys if they’ve seen me.
That’s all you need to do! If they know you get laid, you are in like Flynn. And it helps if the women are goodlooking. You don’t even have to get much sex. If you get any at all, they think that is amazing since you are single.
One of the other rules with those Arab guys seems to be: No faggotry. They don’t even discuss it. I’m straight, but I assume that if I started talking about screwing guys or flirting with those guys, they would get pretty upset. That’s something that is simply not done and would be seen as very outrageous.
The rules for getting along  with Arab men are simple:

  1. Act macho, act like a man, be tough and hard as nails.
  2. Marriage is not necessary, but it very much helps to get laid now and again.
  3. No wimpy, pussy, sissy or feminine behaviors: no complaining, no bitching except in a macho way, no admitting you are depressed, no cowardliness, etc.
  4. A sense of humor is very helpful. Arab men love to laugh and take it easy.
  5. No homosexuality period, dammit.

Two New Attacks by Muslims in Germany Today!

Wow.
The first one occurred when a suicide bomber blew himself up outside a restaurant at Ansbach Music Festival in Ansbach, a city in Bavaria. The bomber was killed and 12 others were wounded. This definitely looks like a global jihad attack. The attacker was a Syrian refugee whose request for asylum had been turned down last year, but he had a temporary permit to stay. He had been treated twice at a psychiatric hospital for two prior suicide attempts. Police are calling it a potential terror attack for now.
Earlier today, another Syrian refugee attacked people with a machete in Reutlingen. That attack was preceded by some sort of an argument and police ruled out Islamic terrorism. A pregnant woman was killed and two others were wounded in that attack.
Refugees welcome!

California and White Decline

William Playfair Web writes: It does appear to have a strong economy, at least for some. I would like to see Robert elaborate on this one.
I also thought he believed “White genocide” or “White decline” type ideas to be stupid?

It is a strong economy only for some. Rents are sky high. When you figure in the cost of rent, California has the most poverty, the highest poverty rate, of any state except Mississippi. So California is 49th in poverty rates in the US, above only Mississippi. How is that the state that has the second worse poverty rate in the country has a “booming economy?” Screw that.
White genocide means Whites are going extinct and that there is some special project to drive Whites extinct. Whites are not going extinct, and there is no project to drive Whites extinct (that I know of). Also the White genocide types think that importing Syrians is part of a project to drive Whites extinct. But Syrians are White themselves.
But the % of Whites in the US and in other White countries is definitely going down, that’s for sure. The % of the world population that is White appears to be declining, but that is mostly if you throw out Turks, Arabs, Iranians, Afghans, and North Africans as non-Whites. I would say that the Euro-White % of the Earth’s population is on a decline. So it’s not stupid to state that as a fact.
And here in the California anyway, when a city or town goes from majority White to majority non-White, there is often a noticeable decline.
White -> non-White = decline, generally speaking.
It cannot be denied.

Some Little-Known Truths about Arabs

Lin writes:

To Pranav:
…To me, (Sunni) Islam is basically an Arab/pan-Arab civilizational push, or it’s just a veneer over Arabized power. Let me recollect what I posted here before:
1) Arabic is said to be language of Paradise.
2) Arabs are said to be a superior race.
Superiority of the race of Arabs over non-Arabs
3) Though faggotry is condemned, large % of Arab/Muslims are closet fags as long as the closet is tightly shut and doesn’t embarrass the establishment.
4) The strictest sect of Islam, the Wahhabi Saudis, allied with the British and French kufirs during WW1 to topple the Ottoman Turk Caliphate, treason of the worst kind I must say, yet they consider themselves guardians of Islam. What a farce and shame.
I personally don’t think the Sunni Arabs have much of an economic future (Persians could be an exception that their Shiite Islam is more flexible, like they allowed sex change). I also foresee an Euro/Mediterranean Jihad One, after which the Middle East will be further fragmented…

Most of this is correct.
Sunni Islam is indeed an Arab or Pan-Arab civilizational project, and it is also a thin veneer over Arabized power. In addition, it is a vehicle for Arab supremacy.
1 is correct. They do speak Arabic in Paradise, and the only true Qurans are those written in Arabic, for God transmitted the Quran to Mohammad in Arabic. There are many translations of the Quran into all sorts of languages, but many Muslims consider them to be nearly illegitimate, as the only proper Quran is the one written in Arabic.
2 is also correct. If you go to Islamic sites on the web, you will see articles along the lines that Arabs are a superior to non-Arabs. No doubt all of these sites were written by Arabs, but nevertheless, Islam is a sort of an Arab Supremacist religion.
3 is true, but some Islamic countries tolerate it more than others.
4 is sadly true, and it is quite a blight on the Saudis’ claim to be the ultimate in hardline Islamists. Instead they seem traitors to the umma.

I personally don’t think the Sunni Arabs have much of an economic future (Persians could be an exception that their Shiite Islam is more flexible, like they allowed sex change).

I do not know what to say about this. The Sunni Arabs are definitely sitting on a lake of oil and gas that isn’t going away soon. Some of the Gulf countries have started to branch out away from an oil rentier economy. Dubai is now an international port city, one of the largest on Earth.
About the rest of the Sunni Arab states, I do not know what to say. Iraq, Syria, and Libya appear to be failed states right now, and Yemen is turning into one awful fast. There is some violence in Egypt, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan and Lebanon, but state structures appear to be largely intact. Palestine is a war zone and increasingly so is the Sinai.
Indeed the Shia do not appear to be going on jihad now or anytime soon. They do not believe in offensive jihad like the Sunnis do, and Shiism is quite a bit more progressive than Sunnism. Like Catholicism with its Pope, Shiism has its clergy. As the Pope and Vatican continue to update Catholicism to keep up with a changing world, the Ayatollahs and clergy in Lebanon and Iran do the same with Islam. The clergy in the latter two lands are surprisingly progressive, but those in Iraq, not so much. I know little about the Houthi Shia in Yemen.
The only people involved in the global jihad right now are radical Sunnis. The Shia, instead of being involved in this project, are victims of it, as global jihadists see the Shia as heretics to be killed on sight if not exterminated altogether. So the Shia, like the Arab Christians, are literally fighting for their lives against global jihad and are much more victimized by it than the Christian West is. Almost all terrorism in the world today is committed by Sunnis. In fact, the Shia are responsible for little terrorism outside of attacks on Israelis outside of Israel. There is some state terrorism being practiced by the Shia Iraqi state against Iraqi Sunnis.

I also foresee an Euro/Mediterranean Jihad One, after which the Middle East will be further fragmented…

I have no idea if this is going to occur, but it seems like it already is at a low to high variable level, right? Surely the Tunisian, Libyan, Egyptian, Palestinian, Lebanese and Syrian parts of the Mediterranean are heating up, and a few are out and out jihad war zones right now. Turkey is increasingly starting to resemble the beginnings of a war zone. Terrorism in Europe is at a fairly low level, but the few attacks have been spectacular and there is a steady drumbeat of low level attacks happening in the background.
Comments along with your own predictions are welcomed.

Machismo in a Working Class Mexican City in the US

Jason Y writes:

Not all Mexican guys are macho, and not all Mexican women are knockouts, these will go out with each other. I’ve seen no evidence these Latin nations are full of macho guys. Just as anywhere else, the majority are average, not gay but average.

I am wondering if the commenter lives with Mexicans. I live with Mexicans. All Mexican men are machos, 100%. Pretty much. I believe it is a cultural mandate, and if you don’t go along with it, you are probably in for a rough ride. I am talking about the ones in my city who are born in Mexico. I saw this soft young 2nd generation Chicano at the bank, and his young wife was just pummeling him verbally.
As far as the Chicanos, around here, the men are 100% machos because this area is poor and working class. There may be a few exceptions such as a few young Chicano married men in the 20’s with a couple of kids.
With the White guys, not so much, but still a lot of them are pretty hard.
We also have some Blacks around here, and they are all machos too, regular tough sort of ghetto or Blacks deep into “Black culture.” I think in ghetto or traditional Black culture, all the men have to be pretty macho. It seems like there’s no other way to be. Once you get outside the ghetto or traditional Black culture, Black men can start to vary more.
There are some Arabs who run the local store and they are all badass, hard, macho guys too. The Arabs accept me, the Chicanos not so much, but some of them do.
The Mexicans maybe, but you can’t really talk to them, as they don’t speak English, and they keep to themselves.
Some of the Blacks accept me, but the ones around here are mostly lousy people who you don’t want to know anyway.
With the rest of the Chicanos, I would say that most of them are machos but not all. Once you get to the 3rd generation, you do start seeing some variability that way, but you are never really sure if those men are full Chicanos or only part. Once you get to 3rd generation, you start to see a lot more assimilation, as the Chicanos also started getting mixed in with Whites, especially Med Whites like Italians. You also start seeing Filipino-Chicano mixes and other more exotic types.
This area is poor, and the only way for a man to act around here is to be a macho. In poor and working class neighborhoods, all the men are rather tough and hard. There’s really no other way to be. I assume that most all the men around here have conformed to this behavior pattern because this is how you are supposed to act here. There are probably some unpleasant consequences around here if you do not act that way.
I assume there are gay men who get raised in those environments, but I believe the gay men get out of here as soon as possible and move to some big cities. The gay men I know who came from this town seem like they all split to Fresno or even Frisco once they hit ~18. There are definitely some real faggoty guys in this town, but they all work at more upscale places like the ATT store, Starbucks, places like that. And few if any of them live here. They all live in Fresno instead. This is probably not a pleasant town to be gay in.

Is There Anything to the “Taqiyyah” Accusation Against Muslims?

EPGAH writes:

How do you know what the Muslims in your town TELL you is really how they feel, and not just “Taqiyyah”?

They’re not lying to me.

Most of the ones who bother to come here get over the “hate the infidels” bull. Hell, if they are even willing to work with Jews in New York, they cannot be too into the hate the infidel bullshit.

I have met a few Muslims who were somewhat radicalized. They don’t really try to hide it honestly.

I think this “taqiyya” thing is massively exaggerated. Taqqiya was supposed to allow Muslims to lie when they are in a population that is hostile and oppressive towards Muslims. That is, they are allowed to lie to get by in a hostile environment. The Jews, Alawi, Druze, Yezidis and others all have similar customs. I am afraid that most of this taqiyya bull is just Islamophobic nonsense.

Even the Palestinians in this town are not very radical. I met four of them. I was shocked at how moderate they were. I was much more radical on the subject of Israel than they were. They practically considered me to be a terrorist based on the way I talked. The attitude of many of the Palestinians who come to the US is “The Hell with the Israel-Palestine conflict. We are done with that BS, and we have to come to America to forget about it, move on and let bygones be bygones.”

I met two brothers who told me that the Jews had out and out stolen 50 acres of their family’s land in the West Bank and turned it into a military base. They never got paid one nickel for it, and the Jews are never going to give it back. But they didn’t even sound very radical when they were talking about that. They sounded like they wanted to forget about it and move on.

I will say one thing. Muslims here respect you a lot more if you are religious. I imagine they do not think too much of atheists. I told them that I went to the local Catholic Church and they were very happy like, “Good! You worship God! Everyone should have a religion.”

One of the Palestinians even said, “Why don’t you like Islam? There’s nothing wrong with Islam. Islam is just like Catholicism. There’s not much difference really.” He seemed to respect Catholicism as some sort of rather conservative creed that worshiped the same God the Muslims did.

One thing I will say though is if you get close to these Muslims here, they will try to convert you to Islam. They already tried that with me. They invite you to a big meal at the mosque, and apparently this is a way to try to convert you. Islam is definitely a proselytizing religion.

US Muslims Are Not Bad in and of Themselves

I do not believe that US Muslims are a problem in and of themselves. Sure, some are a problem, but the overwhelming majority seem to be ok. Muslims are like Blacks. Sure some Blacks are criminals and give the group a bad name, but Blacks are not a problem in and of themselves because so many Blacks are living perfectly decently like you, me or anyone else. Saying all US Muslims are evil is like saying all US Blacks are evil – it’s as bunch of stupid racist bull.

We have Yemeni, Pakistani and Palestinian Muslims in this town. These Muslims in my town are causing exactly zero problems. They are not even very radical. I would say that I am far more of an America-hater than any Muslim in my town.

I know each of these Muslims pretty well, but I know the Yemenis better than the others. In fact, a number of them are friends of mine. These Yemenis are not causing any problems at all.

A few of them are out and out patriotards. One graduated from Georgetown University and is in with US government types. At first he wanted to work for the FBI as an Arabic interpreter. He flies back to DC for political conferences sponsored by the State Department.

He is a very strong supporter of US foreign policy. In fact, when he opens his mouth, he sounds like a mixture of Hillary Clinton, Ashton Carter and John Kerry. He buys into all the Deep State propaganda of the corporate media 100%. The guy’s a lost cause. He’s not an America-hater at all. In fact, he’s and out and out neocon patriotard!

I don’t think they hate non-Muslims one bit. I have never heard them say anything against non-Muslims, not one word. They don’t even like to talk bad about Jews. In fact, they worry about me because they think I am an antisemite, and they think antisemitism is uncool. The older man told me that Yemeni Muslims and Yemeni Jews get along in the US quite well, as they put aside whatever differences they might have had in the homeland. He said many Yemeni Muslims work together with Yemeni Jews in New York running stores.

If they hate anyone, it’s Shiites and Iranians, but the old man doesn’t mind the Shia, and he doesn’t care about Iran either. He hates the Saudis worse than anyone else in the region. This opinion is apparently common, as many Yemeni nationalists despite the Saudis since Saudi Arabia has intervened in Yemen over and over and treats Yemen like a colony. The older guy in fact is supporting the Shia Houthis in their war against the Saudi, UAE, Egyptian, Sudanese, Jordanian, US and UK aggressors and invaders.

He told me that the Zaidi Shia of Yemen are just about Sunnis theologically. They only differ in one or two minor ways. In fact the “Shia” Zaidis are themselves diverse as not all of them even identify as Shia! Some “Shia” Zaidis say that they are actually Sunnis, and others say that they are both Sunni and Shia at the same time. They characterize themselves in these odd ways because Zaidism is so close to Sunnism doctrinally.

I have a very hard time understanding why these Muslims in my town are some sort of enemy within. Sure there are radicalized US Muslims, but I’ve never met one myself.

“Time to Rekindle the UN Spark,” by Eric Walberg

New article by my friend Eric Walberg.

Time to Rekindle UN Spark

Eric Walberg

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon recently held a commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the squashing of UN resolution 3379, equating Zionism with racism. It was passed in 1975 by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions). The festive event this year was attended by US Secretary of State John Kerry and head of the Israeli Labour Party and Zionist Union Isaac Herzog, son of Chaim Herzog, president of Israel from 1983 to 1993, and star of the 1975 UN session.

The 1975 vote took place approximately one year after resolution 3237 granted the PLO “observer status”, following Yasser Arafat’s “olive branch” speech to the General Assembly in November 1974. It succeeded only because the Soviet Union and its allies were there to support the Arab and Islamic majority countries.

It was revoked in December 1991 by UN resolution 46/86. At the commemoration this year, Ban Ki-moon recalled Chaim Herzog’s words in 1975, “I appeal to the community of nations to always act to uphold the principles of the United Nations Charter to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors.” Such nice platitudes coming from the Israeli ambassador—community, principles, tolerance, peace…

It is odd that this year’s festivities actually celebrate the passing of the resolution, rather than its demise, commemorating the chutzpah of Israeli UN representative Herzog, who stole the show, recounting how magnanimous Israel is with its Arab citizens, who apparently held the same rights as Jews, worked in border and police defense forces, were elected to parliament, studied at universities…

He pointed to Arabs coming from elsewhere for medical treatment, and to “the fact that it is as natural for an Arab to serve in public office in Israel as it is incongruous to think of a Jew serving in any public office in an Arab country.” The UN ambassador finished his tirade by ripping up the resolution and defiantly stating he would have UN Avenues in Haifa, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv renamed Zionism Avenues.

Herzog didn’t mention how traditionally Jews lived freely under Muslim rule and often served Muslim leaders as advisers, how Arab anger today is directly due to Israel’s murderous, illegal actions against the rightful citizens of what was once the Roman province of Syria Palaestina. He didn’t mention the millions of Palestinians denied their basic rights because Israel is apparently free of racism.

At least the 1975 gathering had some punch. There was no substance in the commemoration in 2015. Kerry waffled, despite a weeks-long wave of violence that has claimed the lives of at least 77 Palestinians along with 10 Israelis. No mention of that. He said that a two-state solution in the Middle East was “not an impossible dream” but would require courage. Yawn.

Kerry called the 1975 resolution “ominous” because it gave “a global license to hate” the state of Israel. But then “hate” covers just about any word of criticism of Israel. After all, election fever is rising in the US and the Israel lobby is alive and well.

Bush Senior’s Half Truths

It is more instructive to deconstruct the speech by US President HW Bush, who introduced the UN motion overturning resolution 3379 in 1991, which he said “mocks this pledge and the principles upon which the United Nations was founded. Zionism is not a policy; it is the idea that led to the creation of a home for the Jewish people, to the State of Israel. To equate Zionism with the intolerable sin of racism is to twist history.”

He was half correct. Zionism is an idea, one that turned into a policy of racial exclusion and victimization of the Palestinian natives, whose land and property the new immigrants stole, even as they conducted a state policy of terror against the natives. Bush made no explanation of why Zionism is not a policy. But the Soviet voice was gone by 1991; only the US voice was heard defending the pious hope that Israel would one day make peace with the Palestinians based on the original 1947 UN Resolution 181 to partition the territory.

Bush’s claim that Zionism is not a policy of racism simply flies in the face of reality. But then the US itself was founded on an idea much like Zionism. The Puritans, Quakers and many other religious groups immigrated intending to establish an ideal Christian society modeled on the Bible, an idea which also was a policy of genocide of the American natives.

The 17th philosopher Francis Bacon penned a utopian novel New Atlantis based on his enthusiastic support for establishing the British colonies in North America, depicting the creation of a utopian land where “generosity and enlightenment, dignity and splendor, piety and public spirit” are the commonly held qualities of the inhabitants of the mythical Bensalem.

The idea of a “new Jerusalem” is the bedrock of the US idea.
Even such a respected philosopher was able to disregard the racist policy of genocide against the American natives in the name of “generosity and enlightenment etc.” No one noticed that, from the start, that the idea of the US (Bensalem) was a racist idea, just as its policies were. Only in the 19th century did international opprobrium finally push the US to abolish its most glaring racist policy—slavery.

But by then, the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine was already being mooted by British politicians such as Lord Shaftsbury, and Israel was finally forced down the UN throat by FDR and Truman. For Shaftsbury et al, it was merely a logical development of western ‘civilization‘.

Bush lauded the crushing of the racism resolution in 1991 as “a real chance to fulfill the UN Charter’s ambition of working ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person’.” Yet he was unable to see that the emperor (himself) and his offspring were wearing no clothes, that it is Israel that is the scourge of war, the violator of human rights and human dignity.

Bush stated that the UN “cannot claim to seek peace and at the same time challenge Israel’s right to exist.” Again a half truth. No one intended to wipe Israel off the map, as long as it was a nation that followed international norms, in particular human rights of the peoples who live there or who will return there from refugee camps when a peaceful solution to the stand-off is agreed. But this is only possible if we address Bush’s other half truth that lies at the heart of Zionism, both as idea and policy.

Bush’s other mistake was to define the State of Israel as “a home for the Jewish people”. This makes Israel racist by definition, just as Hitler identified Germany as the home of the Aryan people, a similarly vague, racist definition of the state.

Bush’s Lesson: Don’t Cross Israel

There is a bitter irony in Bush’s kowtowing to Israel in 1991. In September he had asked Congress to delay Israel’s request for $10 billion in loan guarantees to help settle Soviet Jews, trying to force Israel to stop its illegal settlement construction and negotiate a real peace. He no doubt was recalling how Eisenhower had made Israel bend to the US game plan in 1956. Ford/ Kissinger/ Carter had too, though just barely in the 1970s, curbing somewhat Israel’s colonial ambitions. Both times, ironically, US leaders relied on the Soviet ‘threat’ to give them some backbone.

But ‘in victory, defeat’. The Soviet ‘threat’, providing the US some leverage with Israel, was no more, and in the meantime, the Israel lobby in Washington had become too powerful for a president to counter. The Zionists were in no mood to swallow their pride and obey a newly holier-than-thou imperial Washington.

Bush senior found he had no allies for his plan to bring Israel into line. He scurried to the UN to burnish his credentials, but to no avail. The Israel lobby mobilized, found their ideal candidate in Bill Clinton, and Bush suddenly was being attacked in the media. Incessant negative publicity as election day approached did the trick. He lost his re-election bid, going from a 90% approval rate following the Iraq invasion to 37% on election day.

It is time for a new resolution 3379, something with teeth that will wake Israel up and push it to admit its sins. There is no hope to find a sponsor in Washington. However, the support for Palestinians struggling for their rights continues to grow. The EU, BDS and others boycott settlement goods are having their effect. Israel‘s neighbors continue to resist. As US power wanes, there is hope that the UN will once again find some backbone.

Robert Stark Interviews Charles Lincoln about the Paris Terror Attack, Migrant Invasion, & the Middle East

This should be great. Charles is always good. He is brilliant. I have met him too, and he is also a very nice guy.

Here.

Charles Lincoln has a PhD in Anthropology, History, and Archaeology from Harvard University

Topics include:

How the terrorist attack was made inevitable because of the migrant invasion.
The psychological torture and cognitive dissidence caused by the attacks and how to process it.
How the prime suspect registered as a refugee in Greece.
What value is it to be humanitarian to foreigners when it destroys your own way of life.
How France surrendering in WWII saved Paris from destruction.
Whether civil war will break out in Europe.
French colonialism in North Africa and how that lead to mass immigration into France.
Charles’s trip to Paris in 2005 when the riots took place.
Marine Le Pen and the Front National.
Whether France will have to reject their values of Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité.
Conspiracy theories about the attack.
Article 5 of NATO that declares any attack on a NATO member is an attack on all NATO members.
How Islamic terrorism is a product of an “invade the world invite the world” agenda.
How treasonous western elites are encouraging invasions.
The parallels between Ancient Rome when they invited barbarians when their own citizens would not cooperate.
Eastern Europe as a bulwark against the invasion.
Muslim refugees in the United States and how they have been resettled in mostly White and conservatives states.
How Western powers, Israel, and the Gulf States want to see the destruction of the Assad regime in Syria which is fighting against ISIS.
The recent ISIS attack in Beirut, Lebanon.
Whether this conflict will lead to WWIII and other possible scenarios.
How Russia could be the last hope to save Western Civilization.
Charles’s experience in the Middle East as an archaeologist and how most of his personal experiences with Arab people were positive.
How Charles found Syria and Lebanon to be the most sophisticated of the Arab countries he visited.
Whether Islamic peoples should be viewed as the enemy or whether the conflict with them is artificially manufactured.

Salafi Jihadism: Part 1

Original here. This essay is very well-done, the best I have ever read on the subject.

This is the first of a two-part post on Salafi jihadism. Part 1 is intended to provide a definition of jihad, a look at the history of Salafism/Wahhabism, their similarities and differences and how they spread in the end of the 20th century.

Also before anyone thinks I’m targeting Salafis for an agenda, I intend to cover jihadism in each segment of Islam. I simply chose to begin with Salafi jihadism due to its greater relevance and attention in the world today.

Definition of Jihad: The Arabic word Jihad is derived from the verb Jahada – meaning to strive or struggle. In Islamic terminology it means to make an effort, to endeavor and to strive for a noble cause. The word is generally used to describe any type of striving in the cause of Allah (God). According to Islamic teachings there are three main types of Jihad as explained below:

i) Jihad-e-Akbar, i.e jihad of the highest order. This is the jihad (struggle) for self-reformation. The struggle is against our own temptations such as greed, lust and other worldly temptations. This type of jihad is obligatory on every Muslim throughout his life.

ii) Jihad-e-Kabir, i.e major jihad. This is the jihad of propagation of the truth, the message of Qur’an. The Qur’an also instructs us to spread this message with wisdom, tolerance and respect to others and their beliefs and prohibits the use of any coercion or force. According to the Qur’an anyone who devotes his time, effort, wealth or knowledge to the cause of righteousness is practicing Jihad-e-Kabir. This is also obligatory on all Muslims.

iii) Jihad-e-Asghar, i.e jihad of the lower order. This is the jihad of a defensive battle. The Qur’an has clearly restricted this type of jihad to certain conditions while forbidding transgression of any sort. The conflict must of a defensive nature for the Muslim community, Muslims must have been prevented from freely practicing their religion and beliefs, and they must have been driven from their homes.

Another requirement for the declaration of this type of jihad is the existence of an Islamic State and a Muslim leader to declare it; without this condition, Muslims are allowed to defend themselves in case of being attacked or persecuted but not to declare and prosecute an official jihad. Once a jihad has been declared, the Muslim army is bound by a set of regulations to observe while on campaign, some of which are listed here.[1][2]

It is critical to understand that the aim of jihad is not the conversion of non-Muslim populations. Most scholars agree upon the concept of jihad being a defensive measure; some modern Islamic revivalists such as Sayyid Qutb and Abdullah Azzam argued for the use of jihad as an offensive measure but for the expansion of Muslim territory and Islamic ideals rather than the religious conversion of the local peoples, forced or otherwise, to Islam. As a result, jihad is similar to the Christian concept of a crusade but differs in this critical matter among others. However, jihad is a hotly debated topic in jurisprudence, and a look at the opinions of various scholars can be found here.[3]

History of Salafism/Wahhabism: Salafism is a conservative, orthodox movement within Sunni Islam that seeks to return the practice of Islam to its fundamentals. As such, it emphasizes emulation of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and the Salaf as Saliheen (Pious Predecessors) which comprise the first three generations of Muslims (Companions, Successors and Successors of the Successors), and it rejects any rituals or beliefs not practiced by them; as a result, they are against any innovations, or bidah.

In legal jurisprudence, Salafis are divided among those that remain faithful to the four Sunni maddhabs (schools of law) and those that reject them in favour of ijtihad (independent legal judgement).

In terms of politics, Salafis are generally divided into three categories.

The largest category consists of the quietists, those who believe in remaining indifferent to politics and repression in favour of being closer to God.

The next largest category is the activists, that comprises those who participate in politics to advocate for Islamist agendas and religious legislation.

The smallest category by far is the jihadists, which are the most well known category worldwide but are a tiny minority.

The central tenets of Salafism have existed since the earlier days of Islam, with scholars such as Ibn Taymiyyah referring to and emphasizing adherence to the model of the Salaf. However, Salafism did not spread widely until the 18th century when Muhammad Abdul Wahhab started preaching in the Najd area of Arabia. Abdul Wahhab believed that the practices of the society around him, including venerating the tombs of the Companions, or making invocations to holy men, were similar to the practices during the pre-Islamic Jahiliya (Age of Ignorance).

Thus, he wished to return to a more puritan and conservative form of Islam free of any supposed innovations or bidah and similar to how he believed Islam was practiced in its earliest days. He also believed that those who professed themselves to be Muslim but participated in bidah were beyond the pale of Islam. He began preaching in the town of Unayna, but his actions and ideals were unpopular with the nobility of the era, with Abdul Wahhab being expelled from his town due to pressure applied by a powerful chief, Sulaiman ibn Muhammad ibn Ghurayr.

However, he managed to find refuge with the ruler of the town of Diriyah, Muhammad ibn Saud. In 1744, they formed a pact whereby ibn Saud would protect and propagate the doctrines espoused by Abdul Wahhab by military action, while the latter would religiously legitimize the former’s military conquests and allow the imposition of Islamic taxation, which would net the Al Sauds more income than at the current rates.

Hence began a period of conquest over multiple generations that expanded the Al Sauds’ holdings to much of Arabia, created the First Saudi State and the propagation of Abdul Wahhab’s teachings, pejoratively termed Wahhabism by its critics, outside of Najd. This is also where Abdul Wahhab broke with traditional Salafist thinking; unlike traditional Salafists, Abdul Wahhab was willing to use force and coercion to spread his teachings and was willing to participate in politics and political agreements to achieve that goal.

Scholars are disputed over the degree of brutality sanctioned by Abdul Wahhab, but it is clear that in successive generations, the Wahhabis have become more and more radical, ultimately adopting ibn Taymiyyah’s ideas of takfir (excommunication); this allowed them to brand Muslims living in violation of Islamic law to be non-Muslims and thus justified their fighting against other Muslims. They also adopted a ‘convert or die’ approach to their enemies.

This increasing ruthlessness was the cause of the Al Saud’s downfall. In 1802, the Wahhabis attacked Karbala, slaughtering much of the population and desecrating the shrine of Imam Hussain, and launched a similar assault on Taif in 1803, slaughtering the male population and enslaving women and children.

Ultimately, the Ottoman Empire, which controlled Arabia at the time, had enough and dispatched an army in 1818 that destroyed the First Saudi State, killing the Al Saud ruler, razing Diriyah and doing their best to stamp out both the House of Saud and the Wahhabi movement. However, the remoteness of the Najd prevented either from happening, and a Second Saudi State resulted in that region; consequently, by the end of the 19th century, most of the townspeople in the area were Wahhabis.

Many of the new members were former Bedouins who abandoned nomadic life for settlements on the insistence of Wahhabi religious scholars who declared that a nomadic lifestyle was incompatible with Islam. The newly settled Bedouins served well as soldiers for the Wahhabi religious leaders.

Although alive, Wahhabism remained mostly confined to the Najd till the end of the First World War. During the war, the reigning head of the Al Saud family, Abdulaziz ibn Saud, aided the Allies by revolting against the Ottomans. Although his campaign to rule Arabia had begun in 1901, he was unable to assert his authority over Hijaz until 1923, when the British removed their support for the Sharifs of Makkah.

In 1927, Abdulaziz signed a treaty with the British, who recognized his independence from the former Ottoman territories in exchange for letting go of Transjordan, Iraq, Kuwait and other British protectorates. However, Abdulaziz faced an internal rebellion among his troops. During his campaigns, he made use of the Ikhwan, a militia of radical Wahhabi Bedouin warriors. When he signed the treaty with the British, the Ikhwan refused to obey and raided Transjordan.

Unwilling to risk British ire, Abdulaziz fought the Ikhwan and defeated them in 1929 with British support. The survivors of the Ikhwan were then organized in various militias which would later form the core of the Saudi Arabian National Guard. Although defeated, the Ikhwan left their mark on Arabian society by uprooting the old cultural norms and supplanting them with radical Wahhabi ideology as part of their campaign on behalf of the Al Sauds.

In addition, Wahhabi ideology spread to the cities of Makkah and Madinah and gained control of the religious apparatus in the land. Although the Wahhabi religious establishment was given much latitude with respect to religious observance and teaching, in many cases Abdulaziz overruled the ulema, allowing the driving of automobiles and the attendance of Shia pilgrims at the annual Hajj. In addition, most of Abdulaziz’s consolidation of power and dealings with Western powers kept him at odds with the ulema.

Although Salafism/Wahhabism inspired offshoots such as the Ahl-e-Hadith and Deoband movements in South Asia, the reach of these two ideologies was quite low during most of the 20th century. Even within Saudi Arabia, the implementation of Islamic law was relatively relaxed compared to today.

This changed in 1979, when two things happened. First the Iranian Revolution occurred, toppling the Shah there and sending shockwaves through the monarchies in the region. Second, the Grand Mosque in Makkah was taken over by Islamic extremists who called for the stricter implementation of Islamic doctrines and the fall of the Al Saud family.

In the aftermath of these events, the Saudi government became stricter in religious matters. Due to the huge increase in oil income since the 1973 oil crisis, the government had lavished funding on religious literature, scholarships and hundreds of new Islamic schools, universities and mosques. In order to counter any threat of an Iranian-style revolution by the Shia population of the country and to satisfy disgruntled conservative clerics, this funding was further increased.

The beginning of the Afghan War provided an opportunity to export troublesome clerics to Pakistan, Afghanistan and other countries. This achieved two aims; first, it allowed the Sauds to embed a Wahhabi religious establishment of their choice, and secondly, the export of Wahhabi ideology served as a bulwark against the revolutionary doctrines that Iran was beginning to propagate in the Middle East. Since the Afghan War attracted volunteers from all over the Muslim world, almost all of whom spent time in the Saudi-sponsored religious schools, the spread of Salafism was assured.[4]

Due to the financial support that Salafism/Wahhabism enjoys from the Gulf, it has received attention and commands influence disproportionate to its size. There are roughly 50 million Salafists in the world, a tiny fraction of the total Muslim population.[5] Yet, Salafi scholars such as Zakir Naik from India are some of the most recognizable in the Muslim world, having instant name recognition even amongst many non-Salafis.

The Salafi movement is described as the fastest growing Islamic movement in the world, according to a report by the BND, the German domestic intelligence service.[6] This is especially true for regions such as Europe and North America, which have no native Islamic traditions of their own and thus are more susceptible to supplanting than historically Muslim areas.

Although Salafis have historically been peaceful and apolitical, believing in using persuasion rather than force, modern Salafism is often considered indistinguishable from Wahhabism and in many cases, conflict has arisen when Salafis have tried to propagate their doctrines. For instance in Pakistan, there is much animosity between followers of the Deoband movement, inspired by Salafism, and the Barelvi movement, inspired by the Sufi traditions of the subcontinent.

Moreover, in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, more and more Salafists are becoming part of the activist category, joining politics to propagate their beliefs. One example of such a movement is the Nour Party in Egypt, which gained a quarter of the seats in the 2011-12 elections.

In normal circumstances, one might consider the engagement of conservative Islamists in democratic politics to be a positive sign; however, the failure of the Arab Spring to bring meaningful change to the lives of people in most of the affected countries has disillusioned many democratic Salafis, many of whom have shifted to the jihadist category of Salafism, thinking military action to be the last feasible route.[7]

Sources:

1 http://islamicfaq.org/jihad/

2 http://www.islamhelpline.net/node/441

3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad#Current_usage

4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement#cite_note-123

6 http://www.aina.org/news/20120416150547.htm

7 http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21656189-islams-most-conservative-adherents-are-finding-politics-hard-it-beats

IQ in Israel and Palestine

Jason writes:

This brings up another deep thought. Ever wonder why high IQ Jews and Palestinians can’t get along? Could it be because the Arab IQ is so inbred and low? How much can one blame on the Jews?

Needless to say, I strongly disagree with the thrust of this argument. However it does bring up an interesting question regarding what the IQ’s are of the Israelis and the Palestinians. After a bit of Googling around, I found these figures:

Ethnic group               IQ
Israeli Ashkenazim         107
Israeli Jewish             100
Israeli Sephardic           99
Israeli total               98
Israeli Mizrachi            93
Israeli Arabs/Palestinians  85

Most figures are from here. Israeli Ashkenazim figure is from here. Better figures including a study by James Flynn are here (Flynn 1998. Kaniel and Fisherman 1991). This page seems to prove that Lynn’s widely cited 94-95 figure for Israel is wrong and a better figure is 98. The figure for Palestinians is a result of a recent study done by Richard Lynn (Bakhieta and Lynn 2014).

Feel free to discuss and make of these figures what you will.

References

Bakhieta, Salaheldin Farah Attallah and Lynn, Richard. A Study of the IQ in Palestine. November–December 2014. Intelligence: 47, 10–11.

Flynn, J. R. 1998. Israeli Military IQ Tests: Gender Differences Small; IQ Gains Large. Journal of Biosocial Science:30, pp.541-553.

Kaniel, S. and Fisherman, S. 1991. Level of Performance and Distribution of Errors in the Progressive Matrices Test: A Comparison of Ethiopian Immigrant and Native Israeli Adolescents. International Journal of Psychology:26, pp. 25-33.

last year.

A Eugenic Effect for the Jizya Tax?

Makran writes:

The reason Christian Arabs from Lebanon/Syria/Jordan are smarter than Muslim Arabs or why Hindus from places like Bangladesh are smarter than Muslims is because of the Jaziya tax. Dhimmis or non-Muslims in Islamic lands had to pay a Jaziya tax or they would be killed, only escape from this is conversion to Islam. Thus the poorest low IQ sections of the population who could not pay the tax converted early.The smarter populations (and in the case of South Asia, the higher castes) used money to prevent conversion as much as possible. Thus the Muslims in these areas are predominantly low IQ genes while high IQ populations got separated into a different gene pool. Islam is dysgenic. Even Lew Kyan Yew of Singapore berated Malay Muslims for being dysgenic by the tendency of Muslims to marry even if the people involved were either very stupid of full of genetic diseases.

Do you think there is any truth to this? Interesting notion from the comments.

Who Should Christians Support in the Middle East?

Thelyniezian writes:

This kind of bothers me. More war and nations supplying arms to other nations. Proxy wars. Don’t get me wrong, I certainly do not like it when the West does it either.Given my particular Christian beliefs I am inclined to want to stand with Israel, but at the same time many of the things they seem to be doing (forcing Palestinians out of their homes in order to build settlements, disproportionate responses to attacks from Hamas etc.) do not help matters in practice. I dare say this is one area where I might not be in agreement with Robert.

Whatever is right or wrong, I can’t exactly seeing this end well.

Israel treats Christians like shit. Traditionally, Jews have always hated Christians, and most Jews I have met feel pretty much the same way.

If you are pro-Christian, you should be for Hezbollah and Syria. Hezbollah gets along immaculately with the Christians who live in South Lebanon, and there is even a huge Christian political faction that is allied with Hezbollah right now.

All of the Syrian Christians love Assad, and most of them really hate Israel. I spoke to a Syrian Christian once and he was one of the wildest anti-Semites I have ever met.

I dated an Iranian Christian recently, and you would not believe what an Israel-hater she was. She could have been a Muslim based on the way she talked. She was also rather anti-Semitic.

You will find that a lot of Middle Eastern Christians are real Israel-haters, and a lot of them are pretty anti-Semitic to boot. Israel hasn’t done a good job of winning friends and influencing people over there to say the least.

Has anyone here ever met a Palestinian Christian? I have, and they hate Israel so much you would be shocked. When they talk you would almost think it is Hamas talking. Most of them support a group called the PFLP which is about as radical as Hamas although it is secular. Many of the PFLP’s supporters are Palestinian Christians.

US policy has been a catastrophe for the Christians of Mesopotamia and the Levant. Secular dictators who were very friendly to and protective of the Christians were removed, and what boils down to Al Qaeda and ISIS took their place. So many Iraqi Christians have died. Almost every Iraqi Christian knows someone who has been killed in the war. The community has collapsed and 50% have left the country. The US is essentially complicit in the virtual genocide of the Mesopotamian Christians.

Jews Vow to Destroy Future Careers of Campus Anti-Israel Activists

Looks like Jews have set up a new organization called the Canary Mission to uncover campus anti-Israel activists in order, as the video implies, to destroy their chances of having a career after graduation.

Many of the profiled are Arab Muslims. I assume that many are Palestinians. Here are the lists, and yes, many of them are Arabs. Good Lord Arab women are beautiful!

This is creepy as Hell, but the Jews are very good at menacing their critics in this way.

I remember when I was debating on the Usenet Israel and Jewish groups, the Super Jews on there were always menacing their critics, threatening us, including lots of death threats, and making threats to uncover our real identities, track us down and post all of our personal information including real name, address, phone number, arrest record and any dirt they could dig up on us.

They especially wanted to find out who our employers were so they could try to get us fired from our jobs. They also threatened to get us in trouble with police and government services agencies. In addition, they kept extensive documentation of all of our posts.

One Jewish woman really creeped me out because apparently she had some sort of a database of everything I had said on the group, and she was always digging through it to post some incriminating thing I had said some time earlier. It creeped the Hell out of me, and I started to develop an extreme hatred of her.

I don’t think this campaign was very successful at silencing critics because more often people would come into the group with a pretty fair-minded opinion of Jews but after experiencing this abuse for a while, they would turn into wild antisemites.

They would come in saying, “Well, I’ve had a lot of Jewish friends, and I admire the Jews very much,” and after six months, they would almost be raving, drooling Nazis.

The Jews seemed to be making people hate or dislike them even more, but God knows, maybe that was the plan after all? Maybe Jews love to make enemies (as long as they are not too lethal of course) so they can play the victim role better and in order to scare Jews away from assimilation and breeding out.

After all, the Jews only retained a pure bloodline for 2,000 years by preaching that the non-Jews were evil and ordering the Jews to have no contact with them. In Medieval Spain, the penalty for a Jewish woman caught having sex with a Gentile man was to have her nose cut off. A proper European Jewish man in 1800 would never eat with a Gentile. In fact, he would refuse to even have tea with any Gentile. If you want to keep your people from outbreeding, continuously preach that the out-group is evil and wants to kill all of your people. Then people will stick to their own group and not breed out.

The Jews have been menacing their critics in the US for a long time now. In the 1930’s, they tried to kill Henry Ford. Marlon Brando was told by Jewish Hollywood moguls, “You will never work in this town again.” This implies that Jews have significant control over the movie industry. But if you say Jews run Hollywood, that’s an “antisemitic canard,” and the Jews will try to ruin you over it. It’s that sort of behavior that angers me about these people.

I must say that the Jews seem like one of the most totalitarian ethnic groups in America.

That said, some of the behavior of the anti-Israel Arabs in that video is disgusting. Voicing Nazi-tinted slogans like, “Start up the ovens!” and support for genocidal anti-Semitism is despicable and unacceptable, but after all, we are dealing with Arabs here, and Arabs are pretty uncontrolled, fanatical and somewhat less civilized people.

Obama Comes to His Senses on Syria?

From here.

This is very interesting stuff. Read closely.

Here is the face-saving formula used by US Secretary of State Kerry in London today to signal that the United States is finally jettisoning the absurd and Utopian demand that Syrian President Assad’s immediate removal from power be a precondition for negotiating a political settlement for Syria.

Kerry stated: “Our focus remains on destroying ISIL and also on a political settlement with respect to Syria, which we believe cannot be achieved with the long-term presence of Assad,” Mr. Kerry said. “But we’re looking for ways in which to try to find a common ground. Clearly, if you’re going to have a political settlement, which we’ve always argued is the best and only way to resolve Syria, you need to have conversations with people, and you need to find a common ground.” which we’ve always argued is the best and only way to resolve Syria, you need to have conversations with people, and you need to find a common ground.”[i]

If Assad must depart in the long term, this implies that his short-term and medium-term presence is feasible. This opens the space needed for serious diplomacy and negotiations, which Europe is demanding to stop the Syrian civil war, the driving force behind the refugee crisis. It is expected that a number of European nations will soon end economic sanctions against Syria, re-open their shuttered embassies, and begin cooperating with the legal Assad government.

“Privately, I’m told, Obama agreed to — and may have even encouraged — Putin’s increased support for the Assad regime, realizing it’s the only real hope of averting a Sunni-extremist victory. But publicly Obama senses that he can’t endorse this rational move. Thus, Obama, who has become practiced at speaking out of multiple sides of his mouth, joined in bashing Russia – sharing that stage with the usual suspects, including The New York Times’ editorial page.”[ii]

This suggests that Obama’s public posturing in regard to Putin may represent a charade or dog-and-pony show. The same may apply to Obama’s repeated refusals to meet with Putin on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in just over a week’s time. Obama may be using this issue as a way to dupe the warmonger Republican opposition.

Here we have a very interesting situation. Parry is excellent, and his sources are usually CIA, often dissident, anti-neocon CIA, so the referenced source may be US intelligence.

This actually makes a lot of sense. The US, Israel, Europe and the Sunni Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Jordan and Turkey have long been demanding the removal of Assad a precondition for ending the war. This doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Why does Assad have to go? Because so many Syrians love Al Qaeda and ISIS so much, so therefore Assad has no legitimacy? Who is to take his place? The only people who can take his place are Al Qaeda/ISIS types. The FSA types could take his place, but they only represent 10% of the rebels.

Nobody in Syria much likes the opposition. The last poll taken showed that the rebels only had 10% support with another 20% neutral. The jihadis are widely hated by a good 70% of Syrians.

The FSA is not much liked either. They are regarded as pro-US, pro-EU, pro-Israel dupes who will sell out Syria to the US, the West, Israel and the Gulf. In other words, they’re a bunch of traitors who are out to make Syria into one more US Sunni Arab colony like Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and Bahrain. Most Syrians wouldn’t be too happy to be ruled by a bunch of traitors.

So there’s no one for Assad to negotiate with. Negotiating an end to the war means negotiating with Al Qaeda/ISIS. Good luck with that. The FSA has no legitimacy and no support.

Apparently the US/EU/Israel plan is to replace Assad with some FSA-type Sunni Arab dupe who could be easily controlled by the US/EU/Israel. This is a long-standing plan, hence the long-standing demand that “Assad must go.”

So as you can see, there’s nothing to negotiate. There’s no one to replace Assad. Anyway, in a free and fair election, Assad would win by a mile, so Assad is the choice of the majority of Syrians.

Apparently the US is finally caving on its longstanding demand that Assad must go. Now we say that Assad must go in the longterm. That means apparently that he can stay in the short-term and midterm. This is a very serious cave-in by the US.

The US doesn’t want to defeat ISIS in Syria at all at the moment. Perhaps we want to defeat them in Iraq, but sometimes I even wonder about that. Sure, we bomb them here and there, but it doesn’t amount to much.

I do think that the US might like to defeat ISIS in the longterm, but surely not now. For now, ISIS is very useful to put pressure on Assad. Probable US goals were:

  1. Take out Assad.
  2. Put in government of pro-US, pro-Israel Sunni Arab dupes.
  3. Possibly try to defeat ISIS.

Notice there’s nothing in that list about defeating Al Qaeda and their minions who along with ISIS make up 90% of the Syrian rebels. I have no idea what the US, Israel and the EU want to do with Syrian Al Qaeda. We have been arming and funding them for a long time now. So what happens if we get rid of Assad and put in our dupes? Then what becomes of America’s Al Qaeda buddies? Who knows?

But the US has a longstanding habit of using various forces, arming and funding them and then turning around, selling them out and arming and funding their enemies to wage all-out war on them. We’ve been doing this crap forever. Just ask the Kurds. This bullshit is called “realpolitik.” Ask Henry Kissinger how that’s supposed to work.

Anyway, it looks there is a complete collapse in the US strategy of keeping ISIS alive enough to threaten Assad, arming and funding Al Qaeda and pals, and demanding Assad’s ouster. It looks like the game-changer was Russia entering the Syrian conflict in a huge way.

And apparently Obama has secretly given the go-ahead for Putin to go into Syria on the basis that US policy has collapsed, and Obama realizes that the best policy is to support Assad against the forces of medievalist terrorism.

However, Obama cannot come out and say this. The Republican Party is still full-throated committed to support for Al Qaeda (and even possibly ISIS) and overthrowing Assad with apparently no plan at all to deal with the Holocaust that would follow. The US “free press” is of course 100% committed to the “support Al Qaeda, overthrow Assad” project. Both of these groups just happen to coincidentally be mirroring their Israeli masters who cooked up the “support Al Qaeda, overthrow Assad” project in the first place.

So Obama can’t come out and say he is supporting Russia’s efforts to defeat terrorism and support Assad in Syria because the neocons in Neocon Central (the Republican Party) and the neocon-controlled press will massacre him.

So Obama cleverly gives Putin the go-ahead to go into Syria and do his stuff, while publicly he blasts away at Putin with the usual anti-Russian bluster that the neocons of him. As usual, observed reality as reported in the controlled press is not at all what is really happening behind the scenes. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain…

Vile and Repulsive: America Supports Sickening Illegal Invasion of Yemen

Here.

Absolutely sickening.

Yes many Arab countries have joined in on this invasion of a sovereign country. This invasion is not about anything so much as “Kill the Shia.” That’s all it is. All of the invaders are Sunnis. They are invading because a nominally Shia group called the Houthis overthrew the extremely unpopular Hadi government in Yemen.

70-80% of the Yemeni Army went over to the Houthis because they support a former President named Saleh. The Houthis are barely even Shia. They are almost exactly like Yemeni Sunnis theologically, except they may differ on only one or two practices. This is a “Shia” group that 85% Sunni in its practice. Furthermore, Hadi, the President who was deposed, is a Shia himself and not only that but he is also a Houthi! The former President Saleh is also a Shia. So as you can see, the Yemeni Shia, who are hardly even Shia anyway, have been running the show here for a long time.

Actually the Houthi have been the main group running Yemen since the Middle Ages. A middle aged Sunni man who runs the local market supports them, saying, “They are the only people who know how to run the country.” Sadly his sons are infected with lunatic sectarianism and hate the Houthi as “Iranian proxies.”

Really the Houthi have little to do with Iran. Yes, they support Iran and vice versa, but there is no good evidence that Iran has given them much more than moral support.

What is going on here is that Saudi Arabia, the most evil country in the region other than its close ally Israel, is angry because the Houthi Shia Hadi who supported Saudi Arabia was overthrown by the Houthi rebels who are not real keen on Saudi Arabia.

Bottom line is Yemen has been a Saudi colony forever. Yemen has never been allowed to pursue any policy at all that was not pre-approved by the Saudis. For all intents and purposes, it’s not even an independent country and is instead a colony of Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis and other Sunni states have repeatedly intervened in Yemen. The last time Egypt intervened, they got their asses handed to them in a very bad way, losing 50,000 men. I do not think these invaders will have things so easily. They have already destroyed most of the country with bombs. Bombs repeatedly fall on markets and civilian vehicles driving along highways.

The Houthis will not go down easily.

This war is also about Saudi, Qatari, UAE, and Bahraini support for their buddies called Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (Yemeni Al Qaeda). This is the remains of the original Al Qaeda from Saudi Arabia that relocated to Yemen after the crackdown in Saudi Arabia.

Yemeni Al Qaeda has been a Saudi and larger Gulf project from Day One. To the north in Syria, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are throwing their weight behind another Al Qaeda faction called Al Nusra. 90% of the Syrian rebels are either Al Qaeda or fighting under the Al Qaeda banner in some way or another. Only 10% of the rebels are the Free Syrian Army, and I believe that they coordinate with Al Qaeda too sometimes. There really are no moderate Syrian rebels. It’s a great big fat stupid lie that Americans are dumb to figure out is a lie.

So, in Syria: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, and Qatar are supporting Al Qaeda massively with weapons and cash.

In Yemen: Saudi Arabia is certainly supporting Al Qaeda as a major project. And by attacking Al Qaeda’s worst enemy, the Houthis, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE, Egypt, Sudan, and Qatar are supporting Al Qaeda to the maximum by attacking their worst enemy.

Indeed, Hadi, who is supported by the Sunni coalition, generally refused to attack Yemeni Al Qaeda and instead forged some sort of a truce with them. Yemeni Al Qaeda made serious gains under the Hadi government. And since the invasion, Yemeni Al Qaeda has continued to make major gains.

Note that the Sunni coalition has not dropped one single bomb on Yemeni Al Qaeda, and instead has waged all; out war on Al Qaeda’s worst enemy!

All of this sheer lunacy is wrapped up in ridiculous Iran-paranoia and Shia-paranoia. The Sunnis have always ruled the Arab world with an iron fist, and the Shia have been downtrodden from Day One. Sunnis have staged repeated mass slaughters bordering on genocides of the Shia since the very earliest days of the Sunni-Shia split. In the Arab World, the Sunnis are the crackers, and the Shia are the niggers. Sunnis saying “the Shia are out to get us” are like Hitler saying “the Jews are trying to genoide us!” or the crackers saying, “The niggers are trying to kill us all!”

It’s insane nonsense. The typical case of the bully screaming that the victim is trying to massacre him as he beats the victim to a pulp. If you understand human psychology, this is precisely how bullies operate. The bully is always “defending himself” against the “aggression” of the victim. In geopolitical terms, the victim is usually just getting ready to genocide the bully : “They’re going to kill us all!” Most genocides actually start out just like this. Go research some genocides and get back to me. It always goes like this.

So it goes with the madness of the Sunni Arab Idiocracy and their Shia and Iran paranoia. Talk to most any Sunni Arab, and you will hear the most ridiculous idiocy: how Iran is getting ready to conquer the Arab world, how Iran has to be stopped before they conquer us all, about how Iran is going to conquer the Arab world and force all the Sunnis to convert to Shiism, on and on. As insane as this psychotic babble is, a large majority of Sunni Arabs actually believe this nonsense.

Bottom line is that Iran hasn’t invaded another country in hundreds of years, and I can assure you that Iran does not want to conquer one inch of Sunni Arab soil. The last thing Iran needs is a bunch of rabidly enraged Sunni Arabs living under its rule. I am sure that Iran would prefer to rule over as few Sunni Arabs as possible. 2% of Iran is already Sunni Arab and they are nothing but a massive pain in the ass. Iran has absolutely no territorial ambitions on any land in the Arab World. They don’t claim one inch of Arab soil, and there have been never been Iranian plans or aims to conquer Arab land revealed.

In other words, Iran paranoia is a bunch of insane bullshit. And that’s what’s driving this whole ridiculous invasion.

In a fight where there’s good guys and bad guys, generally speaking the US can be counted on to support the bad guys, and of course that is what we are doing here. We are providing a lot of support to the Sunni invading states, apparently because the US is going to support whatever insane thing Saudi Arabia decides to do. We have also bought into idiotic line of the Israelis and Sunni Arabs that “Iran is the real enemy.”

So the US is helping the Sunnis pound Al Qaeda’s worst enemy in Yemen. The US is helping the massive expansion of Yemeni Al Qaeda by refusing to lay one finger on them and by pounding their enemies.

None of this makes any real sense from a geopolitical point of view except that US Mideast foreign policy is Israeli foreign policy. In the Middle East, we simply do whatever our Israeli masters tell us to do. And the Israelis’ worst enemy is Iran. If that means helping ISIS and Al Qaeda fight “Iran” in Syria, then Israel will do just that, and indeed, Israel is giving serious support to Syrian Al Qaeda, including providing air support for their battles by bombing the Syrian Army and taking wounded Al Qaeda fighters to Israel for treatment.

Yeah.

Israel is supporting Al Qaeda. Is that nuts or what?

So, the US attacks Al Qaeda in a few places like Somalia, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

On the other hand, the US gives all out support to Al Qaeda in Syria and Yemen.

The lunatic hand of the US neocons is behind all of this idiocy, and the American people could care less.

“Hey did you hear? America supports Al Qaeda!

Yawn. “What’s on TV?”

Most Caucasian Populations Have Significant Non-Caucasian Elements

I received this comment today. I deleted the comment and banned the poster because he insulted me, but his comments are interesting nonetheless. His position is that most Caucasian populations are significantly admixed with non-Caucasian, and I am afraid he is right. There are probably few if any pure Whites or pure Caucasians.

The guy appears to be some sort of a Hindu nationalist type and he seems to be making a big deal out of the fact that Indians are mostly White, especially high caste ones of which he seems to be a part. He is quite offended by the idea that Indians are part-Australoid, but that is how they show up on some charts.

He says the Australoid component is more similiar to SE Asians such as Thai people. However, this Asian component also looks something like the Asian part of the Ancient Northeast Asian group. The Asian part of the ANE’s has been called different things, but to me they look Ainuid. So the Asian part of Indians looks like Ainuids/Thais. I think he may really be onto something here. It is a good hypothesis.

He is just wrong about some things below. ANE did not originate in Amerindians (How did that happen? Did it move back from the Americas to Asia?); instead, Amerindians are obviously partly derived from ANE from Northeast Asia itself. The Karitiana of Brazil have the highest ANE ever found. They may be the remains of some of the earliest settlers to the Americans.

The Chukchi are probably also heavily ANE somehow because these very Asian-looking Eskimo like people actually plot Caucasian on some charts! So in Far Northeastern Asia, early Caucasoids and early Asians have been mixing it up for some time. He also notes that Berbers have a lot of Black blood. This is correct. In fact, on some charts, Berbers plot outside of Caucasian altogether and end up slightly into the the Black or African quadrant.

He also says that Ashkenazi Jews have a lot of Asian and Black in them. Asian maybe (ancient Asian). Black, no way. I have seen charts showing that Ashkenazi Jews and other people of the Caucasus have the least amount of Black of any White group on Earth. How hilarious for Stormfronters that Jews are the most pure of all the Whites. Australoids are absolutely not archaic Whites or archaic Caucasians.

This is an interesting blog. What I’d like to point out, however, is that there is quite a bit of misinformation regarding the genetic makeup/ancestry of races and ethnic groups/castes found in India on this blog. I noticed you implied in some of your posts here that Indians are hybrid population between two groups, one most similar to present-day non-White Caucasoids, and one most similar to Australian Aboriginals.

Let me explain what the genetic/latest research has actually shown, as far as India’s demographics and the genetic composition of its castes is concerned. What follows is a detailed explanation of South Asian genetics and therefore, I must warn you, it is a long wall of text but completely accurate and supported by the latest research, despite containing a lot of jargon that may give you a headache. Bear with me here.

Indians are composed of two composite groups: ANI or the Ancestral North Indians, a group which itself is a composite of two or more different Caucasoid populations, that are on average, closest to present-day Georgians in genetic makeup, and ASI, or the Ancestral South Indians, a group which is also a composite of two or more different populations, at least half of which is Caucasoid in nature, with the other half varying in composition from one ethnic group to another.

In other words, while ANI is completely Caucasoid in nature, ASI is 50-60% Caucasoid in nature depending on the caste in question, and the remainder of ASI ancestry is either composed of Mongoloid, proto-Mongoloid, proto-Caucasoid or in exceptionally rare, isolated cases like the Paniya tribe of South India, of proto-Australoid-like ancestry which still isn’t the same as having Australoid ancestry. Keep in mind that Australoids themselves are at least 80% Mongoloid in genetic makeup and are considered to be archaic Whites themselves.

They are also the furthest group genetically on Earth, from the Negroids/Congoids/Bantuids of Sub-Saharan Africa. So, apart from a minority of untouchables of South India and parts of East India who are not even a part of the caste system to begin with, no other group in South Asia has any proto-Australoid-like admixture to speak of. And Indians are predominantly Caucasoid and group with other Caucasoids according to every genetic test/anthropometric study since the dawn of time. More information here.

It is crucial to remember that Indians have nothing to do with Australoids – those people are completely different apart from a very few isolated tribes in India that have real proto-Australoid-like admixture due to their status and extreme isolation. And this admixture has nothing to do with ASI admixture – ASI is just like the paleolithic ANE influence in Europeans, and half of it is Caucasian (at least half, if not more, it varies for different people in India) and it is a composite just like ANI is with different components for different people/castes in India.

The Reich et al paper even pointed out that the Onge were at best a poor proxy to get something without ANI admixture and little ASI admixture, and even then, it was a worse proxy than the Han Chinese. In other words, East Asians were a better proxy than the Onge themselves.

The reason they picked the Onge as a (poor) proxy was because they were the only group they could find in that region without ANI admixture and because they are such an old population that has been isolated and separated from mainland populations for a very long period of time. They also have very few individuals left, so owing to the problems of genetic drift, they assume ownership of a component, and the admixture program tries to force the Onge component in an admixture model of South Asians.

In more recent papers, this has been clarified further and it has been stated that they were simply making a poor guess when using the Onge as a proxy in the model.

Furthermore, to illustrate just how poor of a guess it was, they pointed out that ASI is massively separated from the Onge. In fact, ASI is just as far from the Onge as the Utah Whites (a group of random Euro-descent samples from Utah in the States) are from the Onge, indicating that ASI is as related to Onge as Utah Whites are.

Papuans and Onge have no relation to India at all – the Onge are in SE Asia. Han are a much better proxy. In addition, Indians lack Denisovan admixture and other crucial haplogroups found commonly in the Onge as well.

It must also be said that if Indians are erroneously assumed to have proto-Australoid-like ancestry, so are Europeans.

You might be under the false assumption that Europeans are somehow a “pure” Caucasoid population, when in fact that couldn’t be further from the truth. The latest genetic research conclusively shown that Europeans are all admixed to different degrees between at least four main populations of people: West European Hunter-Gatherer (WHG), Early European Farmer (EEF), Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherer (SHG), and Ancient North Eurasian (ANE).

It has also conclusively shown that all populations of Europeans and other “White” Caucasoids have significant to huge amounts of non-Caucasoid ancestry due to the fact that the ANE/Ancient North Eurasian component is at least 45% East Asian/Mongoloid in ancestry. The ANE component is based on the genome of the infamous Mal’ta boy or MA-1.

In Europe today, it peaks among Estonians at just over 18%, and intriguingly, reaches a similar level among Scots. Finns, Russians and Mordovians also carry very high ANE in addition to very high amounts of much more recent Siberian admixture. What’s even more interesting is that this ANE influence is the very influence found among South Asians, albeit in a slightly different variety known as ASI.

What the aforementioned information means is the following: Indians are not a hybrid population between Caucasoids and Australoids. In reality, the vast majority of Indians are an admixed population between Caucasoids and Mongoloids – except in this case, the Mongoloids are most similar in phenotype and genotype to SE Asians like the Thai.

According to the latest research, the average Indian is at least 75% Caucasian and 25% Asian – these figures have been substantiated by multiple reports including the National Geographic Project’s Geno 2.0 DNA ancestry test samples, the 23andme test samples, and even the Reich et. al paper published in the highly-cited/high impact factor scientific journal Nature.

It has been conclusively proven that South Asians/Indians range from 5-10% Asian to 35% Asian or in other words from 65% Caucasian to 95% Caucasian. The most Caucasian people in the region are from the northwest of the Indian subcontinent, and the least Caucasian people are from the east and south. Only one person broke the magic 35% barrier, and he was a Bangladeshi (38%).

If you’d like a layman’s interpretation of the data in the aforementioned sources, check out this article by Razib Khan, one of the pioneers in the field of population genetics, particularly as it pertains to the archaeogenetics of South Asia as a whole – he writes articles for Discover Magazine, which is a well respected source. He is also a PhD student at UC Davis. Here is a post describing the general findings of genetic research into South Asian populations

In addition to the Reich et. al paper and other landmark papers in this field, the Harappa Ancestry Project, which is helmed by a genetic expert and is working in combination with Reich’s data is also another landmark study into the archaeogenetics of South Asia. It has conclusively proven and further substantiated the results I aforementioned.

According to the samples collected by the project, there is a sharp correlation between caste/location and Caucasian ancestry in India, with the upper castes in all parts of India being significantly more Caucasian than the lower castes, and the North-West Indian/South Asian upper castes being the most Caucasian of all – up to 95%.

All of the Northwest Indian/Pakistani/Nepali/Afghani upper castes are between 5-18% admixed with East Eurasians/Mongoloids; in other words all of them are between 82-95% Caucasian. These castes would include the Rajputs, Jatts, Khatris, Gujjars, Sindhis, Brahmins, Bhumihars, Balochis, Brahuis, and certain upper caste Punjabis, and Pathans. Note that this is only applicable to the upper castes aforementioned that are in the North and North-West of India as well as Pakistan and Nepal.

As for the rest of India (and Bangladesh/Sri Lanka), as I mentioned earlier, the average South Asian is 75% Caucasian and 25% Asian, so a good amount of South Asians are more Caucasian than 75%, and a good amount are less Caucasian.

For instance, the average Tamil (from South India, and well represented in the diaspora in the USA as the “typical Indian” stereotype) is 33-34% non-Caucasian, and the average Bengali/Bangaladeshi is closer to 55-60% Caucasian. The dalits of Tamil Nadu or the lowest caste Tamils (also well represented in the States), are at least 40% non-Caucasian. The lowest castes of India, the Chamars, who are found all over India (also in the States) are also in the 50-60% Caucasian range. Upper caste Indians in the rest of India (apart from the Northwest) tend to be 70-80% Caucasian.

If you’d like to see the data for yourself, here is the link to the spreadsheet.

For reference, the “South Indian” component is 50-60% Caucasian, and the ANE/NE Asian component is 45% non-Caucasian. The SE Asian, Siberian, Papuan, American and Beringian components are all Mongoloid, and the E. African, San, Pygmy and W. African components are all Negroid. Keep in mind that the data here is accurate only for South Asians, other regions are too under-sampled in the project.

Now you might be wondering, if South Asians, particularly the upper castes in the North and Northwest, are between 5-18% admixed, are they alone in this predicament? As I alluded to earlier, they are anything but alone.

Let’s start with Middle Easterners and Northern Africans. Egyptians, Moroccans, Libyans, and other North Africans are on average 15% Black/Negroid admixed. In fact, according to the latest research, the average North African is 15-16% black, and individual countries like Egypt and Tunisia are 18-21% Black on average, so some would be more than 21% black, some less.

The highest admixture is found among Moroccans and Berbers, who can be up to 30% Black/Negroid admixed on average. As far as the Middle East goes, Yemeni people have been shown to be 18-19% black on average, and the Bedouin tribes have been shown to be 16-18% Black on average as well. Qataris are 12-16% Black, and Saudi Arabians range from 14-18% black as well, on average. Jews, particularly the Ashkenazim, have also been shown to be 16.5% admixed with Mongoloid and Black/Negroid on average.

So on average, MENA people are 75-85% Caucasoid and 15-25% Black/Negroid admixed, therefore its safe to say that MENA people are Caucasoid-Negroid hybrids, with some groups being more and others less Negroid. All these figures have been collected by National Geographic and many other researchers.

As far as West Asians/Central Asians are concerned, they show significant amounts of Mongoloid admixture on average.Tajiks have 15% Mongoloid admixture on average, while Turkmen have 16% Mongoloid admixture on average.

However, some groups of Turkmen average 27% Mongoloid, and some are 35-56% Mongoloid. Southern Turkmen on average are only 1/8 to 1/3 Mongoloid or better said 13-31% Mongoloid. However in some parts of Turkmenistan like the northern and eastern parts, the Mongoloid DNA reaches 33-55%. Other parts of Turkmenistan are 33-55% Mongoloid.

Even many Turkish people are 10-20% Mongoloid and 15% Mongoloid on average. Iranians are also Mongoloid admixed – up to 10% on average, with the Azeris of Iran being even more admixed. Tatars are 16% Mongoloid admixed on average.

So, its safe to say that most West Asian groups are a hybrid of Mongoloids and Caucasoids, being on average 80-85% Caucasian and 15-20% Mongoloid, with some groups being much less Caucasian and much more Mongoloid.

Now, lets look at the European data. All non-Sardinian Europeans have been shown to have significant amounts of ANE ancestry due to the Malt’a boy mentioned earlier, and this ANE ancestry is related to/is the same as ASI ancestry in South Asians, relating Europeans to Amerindians and East Asians.

The ANE component is composed of 45% Mongoloid and Australoid-like ancestry (similar to the distant relation that some South Asians have to proto-Australoids), and the Malt’a boy also has a proto-Australoid ASE component on the order of 10%.

This ANE component peaks in the Karitiana Indians of South America

More info about ANE’s relationship to ASI is available at this link which itself references this landmark paper:

It is also pertinent to point out the fact that ANE ancestry in all Europeans with the exception of Sardinians (who have very minor ANE ancestry) is mostly (45-55%) non-Caucasoid in nature, and does not include separate additional East Asian ancestry that is due to much more recent admixture with Mongoloids from the Golden Horde and other admixture events.

ANE or NE Asian is best thought of as very ancient Asian admixture, while the recent admixture is added separately. A recent landmark paper definitively showed a clear signal of admixture in Northern Europe, represented by the ANE/NE Asian component. Here is the link to the paper and here is a link to the layman’s explanation of it.

What this paper definitively shows (as do successive papers recently released after it) is that Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, have huge amounts of NE Asian, also known as ANE, admixture. This is because they are descended in part from an Amerindian population.

What is the actual amount? Well, remember that ANE or NE Asian is made up of two components – one is Caucasian and related to Levantine ancestry and the other is related to NE Asia/Siberians and the American Indians, peaking in the Karitiana Indians of South America.

Therefore, according to the research data in the latest papers, Northern Europeans are 5-18% admixed with Mongoloids, or in other words, Northern Europeans are 5-18% Non-Caucasoid, and the authors pointed out that this is actually a conservative estimate, one that is lower than what the actual value is likely to be – which is purported to be even higher than the 5-18% range, easily crossing over into the 10-20%+ non-Caucasoid range.

Keeping in mind that in the Near East among Lezgins, Chechens and Ossetians, ANE is in the 23-27%+ range. This means that other Eastern Europeans not residing in Northern Europe are also heavily admixed with non-Caucasian ANE ancestry as well. The ANE ancestry is 45% East Asian/Amerindian in composition and 10% SE Asian in ancestry, so 55% non-Caucasian and ANE ancestry ranges from 8-21%+ in almost all Europeans except Sardinians.

A table with ANE scores from a recent paper. Remember how I mentioned earlier that this ANE non-Caucasoid ancestry did not include additional, more recent, non-Caucasoid East Asian ancestry?

Well, lets take a look at that data as well. Russians and Finns are 80-88% Caucasian depending on the person (not including non-Caucasoid ANE admixture which would make them even less Caucasoid) because of much more recent East Asian admixture with the areas with the higher non-Caucasian mixture in the 12-20% range around Leningrad.

Finnish people, according to the latest genetic study, are at least 13-17% East Asian, and Russians, according to the latest genetic study, are 12-18% East Asian. More info here.

Lithuanians and Swedes are at least 10%-20% admixed with recent East/Mongoloid mixture. If we add this recent Mongoloid admixture to the more ancient ANE ancestry in Europeans, we get the following numbers: Russians, Finns and Swedes are 17-30% Mongoloid/Non-Caucasoid and 70-83% Caucasoid. Because of this, Finns have been found to be distinct from other Europeans and don’t cluster as close to them. Russians in the North are much the same way.

Therefore we can sum up the above with the following three sentences:

  • Proto West Eurasians + ANE/ASI-like = Europeans and Latin Americans
  • Proto West Eurasians + ASI/ANE-like = South Asians and Central and West Asians
  • Proto West Eurasians + African = Middle Easterners and Northern Africans

And since everyone in these regions can be as much as 30% non-Caucasoid due to either Mongoloid or Negroid ancestry, (but closer to 20-25% non-Caucasoid), Indians are definitely not alone in being admixed Caucasoids on this planet. They are actually part of the norm, being on average, 75% Caucasian and 25% Asian,

The data clearly shows that Indians are as admixed as other Caucasian groups throughout the world, and in some causes, purer, particularly in the case of the upper caste North and North-West Indians, who are at most 18% admixed or less and thus 82-95% Caucasian.

Are Arabs Usually in a State of War?

RL: Most people in the region have been living in peacetime most of the time since independence.

Swank: Seems to detail a different picture here…

There has not been a war fought on Moroccan territory. Morocco has been at peace 100% of the time since Independence.

Algeria fought a civil war from 1991-2000.  That is 10 years out of 53.

There has not been a war fought on Tunisian territory. Tunisia has been at peace 100% of the time since Independence.

Libya fought a 4 day border war with Egypt in 1977. There was an on and off war in Chad for 8 years between 1978-1987. There has been civil war since the overthrow of Ghaddafi. That is 12 years of war out of 63 years. Libya has been at peace 93% of the time since Independence.

Egypt was involved in several wars with Israel, but they didn’t last long. The total adds up to maybe 2 years at most. That’s 2 years of war out of 93 years.

Indeed, Palestine has been embroiled war almost all the time since 1947.

Jordan has only fought some wars with Israel. Maybe 2 years of war out of the last 66 years.

Syria fought several wars with Israel, but the combined total only lasted two years. They fought a war with the Muslim Brotherhood that went on perhaps 1 year. There has been a civil war since 2012. That is 6 years of war out of 64 years.

Saudi Arabia has not been in any wars since 1920 that I am aware of. However, there was an internal civil war that lasted a few years recently, but it was a very low level war. Saudi Arabia was briefly targeted in the Gulf War but that was only for a year. That’s 3 years out of 95.

Oman has not been in any wars since 1920 that I am aware of. Oman has been at peace 100% of the time since Independence.

Bahrain has not been in any wars since 1920 that I am aware of. Bahrain has been at peace 100% of the time since Independence.

UAE has not been in any wars since 1920 that I am aware of. UAE has been at peace 100% of the time since Independence.

Qatar has not been in any wars since 1920 that I am aware of. Qatar has been at peace 100% of the time since Independence.

Kuwait has been at war only with Iraq and that was only for a few weeks. That is 1 month out of 95 years.

Yemen did fight a civil war that lasted maybe 8 years. This resulted in a split in the country. There has been an internal war against Al Qaeda for maybe 4 years now. That’s 12 years out of 54.

Iraq fought a brief war with the British in 1941, but it only lasted one month. There was civil war in Mosul in 1959, but it lasted no more than a week. Iraq fought a number of wars with Israel, but those amounted to no more than 2 years. The Iran-Iraq War lasted 8 years. The Gulf War was over in less than a year and was by an internal civil war on 6 months. Iraq has been at war since the Iraq War in 2003, 11 years. Since 1932, Iraq has been at war for 22 years. That is 22 out of 83.

Lebanon fought a few wars against Israel, adding up to no more than 2 years. There was a brief civil war in 1958 lasting no more than one month. There was a major civil war in Lebanon for 15 years, from 1975-1990. Hezbollah fought a 1 month war with Israel in 2006. There was a brief civil war in 2007 with the Lebanese army fought a 4 month civil war against Fatah-al-Islam. In 2008, Hezbollah fought a 1 week war with the government. The Syrian Civil War has spilled over into Lebanon for the last year. Lebanon has been at war for 19 out of 70 years.

Conclusion: Most countries in the Arab World have been at peace most of the time since Independence.