ID the Med Hottie

For 20 points, ID the Med hottie above. Hint: She's still alive, she's 74 years old, and she's still very beautiful.

#1 reason why Nordicism will never fly. Nordicism says that chicks like the above are members of some inferior, mongrel race. Further, it states, against all obvious evidence, that the chick above is not even White! What is she then? Who knows?

But that’s not the reason why it won’t work. Sure, Nordic guys evolved in a cold climate, but evolution retained a supercharged male sex drive nevertheless, maybe to keep warm and not freeze to death at night. Anyway, Nordicism tells Nordic guys that no way can they ever, ever touch chicks like the one above, in fact, they can’t even think about it. Because she’s, like, inferior, you know.

Nordic men will fall all over themselves, commit deadly stampedes, start wars, commit serious felonies and do all sorts of fucked up shit just to get a chance at chicks like that.  They will collectively shout, “Fuck your racial theories,” as they fight Hell and high water for a shot at Miss Lovely above.

LOL! Won’t work tards.

Thanks for playing though!

What Is Pan-Aryanism?

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

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

The Pan-Aryanism that I subscribe to is found on the Pan-Aryanist Forum (now members-only I think). They say that all natives of Europe are White. Also that there are White Turks (3

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

I just like it for their expanded definition of White. It would be like, say if you were Black, and some small group of Blacks decided that they were the only real pure Blacks. And they ruled out maybe 5

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

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

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

Whites are:

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

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

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

Hey White People!

Hey White People! Mexicans want to know some shit about you!

Hey White People!

Why do you freckle in the sun? Why is your hair a color other than brown? Why do you make more money than brown people? Why do you love hot dogs so much? Why do you watch and play hockey? Why do you text and drive? Why do you pretend to like the World Cup? Why do you drink out of thermoses? Why don’t you cover you couches with plastic? Why don’t you throw big parties for your 15th birthdays?

Why do you hang out in the backyard instead of the front yard? Why do you pull boats behind your pick up trucks? Why don’t you mow your own lawns? Why do you all drink smoothies and Starbucks every day? Why do you park your cars in the garage and not on the lawn?

Why, when you go to Kaiser, do you go alone or with maybe one other person and not with the sick person, four children, two teenagers and three other adults? Why do you use salad dressings other than ranch? Why do you spay and neuter your cats and dogs?

Hey White people! Listen up! Mexicans want to know some shit about you!

Transcript of My Latest Interview July 7, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it Godfrey Feder?

No.

He was their economist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There weren’t any Gentile capitalists who financed Communism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well…The middle class typically is exploited by the rich under capitalism. Studies have proven that under neoliberalism, which is radical capitalism, the bottom 8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are no moderate pro-White movements!

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

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

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

Break

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

Isn’t he a Jew though?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s correct, exactly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But they are occupying another people’s land.

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

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

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

The Military-Industrial Complex.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right.

But you support rational criticism of the Jews.

Right.

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

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

The only people who think Jews are important are:

1. Jews. 2. Anti-Semites.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you think that is for racial purity reasons?

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

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

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

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

Not that much in the US. They have a few converts here and there. Actually, a much greater problem in the West in terms of Islam is that a lot of Muslims leave Islam. In the UK, 1

Has that happened in Europe at all?

In the UK, about 1

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

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

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

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

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

Yes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some people think that those traits are genetic.

Yes! I don’t agree with that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Race Does Not Exist

Click to enlarge. Nigerians or Africans (no such thing) in light blue. Europeans or Caucasians (no such thing) in green and red. Asians (no such thing) in purple and blue. The nonexistent entities called Africans, Asians and Europeans are demonstrated in this chart. These constructs do not exist, nor do they differ from each other. That they seem to be plotting quite distinctly on this chart is simply an optical illusion. If you disagree, you are a racist scum and hopefully soon we will even be able to arrest you.

As you can see from this chart made by some racist mad scientist, race is clearly a social construct. His research violated the new Law of Political Correctness, and agents are shutting down his lab as I write this.

Race is clearly a social construct. But it’s a social construct with some powerful attributes. There have been wild and violent wars and battles between various social constructs around the world. These are termed social construct conflicts, social construct wars and social construct violence. The old terms ethnic conflict, ethnic warfare and ethnic violence are no longer acceptable and use of them is de facto evidence of racism. Use of those terms is considered such strong evidence of racism that it is even admissible in a court of Race Law.

Occasionally US cities erupt with what are called social construct riots, in which various social constructs try to destroy and burn down their cities for unknown reasons. Research into these riots has been banned because the social constructs involved were undefinable and do not even in fact exist. Recently there was the Rodney King Social Construct Riot. Before that, there were the Watts Social Construct Riots of 1965 and other famous Social Construct Riots in Detroit, Newark and other places.

These riots can be violent. Sometimes persons of one social construct will even attack persons of another social construct during these riots. How they know how or even why to attack someone of another construct is unknown, because there is no way to determine anyone’s particular construct, since the whole concept is all imaginary anyway.

Liberal Race Realism: The Facts and the Project

Of the three major races, Blacks, Caucasians (mostly Europeans were studied) and Asians (mostly NE Asians were studied), Blacks, the world over, on average:

– are the fastest to mature physically; – have the highest rates of bone and tooth development; – begin to sit, crawl and walk the earliest; – have the earliest puberty and sexual development; – have the highest levels of testosterone; – are the most sexually active whether measured by the age of first intercourse, intercourse frequency or number of sex partners; – have the highest rates of twinning; – have the highest levels of AIDS and HIV; – have the smallest brains, the lowest IQ’s and educational attainment; – have the highest rates of crime, including fraud, forgery, counterfeiting, assault, robbery and murder; – are the most aggressive and mentally unstable; – have the highest rates of drug and alcohol abuse; – have the highest rates of divorce, out-of-wedlock children, child abuse and delinquency; – have the highest rates of unemployment, the highest rates of welfare dependency and the lowest incomes; – have the most diseases, the highest rates of death at every age and the shortest life expectancy.

To me, the first six of those look pretty good or neutral, but the last eight don’t seem so good, from my White middle-class upbringing anyway.

On every single one of those variables, NE Asians are the polar opposites of Blacks. European Whites are somewhere in between.

Racial liberalism says that all of these facts are due to environment, and none are due to genetics. I find that quite dubious to say the least.

Of course these facts, if a genetic basis is accepted, are a boon to the Right, particularly the hardest Right reactionaries, fascists, Nazis and Libertarians. Of course they are bad news for the Left and liberalism.

One central task of Liberal Race Realism, is, given these facts and their possible genetic inputs, how do we still manage to rescue the Liberal-Left and still construct a Liberal-Left project?

Note! That does not mean abandoning the Liberal-Left to fascism, Nazism, racism, conservatism, reaction of other bullshit. Many assume that if you believe the above, that you must be a racist, fascist, Nazi, conservative or reactionary. Not so at all. It’s possible to believe the above and still be a liberal-Leftist.

We will not abandon liberalism!

How to do that is part of the most difficult project of Liberal Race Realism.

The Race-IQ Conundrum: the Hard and Painful Truth

It’s time to talk straight about this race-IQ stuff, painful as it may be.

One thing is crystal clear to me after dealing with countless US Blacks. Your average Black person in the US is, how to put it kindly? Pretty damn stupid. My heart sinks as I write this. Consider the policy implications of tens of millions of these idiots in our land. The White nationalists have a point. What to do?

Much as I like Hispanics, we really need to look them in the eye clearly as we can and call it like we see it is as far as their brains, or lack of them, go. Face it, your average Hispanic may be a bit smarter than a Black, but they’re still pretty damn stupid. In fact, most are really damn stupid! Ponder for a moment the consequences of 11-20 million of these idiots, all illegals, swarming our land, laughing at corny Mexican movies, gorging on fast food, and pumping out baby morons faster than you can blink. What to do? One throws up their hands.

Now let us look at the great, or not so great anymore, White race. The race that, believe it or not, created this wonderful country. I’ve been dealing with Whites my whole life, and one thing that hits you hard after dealing with a lot of Whites is their intelligence, or lack of it. Because, come to think of it, your average White person, is, well, pretty damn stupid! You know, kind of like the Blacks and the Hispanics? What to do? One wants to cry. There is always separatism.

Smart separatism now! Let’s form a smart separatist state in the US! Where? Utah! No wait. West Virginia! Um, no. Mississippi! Hmm, won’t play. Texas! No go.

Hmmm, back to the drawing board then.

How Black and Hispanic “Values” Clash with White Middle Class Upbringing

Referring to the video here, a commenter disagrees that the people on the show were out of line to ask the White woman why she won’t date Blacks. He also denies that they said she was racist:

One again, did he actually use the word racist? I listened to that dialogue again and I did not hear it. At 8:48 he says something like “well that…” and then it becomes intelligible. Then all I could hear is “why?”

I also heard him say, “not everybody is going to be attracted to the opposite race…” We’ll forget for the moment that there’s no such thing as “an opposite race”, but he did seem to acknowledge that some will just prefer their own. All he asked is why.

1. They didn’t need to say she was racist. It was implied.

2. They should not have asked her why in the first place. I mean, in White culture, you ask a question like that, and people will look at you like, “What the Hell kind of question is that!?” And everyone can read that body language.

You know, I was not brought up that way. Would I ask some Black woman to go out with me (assuming I wanted to take her out), then badger her if she didn’t want to, then ask her why, then say she was racist for not dating me? I mean, in the White bread world I was brought up in, that is like the nadir of outrageous, audacious rudeness. You’re not “acting White.” You’re “acting like a nigger.”

But Black guys do this all the time. Ask White women out, badger them when they say no, then say they are racist for saying no.

Do you realize what White middle class socialization is like? We are brought up, and there’s like a million rules about every little stinking thing. It drives you mad just to keep track of them all the time and not be constantly violating them. Chronic violation of the rules leads to ostracization, rejection, not getting hired, firings, all kinds of bad shit. So you learn or you’re an outcast.

Violation of a lot of these rules, it is implied, is called, “Acting like a Black or a Mexican.” IOW, it’s low class. White people don’t act that way. Or, good White people don’t act that way. Trailer trash? Sure, but they’re hardly White. They are barely above the Blacks and the Mexicans. In some cases, worse.

In fact, even in White liberal environments, you will hear people say, often laughing, “Don’t do that! That’s not the White thing to do.” “That’s not White. That’s not a White way of acting.” That’s what, “Hey, that’s mighty White of you!” means. It means you are acting like an upstanding White person.

Now. Is there an implied supremacism behind that? Sure. But if supremacism is what it takes to get your group to act good, I say go for it. I would love it if Blacks would shame their kids who act bad, saying, “Don’t do that! You’re acting like a White person! How disgusting! Act like a proud Black person instead.” Indeed, this is part of the Afrocentrist mindset.

Now, maybe Blacks think we are a bunch of uptight nerds who keep dropping turds in the punch bowl and spoiling all the fun. Perhaps we are, I have no idea.

But I’m pointing this out to show you how profoundly offensive a lot of Black and even Hispanic behavior is to White bread, middle class suburban Whites. I mean, you were brought up that you don’t do these 100,000 and one things on near penalty of death. Then you see non-Whites not only doing this stuff, but doing it unapologetically, refusing to apologize when called on it, and even seeming to glory in it.

It’s so offensive to us it’s beyond words. It’s appalling.

Anti-White Hate Propaganda on a British Talk Show

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kkXogn8Oeo]

That video is really pissing me off. It’s a British talk show about White women who are with Black guys. They interview a bunch of White women who prefer Black guys to White men. The Black guys, as a rule, are the well-behaved types that my friends and I call “White Blacks” – i.e., they act like White people.

We learn so many fascinating facts from these silly dames.

Black men are better in bed than White men. White men are lousy in bed. WTH?

Black men treat women better than White men. I can tell you right off that in my experience, that is not true.

Also notice at the end of the video, the one White woman who says she would not date a Black man, in fact – if he was the last man on Earth even – notice the propaganda here. They interviewed five White women who prefer Black men to White men, and one White woman who felt the opposite way; if you’re a moron, which most people are, the logical conclusion is that 8

Also notice how the “White Black” guy argues with the White woman who refuses to date Blacks and implies that she is a racist for having this opinion. Utterly sickening.

But this is what Black men and boys always do. In schools where there are many Blacks and Whites, this is the line the hyper-sexually aggressive Black boys use with the White girls. If the girl says she won’t go out with them, they badger and badger her about it, endlessly accusing her of being racist. After all, the only reason she could resist his irresistible Black Big Cock Godliness is racism, right?

Sadly, many White women are weak and stupid, and Cultural Marxism worsens these problems, so this lame line – “You won’t date me because I’m racist!” – actually works, incredibly enough.

I’m shocked that Black males would stoop so low as to use this line. If a Black woman would not go out with me, I would hardly accuse her of being racist! How rude can you get? I was brought in a civilized, mannered, White middle class environment, and a lot of stuff is just beyond the pale rude. Especially calling someone racist because they won’t date your sorry ass. How pitiful can you get?

I have known many White women who had relationships with Black men. Some even preferred Black guys. In the case of every single woman where they had a kid, the Black man had taken off, nowhere to be seen.

This is the typical scene. Single White or Hispanic Mom, or she has a new guy. The Black guy made one or more kids with her, then he took off. If you ask the child, he’s either mad at or indifferent to his absent Black father. Ask the woman, and the father is nowhere to be seen. He’s vanished from the Earth, takes no interest in his offspring.

In addition, the Black men were far more likely than White men to abuse, verbally and physically, imprison, browbeat, keep at home, rape, rob, steal from, and of course cheat on the White woman. I can’t think of one single case where the guy did not do at least one of these things. What I have seen, Black men treat White women appallingly worse than White men do.

Are there cases that are not like this? I assume so, just never met any. If I knew a White woman who was involved with a Black guy and thinking of marrying or having kids with him, I would recommend that she not do that. As evidence, I would cite the experience of the women I know who had relationships with Black men.

Was the sex great? Who knows, maybe it was. Did they treat these women better than White guys? Are you kidding? For White women, Black men may well be a fun ride for a bit. As far as marrying them or having kids with them, the odds are not on your side.

Evidence for Environmental Effects on IQ

The hereditarians are flat out wrong on IQ. They always say that there is an environmental effect on IQ, but then whenever you show them any evidence of it, they immediately shoot it down. There are few hereditarian researchers on IQ who actually acknowledge evidence for an environmental effect on IQ.

Arthur Jensen, Philippe Rushton and the snide, upper class, snooty, antisocial atavists over at Gene Expression lead the pack. Since nearly the entire HBD/race realist sphere follows the line of Jensen and Rushton, nearly this entire sphere has rejected all evidence for a direct effect of the environment on IQ. Every time we show them they evidence, they shoot it down.

Nearly all White racists and especially White nationalists reject all evidence for an environmental effect on IQ and shoot down any evidence they throw up.

White nationalists have a lot at stake in this debate.

White nationalism is founded on the idea that European Whites are a genetically superior race, and most of the other races, including Blacks, Bushmen, Pygmies, Eskimos, Amerindians, mestizos, mulattos, Polynesians, Melanesians, Micronesians, Southeast Asians, Papuans, Aborigines and Negritos are all quite genetically inferior in intelligence.

They also throw in all non-European Whites as genetically inferior in brains, including Arabs, North Africans, Iranians, Afghans, East Indians and the people of the Stans. Since most White nationalists are Nordicists, Southern Europeans and the people of the Caucasus are also thrown in as intellectually genetically inferior.

There isn’t much evidence for this, as Southern Europeans and the people of the Caucasus in general have IQ’s that are quite high. Furthermore, Eskimo and Maori IQ is high. The IQ’s of many groups in the US, including Mexicans, East Indians and Africans, are also quite high.

When we suggest that there are environmental effects on IQ, we shoot down their whole theory of genetic intellectual superiority and upset their whole theoretical worldview.

But there is quite a bit of evidence for environmental effects on IQ.

Wild IQ rises in the 20th century, mostly in the developed world, are impossible to explain by genetics.

The much higher IQ of US Blacks as opposed to other Blacks is hard to explain by genetics, though WN’s and the Gene Expression authors never tire of retarded explanations. The WN explanation for the 20 pt difference between US and African Black IQ is that it is explained by White blood in US Blacks. This explanation is retarded as it can only explain 4.5 points of the gap, leaving the other 15.5 points unexplained.

The Gene Expression folks say that African IQ is artificially lowered by malnutrition (they invoke environment only when it suits their hereditarian bias and reject it the rest of the time). Therefore, normative Black IQ is 80, and US Black IQ of 87 is also explained by White blood. But there is no evidence for their theory.

The White nationalists and their HBD buddies also pour cold water on the Flynn Effect showing massive IQ rises in the 20th Century. According to them, while IQ has actually increased, real intelligence has not gone up one single iota. The FE IQ’s are not on some BS called “g intelligence,” therefore they are nothing, meaningless ephemera. People are not getting smarter at all, not even

For instance there have been 22 different studies of IQ and breastfeeding, all the way up to age 50. All of these studies found cognitive benefits from breastfeeding. On the contrary, hereditarians recently championed one study that found no de novo effect for breastfeeding on IQ. Instead, the differences were tied up with mother’s IQ’s. That is, smarter mothers breastfed more and stupider ones did not. I will take 22 studies over one any day. (Sternberg and Grigorenko 1971, p. 128)

The effects of nutritional supplementation in pregnancy on IQ of offspring have been studied.

Nutritional supplementation in pregnancy and later supplementation of children has been shown to have effects at age 24 in Guatemala (1980) and age 18 in Mexico (1982). Mexican boys improved on IQ, and Guatemalans improved on a range of cognitive and achievement outcomes. (Sternberg and Grigorenko 1971, p. 124)

Lead levels in blood have a strong effect on IQ, leading to declines of up to 10-15 points. There is a clear cause effect relationship between blood levels and IQ. Blood lead levels are higher in Blacks than in Whites, because Blacks tend to liver in older dilapidated housing that has lead paint. Black children apparently ingest the paint chips somehow.

Iron level in the blood also effects IQ. consistently shown that malnutrition leads to low IQ and antisocial behavior in childhood. Iron deficiency is quite high in US Blacks and Hispanics.

One controlled study found that children who were severely malnourished in childhood ended up with IQ’s of 84 when returned to the home, 82 when institutionalized and 97 when adopted away (Sternberg and Grigorenko 1971, p. 123).

A study in South Africa showed that intensive courses in college teaching Black college students the types of intelligence that are tested for on IQ tests quickly raised IQ’s from 83 to 97. Students were generally aged 18-22, above the age where environment is said to effect IQ. Even Philippe Rushton agreed that scores went up in this study, but he had some retarded reason why this had no effect on his hereditarian theories (Rushton and Jensen 2005).

It is a common canard among White nationalist and hereditarian circles that all early intervention programs designed to raise IQ have not been able to do so. It’s true that they often do not raise IQ, but they have other benefits. What matters is whether these programs are cost-effective or not.

Yet some very intensive programs have been successful. The Abecedarian and Perry Preschool projects (Sternberg and Grigorenko 1971, p. 108) showed long-term rises in achievement scores lasting all the way into adolescence. Abecedarian found rises of 4.5 IQ points all the way into adulthood. The problem is that Abecedarian was quite expensive. Whether 4 point IQ gains could occur in large populations given this treatment and whether this would be cost-effective is not known.

References

Rushton, J. Philippe and Arthur R., Jensen. 2005. Wanted: More Race Realism, Less Moralistic Fallacy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. Vol. 11, No. 2, 328–336.

Sternberg, Robert J. and Grigorenko, Elena. 1971. Environmental Effects on Cognitive Abilities. New York: Routledge Psychology Press.

The Strange Case of Björk

Björk, the most Asiatic looking North European I have even seen, barring the Lapps.

That’s not the only photo of her. Lapps are the most ancient Caucasians of Europe. They do have a bit of Asian in them, but not much (

I much better guess is that Björk is part Inuit from Greenland. Iceland is very close to the Inuit-populated land of Greenland, with close ties to other Inuit regions in Canada. She’s obviously got some Inuit genes somewhere in her background.

I have heard some say that some far north Scandinavians have Asiatic eyes though they are fully Caucasian due to protective effects eyefolds have on the eyes from the glare of the sun shining on the snow. I think that’s dubious until proven otherwise. Most Norwegians and Swedes don’t look very Asiatic.

Best guess is she has an Inuit ancestor back there somewhere.

Anyway, as far as I am concerned she’s White.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Negros in Negroland: A Fascinating Book

I have been spending the past few days thumbing through this amazing 268 page book, written in 1868 by a very racist White Southerner, an unabashed White Supremacist. Keep in mind that back in those days though, White Supremacy was simply normative for nearly all US Whites.

The impetus for this book comes out of the Radical Republican attempts at Reconstruction, which were, it is true, a disaster. Incompetent and uneducated Blacks were put in positions of power over Whites all over the South during this period, with catastrophic effects. It was not unusual to find Black judges, mayors, sheriffs, police officers, supervisors, etc., who could not even read or write. The object here was simply to humiliate the Southern Whites.

Blacks roamed all over the South aimlessly. Many, knowing nothing else, retreated to the plantations where they had been slaves, this time asking for wage labor. Encampments of them on their old plantations were not uncommon. Many others resorted to crime, often stealing only food to eat. There were many shootings by Southern Whites of Black criminals.

The South was in ruins, and Radical policy only added to the chaos. The finest of Southern White manhood was dead, wounded or hobbling around as amputees. Blacks had freedom but had not the faintest idea of what to do with it.

By the time this book was written, 1868, the Ku Klux Klan had just been formed and was beginning already to ride the torched night. Terrorist attacks on Blacks and White Radicals were growing. The North had just fought a horrible war with the South and was full of the dead and hobbling wounded themselves.

The intent of the Radicals was to humiliate the South in the traditional fashion of ancient man in war, exemplified by the Greeks.

It didn’t work.

Violent Southern reaction only produced disgust from an exhausted North. Soon after this book was written, Radical Reconstruction was ended or amended, and most troops had pulled out of the South. The North was washing their hands of the exasperating South and saying the Hell with them, moving on to their own affairs.

In the decades after this book was written, reactionary retrenchment set in, and much of the progressive changes for Southern Blacks were undone. It was not a full retreat to slavery, but it was a reaction back to Jim Crow, merely one step above.

Bearing in mind the era in which this book was written, its thesis is understandable. The author was actually a liberal for his time, as he was a Southerner who had long opposed slavery as a counterproductive and dying institution.

His solution to the Negro Question was Back to Africa, which seems racist to us, but was actually a progressive position at the time, even embraced by Lincoln. The attitude was similar to that of Herzl’s The Jewish State, where he stated that European anti-Semitism was incorrigible due to the behavior of both parties, and a divorce was the only way out.

The Back to Africa crowd had a similar mindset. Black and White in the US were interminably opposed, and Whites would never cut Blacks a square deal.

Back to Palestine in the case of the Jews, back to Africa for the Africans.

The full title of this book is The Negroes in Negroland, the Negroes in America, and Negroes Generally, also, the Several Races of White Men, Considered the Involuntary and Predestined Supplanters of the Black Races, a Compilation by Hinton Rowan Helper, a Rational Republican, Author of The Impending Crisis of the South, Nojoque, and Other Writings in Behalf of a Free and White America.

The book recites a voluminous amount of literature from early White explorers to Africa in an attempt to prove Black (apparently genetic) inferiority. His object in proving Black inferiority is to show what a crime it is to put an inferior race over a superior one in the South, and to show that inferior Blacks will never be able to succeed in America and will only degrade the country.

The various chapters on Africa were selected for the unflattering portrayal of Africans by explorers. I do not think that the explorers were making this stuff up. Indeed, Africans were living in a state of profound and debased barbarian savagery.

But so were many primitive peoples including Polynesians, Melanesians, Papuans and many Amerindian tribes.

The only lesson that can be drawn here is that Hobbes was correct about the barbaric nature of uncivilized man and his short, nasty and brutish lot.

The question arises whether the debasement of Africans was due to their genes or their culture. I suppose the best answer is both. However, reading through this, it immediately becomes clear that no matter how messed up Africa is today, Africa is immensely more civilized than it was 150 year ago. African Americans have gone much further, and do not resemble this picture much at all, although you can see hints of it in many places.

Africans’ genes have not changed much in 150 years, so much of their debased savagery must have been cultural. African Americans have actually changed genetically in the US in addition to undergoing massive cultural change whereby they lost most of their African culture and gained an American one.

One thing that I found interesting what that this very racist man actually quoted many explorers who said that quite a few African women were beautiful, and it would stand to reason that a White man could want one. They even said that African women made good wives. However, they noted that the African woman was coarse and lacked many of the finer civilized nuances of a White woman.

In particular, one notes the casual terror and murderousness of African life, the omnipresence of death and dead bodies, the minimal nature of mourning in which the dead are soon nonchalantly forgotten, the lack of compassion, romantic love and the other finer sentiments.

This got me to thinking as a race realist where US Blacks retain these qualities. In particular, White observers in Africa today remark that Blacks do not seem to have a White understanding of romantic love.

However, I know that Alpha Unit on this site has all of the finer sentiments that any White woman could have, and more so, honestly. The Black commenters on here, male and female, seem to display the finer sentiments of adequately civilized humans.

I was struck on Abagond’s site how similar the educated Black women on there were to White women in their understanding and desire for romantic love. Perhaps it’s a function of IQ or education. At any rate, I do not think that US Blacks in general, or Black women in particular, are in general lacking in the finer sentiments of romantic love vis a vis Whites.

The casualness of death and lack of compassion in these accounts was also striking, as was any lack of a real mourning period after death. This got me to wondering if US Blacks were deficient in this regard.

However, I have seen and heard many older Black mothers on TV and radio who still mourn for their dead or imprisoned children, some years after the fact. I have seen interviews where Black women in their 40’s and 50’s still keep the dead son’s room decorated with his photos and things and weep on camera for his death even 10-20 years after the fact. Although rationally one should argue that humans ought to get over it, extended and passionate mourning is definitely a finer sentiment and a sign of high civilization.

The thievery, wanton dishonesty and shocking amorality of Africans in this book is frightening. Surely, US Blacks are on average less honest, more thieving and more amoral than US Whites.

However, in this book, nearly every African encountered is essentially a laughing, guiltless, casual and amoral thief. That’s not the case with US Blacks. Many are bad, but many others are very honest to a fault, even moreso than you or me. Many US Blacks have highly developed consciences and even strong guilt complexes. I’ve even met some with the ultimate guilt neurosis, OCD.

What I am getting at here is that a lot of this shocking debasement, savagery and barbarianism of early Africa, which might seem at first to be genetic, is largely cultural. I don’t know much about Africans and Caribbeans today, but US Blacks are tremendously more civilized in their personalities and behavior than the Africans of 150 years ago.

The level of barbarism or civilization in a group often has more to do with culture than genes.

A Few More Words on Stereotype Threat

A few more things about stereotype threat (ST), expanding on a previous post:

ST has only been shown to exist in experiments. In these experiments, Blacks and Whites, males and females, everyone really, is subject to ST and shows a similar decrement in performance.

From these experiments it has been extrapolated to the real world that Blacks are under stereotype threat, and that this explains the B-W test and even IQ gap, among other things. But it does not. Under ST threat, the B-W IQ and testing gap is the same as ever, except it is even worse! If you think about this, you realize that ST cannot possibly explain the performance and IQ gaps themselves. What it might do is make Blacks perform even worse than they ordinarily do!

No one knows if stereotype threat exists in the real world, who is subject to it, when, etc. No studies in the real world have shown that we can create high ST environments that Blacks do worse in and low ST environments that they do better in. In other words, all this stuff only works in the lab. It has no explanatory power whatsoever in the real world, where, maybe it exists, maybe it doesn’t, but we don’t know where and how it effects whomever or for that matter how to correct it once we see it.

The Blacks have jumped all over ST lately because, while we can’t prove it exists and harms them, we can’t really prove it doesn’t exist and doesn’t harm them either.

ST is not so much bunk as it is untestable, unverifiable and unfalsifiable theory. Arguing about ST is like arguing how many angels can dance on a pin. It’s interesting, but it can go on forever, and we will never learn anything or solve any problems.

“Kipling On the Front Lines,” by Alpha Unit

Mowgli, the little boy raised by wolves and befriended by Baloo the bear and Bagheera the panther, first came to life during a winter in Vermont in the imagination of Rudyard Kipling.

Kipling was in Vermont because that’s where his wife’s family lived; the couple had taken up residence there and started their own family. It was American hubris, however, that soured Kipling on living in the United States.

The focus of all the dissension was British Guiana, which was in a border dispute with Venezuela. Richard Olney, the American Secretary of State, declared that the United States had a right to mediate all disputes in the Western Hemisphere. Because of the Monroe Doctrine, you know.

In other words, the United States ruled the Western Hemisphere.

This didn’t sit well with the British, including Kipling. Anti-British sentiment in America, followed by family troubles, sent him back to England.

It was a period when both Britain and the United States were settling their weight upon all kinds of native peoples around the world. Someone observing the actions of both nations might have been amused by Kipling’s distaste for American interference in Britain’s interference in South America.

“If anybody’s going to be interfering in South America, it’s going to be us,” Secretary Olney would have told him.

Kipling, who actually memorialized the imperialist ambitions of both nations, remains a figure of contradictions.

He won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1907, though other writers have mocked his abilities, particularly as a poet. People still argue about whether he was pro- or anti-imperialist. Many know of his poem The White Man’s Burden, for which he has been denounced – and celebrated, as a satirist.

Does anyone concerned with world affairs today, particularly heads of state, really care what Kipling may or may not have advised his fellow Whites roughly a century ago?

I’m guessing that the answer to this question is “No.” The fact that people still debate Kipling’s views is a testament to two things: the power of art, in this case literature; and the power of the idea of race.

Kipling is long gone, but there are people who seem to have some kind of stake in whether or not his views on race and empire were justified. It reminds me of the debate we have had from time to time in America over whether kids should read some of the works of Mark Twain.

Kipling’s Kim has been compared to Huckleberry Finn, in fact. Both novels tell the coming-to-maturity tale of a “loose” boy with father issues, traveling with a beloved adult male. Both novels have come under scrutiny for alleged racism – which informs the question of their appropriateness for developing minds.

School children should be taught literature. Adults wrangle over which works are to be presented to them, and how they are to be presented, because adults supervise the indoctrination of children.

They wrangle for another reason, though. The issue of race is intimately wrapped up in another issue: self-esteem.

When I say self-esteem, I mean the popular concept of having a healthy, positive self-image. Who doesn’t want kids to have a healthy, positive self-image – especially “minority” kids, those long deemed to be most in need of it?

So for quite some time, at least here in the US, we’ve been giving historical figures – be they Presidents or novelists – the PC litmus test. If someone reads anything by Kipling other than The Jungle Book (both parts), will he be contaminated by White Supremacist ideology?

We’ve decided we must be very careful about that sort of thing going into the heads of young people.

And so educators and other interested parties have put long-dead authors such as Kipling onto the front lines of their ideology wars.

I’m Racist and Proud

According to the anti-racist whacks, I’m a racist.

I readily agree to being three types of racist:

A “liberal racist”: This is some BS term that the Abagond types ferret about. I’m not even really sure what it means! I think it means the typical attitudes of US White and even White liberal society that in White society don’t even count as racist because they are so wimpy.

One thing is feeling sorry for say Blacks. “These poor Blacks! We need to help them! Come on, let’s do it!” According to a lot of crazy Blacks, that’s liberal racism because we are pitying Blacks and implying they can’t make it without our help.

White man’s burden racism: Sort of similar. Implies that White civilization is superior to much of Third World civilization. Also implies we need to help them get more civilized since they are unlikely to do so on their own. Note parallels with liberal racism above.

Scientific racism: Well, any time you discuss any kind of science having to do with racial differences, guess what? That’s scientific racism! I do that all the time on here, so I’m a scientific racist!

Yeah, I plead guilty to all 3 of those, but to me, that stuff isn’t even racism unless you’re a POC or an insane PC White.

And yeah, I’m proud to be racist in all those fake ways above, but I’m not proud if I feel truly racist in terms of animosity, etc.

I’m familiar with that feeling, as I’ve experienced it before, and it disturbs me.

One of the worst things about that type of thinking is that I noticed that I was starting to think of some of the other groups as less than human. I’d flash on a case of where someone in the other group had an all-too-human perception, feeling or attitude, exactly such as I might have. Then it flashed on me. Whoa! They’re human, just like me! I had started to dehumanize them, but the dehumanization of racism is so sneaky that it creeps up on you and you don’t even realize it until you are inside of it.

That’s happened with Jews and Blacks, that I can think of, and it really freaked me out, because I realized I was starting to dehumanize those people. It was so upsetting to me that I tried hard to get outside of that feeling and realize their humanity.

That’s probably one of the worst things about real racism. It’s almost inevitable that you’re going to start to dehumanize the other group at some point, and it seems like there is something horribly immoral about dehumanizing other human beings on account of who their parents were. It’s just so wrong.

Save the White Race!

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1E3qSxQP9M&feature=player_embedded]

Now! I mean it! Because if we don’t, these chicks will all go extinct! Forever!

I mean, there’s always hair dye and bottle blonds, but that’s not quite the same now is it?

The Go Blonde Parade in Riga, Latvia, 2010.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q4xiyJiOps&feature=player_embedded#!]

This was last year’s parade, comes with a cool soundtrack even.

Do Asians Have a Short Bell Curve?

In race realist circles, much is made of a so-called short curve in Asian IQ. That is, Asians are said to have few geniuses and few idiots – there are few Asians below 70 IQ (gifted) and few above 130 IQ (gifted). So, while Asians are highly intelligent, it is said that they lack a large number of the sort of extreme geniuses that really move a society forward. On the contrary, European Whites are said to have a long curve.

Quite a few geniuses and idiots, and therefore more likely to produce truly innovative and forward-looking societies. White Supremacists have jumped all over this, as they are stung by IQ studies that show NE Asians scoring about 5 points above European Whites. By emphasizing the short Asian bell curve, White Supremacists fight back by arguing that European Whites are in fact the most superior race of them all, and NE Asians are inferior to them.

There are a lot of problems with this data. For one thing, it is not holding up well in the US. Our very top universities are overflowing not just with Ashkenazi Jews (IQ = 112) but also with NE Asians (IQ = 108). One would think that the competition at top schools such as the Ivy League would be among the most high IQ of them all.

Let us also look at the data below regarding gifted programs in the US. As you can see, Asians, especially but not exclusively NE Asians, have a higher

The graph below is confusing. It shows what

I have no explanation for some of the results below. Why do Amerindians have more gifted than Hispanics? Why do Hawaiians and Guamanians have so many gifted, but Samoans and other Pacific Islanders have fewer, when both groups have the same IQ?

The IQ scores may seem confusing. They are set at the new ranking of US IQ = 100. Scores were formerly set at US White IQ = 100. The new ranking pushes US White scores up to 103, and pushes everyone else’s score up 3 points. But the scores are still the same; only the scale has changed.

Asians are overrepresented in the gifted programs in the US, contrary to WN propaganda about narrow Asian SD and relative lack of gifted students.

For 1997, according to the Office of Civil rights (1999), 5.6

Examination of data for those assessed and those who qualified for GATE during the 1998-99 school year indicated that of 14,778 students tested during the year, 3,108 (21.0

Examination of data for Asian subgroups showed a wide range in percentages of children who qualified, with Chinese (50.4

Laotians (15.7

APA Subgroup               

Chinese                     50.4
Koreans                     47.44        108
Asian Indians               45.45        109
Japanese                    41.30        108
Vietnamese                  29.76        102.5
Hawaiians                   28.00         90
Filipinos                   28.00         97
Other Indochinese           25.00         93
Guamanians                  21.95         89
Total Including non-APAs    21.03         100
Laotians                    15.79         92
Hmong                       14.12         85.5
Cambodians                  12.58         92
Samoans                      7.32         89
Other Pacific Islander       5.56         89

In conclusion, it is not yet proven that Asians have a short bell curve relative to European Whites, and there is considerable evidence against the hypothesis.

References

Cheng L. L., Ima K. & Labovitz G. 1994. Assessment of Asian and Pacific Islander Students for Gifted Programs. In S. B. Garcia (Ed.), Addressing Cultural and Linguistic Diversity in Special Education (pp. 30-45). Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.

U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights. 1999. 1997 Elementary and Secondary School Civil Rights Compliance Report. National and State Projections. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

White American Decline: A Confession

I have a confession to make.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are Iranians White?

It’s certainly a reasonable question, as White nationalists in general answer a resounding “No!” to that question. But even they are funny. Stormfront threw out 300 Armenians on the grounds that they were non-White. However, this decision was very controversial, and after a while, the Armenians were quietly let back in.

They have a Pan-Europeanist policy, which is one of the few noble things about that site.

Recently there were a lot of Iranians on the site, and though I believe Stormfront does officially state that Iranians are not White, there has been a quiet hands-off “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy about them, and the Stormfronters quietly let the Iranians stay in what boils down to an open secret. In other words, Stormfront offically states that Iranians are not White, but unofficially, they turn a blind eye to Iranians joining and even organizing themselves on the site.

Iranians are funny people. In 1978, I drove an ice cream truck for a living. There were a bunch of Iranians were who driving trucks too. We were all sort of budding capitalists. You lease the truck every day, buy your ice cream, mark it up, and hope for the best. A lot of us supplemented our incomes by selling dope, including me.

The Iranians were very good at this, selling joints for $1 each mostly to the many Mexicans in the parks of Santa Ana (Santa Ana was a heavily Mexican city even 30 years ago).

Once at the end of the day (we lined up at the end of the day to have our coins rolled and get our payout in easy cash) I asked them if they were Arabs. They were adamant. “We are not Arabs!” Later I learned that they don’t like Arabs much. It’s a superior versus inferior thing. The Iranians think they are better and that the Arabs are inferior, a bunch of animals.

At worst, Iranian nationalists call them “lizard-eating Mohammadens.” Image is heathen Arab Muslims charging out of the deserts of Arabia to destroy the great and proud Iranian culture. And it’s true that the Muslims did devastate Iranian culture, but they did this to all non-Muslim cultures they encountered. After all they were Jahiliyyah or grounded in ignorance.

The modern Islamic state has reinstated this view, downplaying traditional Iranian culture, making Arabic practically a 2nd official language, etc., all of this infuriating Iranian nationalists.

The real hardcore Iranian nationalists often abandon Islam altogether and claim to be Zoroastrians, the true ancient religion of Iran.

Iranian nationalists are interesting people.

Iranian nationalists hate Arabs, so you might think they like Jews, but they hate Jews about as much as they hate Arabs. They especially hate Israel. “Marg bar Israel!” is a common cry on Iranian forms (“Death to Israel!”) And the guys yelling this stuff were older professional guys in their 40’s with young kids, secular, and while respectful of Islam, not very religious.

Why the hatred of Israel? Probably, if you are an Iranian nationalist, even a secular one, Israel is seen as your mortal enemy. That’s a logical assumption.

The harder-core Iranian nationalists also dislike Pan-Turkic types, since the Turanian lunatics usually claim some or all of Iran.

The saner Iranian nationalists hate not Arabs but Arab nationalism. Arab nationalism is funny. It’s Leftist, secular, supposedly anti-racist, but they are bristling with hatred for Iranians. Saddam Hussein’s Arab nationalist uncle, who profoundly effected his views, wrote a famous tract, somewhat humorously titled, Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Jews, Persians and Flies.

The hatred of Arabs towards Persians is similar to that of Gentiles towards Jews or Blacks towards Whites: resentment against a group that thinks they are superior. A common claim, similar to anti-Semitism, among Whites is, “The Iranians are trying to dominate the Arab World!” It’s true that the Iranians opposed Arab nationalism, but who could blame them? The Pan-Arabists were a bunch of anti-Iranian racist shits.

What’s funny about this is that there are Iranian genes running all through the Arabs of the Levant, Mesopotamia and Arabia. It is particularly the case with the Mesopotamian Arabs. The Arab Shia in Southern Iraq have a lot of Iranian blood. One of the reasons Saddam persecuted them so harshly is he thought that they were Iranian fifth columnists. In general, it wasn’t really true, but there was reason to be concerned.

In recent years, as Iran and its Shia allies have turned into the greatest defenders of the Palestinians, the Arab nationalists are in a tough spot. They hate Iran, but how can they deny that Iran is the best defender of the Palestinians in the pitiful and sold-out Arab and Muslim world? There are particular conflicts with Hamas, a Sunni fundamentalist group which is strangely also pro-Iran, and Hezbollah, whose defense of the Palestinians puts the Sunni Arabs to shame.

These realities have forced the Sunnis into all sorts of cognitive dissonance that as usual does not make much sense.

I’ve known a few Iranians. They definitely look like White people. Their skin is often very pale White, especially the females (Why is that?). Some charts strangely enough put them right next to British, Danes and Norwegians genetically. No one knows what to make of it, but we were all together in Southern Russia 4,500 years ago. Some of us took off south to Iran, and others went into Europeans to constitute the modern Europeans. We are born of the same modern roots.

I’ve asked a few Iranians, “You’re White like us, right?” You might think they would get pissed, but they usually give an instant yes or break into a huge smile. They clearly consider themselves “Europeans outside or Europe.” One even told me explicitly that.

Scientifically, it’s an reasonable assumption.

Genetically, Iranians probably have little if any Black in them. Your average German has more Black in them than an Iranian. They do have some Asiatic genes, but probably not many.

The Iranians are actually an interesting link to populations further east. There is a close link between Italians and Iranians (Italians are probably the closest Europeans to Iranians) and then there is another close link between Iranians and Indians, especially North Indians.

So the linkage goes like this (all groups separated by only one arrow are closely linked, but groups separated by more than one arrow are not so close):

Core Europeans -> Italians -> Iranians -> North Indians

So, neither core Europeans nor Italians are all that close to North Indians per se, they can become closer to them through this linkage process.

Iranian genes are common in the region, even outside of Arabia. Many Afghans have Iranian blood and it’s quite common in Pakistanis too. There is a lot of Iranian blood in the Caucasus. Most of your Chechen, Dagestani, Ingush, etc. types seem to derive from some sort of Iranian-Turkish mix. The Ossetians are actually a transplanted Iranian group living in Russia and speaking a language related to Iranian.

There is Iranian blood running through the Stans – Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. It’s probably most prominent in Tajikistan.

Persians are only 5

The Kurds and Balochis have serious separatist tendencies. The Arabs (Ahvaz) just fight for more rights as an oppressed minority. Azeri separatism has not really gone anywhere, since the Azeris are actually a dominant minority in Iran! The Talysh have separatist tendencies, but in Azerbaijan, not in Iran.

I don’t support the separatism of the Balochis and Kurds in Iran as long as Iran is under imperialist assault, but if this were not the case, I would think they deserve the right to self-determination. Iran is correct to suppress Arab separatism and the desire to take Iran’s oil and gas wealth with them to a separate state.

Mental Preconditioning Can Change the Qualities of Observed Objects

A commenter from India thinks that certain Caucasian women can look like “transsexuals.” I think he is saying that they can look somewhat masculine.

I think quite a lot of Arab, Persian and Middle Eastern Jewish women look a bit tranny. Its the face. The Persians less than the others.

Well, a lot of Asian guys don’t like White women much at all. They say that they don’t look very feminine, that they look masculine. It’s true that Asian women are the most feminine looking of them all.

I never noticed the masculinity of White women in my entire life, but as soon as I heard that, I started looking for it, and I found it! It’s true, a lot our fine White women do look kind of masculine. You just never notice it unless you are specifically thinking of it.

Like one time I was reading in some book about sex. They were interviewing lots of people, and they interviewed some queers. The queers were saying how they hated the way women look, how sickening and gross they were, disgusting, how much better men look. They kept saying that women are full of blubber and fat and all sort and mushy. They like guys who are firm, hard, muscular.

Weird, I never thought of it that way, but it’s true, even thin and in shape women are sort of fatty, because they have so much fat on their bodies. We hets like that and just say it’s their softness, but what the softness really is is fat! LOL, we just never think of it that way. It’s like a little bit of fat is fine as it just gives softness, but too much of it is gross and just makes her look like a hippo.

One guy said that women’s tits were disgusting! He said, “It’s sick! It looks like the udders on a cow! Gross, disgusting, ugh!”

Weird, I have always loved tits, but after I read that, I started looking at tits and wondering if they looked like udders, and it was starting to screw up the tits for me. It want tits and kept getting these udder things instead.

Funny how objects can change so much just depending on the object that we associate them with before we observe them. White women are never seen as masculine until we put the image “masculine” into our heads and look at them, then we see some masculinity in them. Breasts look fantastic until we put the image “udder” into our heads and look at them, then women look like cows!

It’s like perception can be preconditioned based on ideas in our heads.

I’m sure some philosophers somewhere have written about this before…I just can’t think of any offhand. Perhaps someone with a knowledge of philosophy can help out.

Who Are the Smartest White Europeans?

A commenter suggests that Russians are the smartest Whites.

It’s not the case. Russians are not at all the smartest Whites. Here are some recent scores. There is a North-South cline, but it’s not perfect at all. Italian is a very much a Med state, and it’s IQ is very high. France is mostly a Northern state, and it’s IQ is not so hot. Spain is a Med state with a high IQ. Ireland is a Northern state with a lower IQ than the rest.

Notice I title this piece White Europeans, because as a Pan-Aryanist, I not only believe that most all Caucasoids of Europe are White, but I also believe that there are Whites outside of Europe who are just as White as those of Europe.

Germany        107
Netherlands    107
Poland         106
Sweden         104
Italy          102
Austria        101
Switzerland    101
UK             100
Norway         100
Belgium        99
Denmark        99 (median)
Finland        99
Americans      98 (for comparison purposes)
Czech Republic 98
Hungary        98
Spain          98
Ireland        97
Russia         96
Greece         95
France         94
Bulgaria       94
Romania        94
Turkey         90
Serbia         89

I don’t have much to say about these scores. If France can produce such a great nation with an IQ of 94, then others with similar scores can do well too. Bulgaria, Romania, Russia, Hungary and the Czech Republic should be able to create some fine modern societies. They are surely smart enough to. These others listed below are certainly intelligent enough to do well for themselves. IQ is certainly not holding them back at any rate.

Mongolia                              100
Vietnam                               99.5
Estonia                               99
Latvia                                97.5
Ukraine                               96
Belarus                               96
UK East Indian                        96
Uruguay                               96
Moldova                               95.5
US Mexican-American (2nd generation)  95
Argentina                             94.5
Lithuania                             94
US Filipino                           94

Even Serbia has created an excellent modern society with an IQ of only 89. If you go to Belgrade, you would think you are in any modern US or European city. Even the countryside is not really backwards. Its health, education and development figures are excellent. There’s nothing inferior about the place other than their morals. If we take Serbia as the IQ at which one ought to be able to create a fine, modern, European-type society, things get a lot more interesting, and a lot more countries have the brains to do well.

Armenia                 93.5
Georgia                 93.5
Kazakhstan              93.5
Malaysia                92
Macedonia               92
Brunei                  91.5
Cyprus                  91.5
Chile                   91.5
Thailand                91
Albania                 90
Bermuda                 90
Croatia                 90
Costa Rica              90
Bosnia and Herzegovina  90
Cambodia                90
Cook Islands            89
Laos                    89
Suriname                89

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Are Whites Necessary For Modern Civilization?

A White nationalist commenter comments on the Neandertal thread:

Robert, I don’t get your strange form of ethnocentrism. You claim to think “we’re the best,” as a sort of superstition, while knowing that we’re not really the best; while in many respects “we’re the best,” is obviously true. You can’t compare Black supremacist ideology with White supremacist. The former may take things a bit too far and sometimes be a bit off the facts, but the latter is simply laughable.

Whites may not be perfect, but they do have a fairly high IQ and the most impressive track record in terms of scientific progress and high culture.

As far as the West not always being dominant– the Chinese had not discovered that the Earth was a sphere or that the sun was larger than the Earth by 1600 AD. We beat them to it by more than a millennium.

They were also amazed by Euclid as they had nothing comparable in mathematics; they had no system of formal logic or precise scientific method; excluding the Great Wall, no ancient architecture to compare with our great Cathedrals and monuments etc. you could go on and on. The Asians today have more great pianists to play Chopin, but where is the Asian Chopin? They are impressive people, but clearly less innovative.

The Arabs had a bit of a renaissance partly due to having better access to ancient Greek manuscripts; but it was short lived. Who’s following in the tradition of Classical Civilization today?

This whole “the West has only been ahead for a few hundred years,” line is silly. We really are in a different league than everyone else.

I get your point about it being in ill taste to constantly harp on and on about your own group’s superiority. But when we’re under attack – being flooded with nonwhites and told that Western Civilization really isn’t anything to be proud of, and even if it is, nonwhites will do just fine preserving the West despite having historically shown little to no ability to do so – well then we need to start making the case for being able to do something they can’t. The facts are on our side, we just need to have the nerve to use them.

If we want to preserve the civilization we love we’re going to have to accept that we can’t avoid hurting nonwhites’ feelings by telling them that they’re unable to maintain Western Civilization on their own.

As far as my form of ethnocentrism, well, it’s completely normal. Most ethnicities do think that their people are better or the best. It’s normal thinking. Many of these folks are also often non-racist to anti-racist. The two things are quite compatible. I don’t want to get into scientifically proving that we Whites are superior. What for? It’s a disgusting enterprise, and probably won’t be fruitful anyway.

I have some extremely serious problems with this line of thinking. For starters, its presumptions.

I do not think that NE Asian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Mongolian, Siberian, Taiwanese, Singaporean, or Vietnamese people lack the ability to produce a great modern civilization. They can clearly do so. I see them as continuing to be able to produce great and modern civilizations into the future. I don’t even have a problem with the civilizations produced by SE Asians in general.

I doubt if the problems of Indians, South Asians, Central Asians and Arabs are due to their genes. After all, the UAE right now is one of the most spectacularly modern places on Earth. Saudi Arabian cities look like Tuscon suburbs. Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait are quite similar. What’s so inferior about that? Sure, Islam is fucked, but there’s nothing in these folks’ genes that keeps them from producing great modern societies.

The North Africans should do pretty well too. Last I heard Libya is quite a modern country.

The Turks and the people of the Caucasus can produce modern societies, as can the Iranians. Iranian weaponry now is considered to be dangerously lethal by both the US and the Israelis. Recall the Iranian anti-ship missile that destroyed the Israeli warship off of Lebanon in the last war. Kickass product.

The Pakistanis and Indians produced nuclear weapons. No small feat that.

I do have a lot of worries about the abilities of Africans to produce great societies, but it’s basically their problem, not mine. We are not going to let Africans flood in here anyway.

Furthermore, looking at history is not too relevant. Sure, Africa did not produce much in the past, on their own. But Africa is no longer isolated from all outside influences. The great leaps of knowledge, science and innovation that occur in the rest of the world are readily available to educated and skilled Africans soon after they are invented or thought up. Therefore, Africa has a much better chance to become successfully modern than in the past.

Caribbeans, I don’t know. Trinidad and Tobago has a PCI of $20,000/year with totally free health care for all and 10

As suggested in the African example above, the modern world is changing so much that it can hardly be compared to older worlds. Technology is global, and it reverberates around the globe like lightning, as does knowledge in all forms. The smart people anywhere produce innovation and knowledge, and then these facts and things move around the planet faster than you can blink your eyes.

They are made available from more skilled societies to societies that are not as skilled. Therefore, the differential IQ factors are somewhat modulated as knowledge and innovation produced in high-IQ societies flows to lower IQ societies for free.

The Hispanics are flooding in, it is true. Their societies seem to be rather chaotic and violent, but if you go to their capital cities in the wealthier districts, you will think you were in any large US city. There’s no real observable difference. Their problems are mostly due to issues of wealth distribution.

It’s hard to use national IQ’s to calculate national potentials. For instance, Cuba has

Medical discoveries and breakthroughs occur regularly in Cuba and are published in scientific journals. Cuban biotechnology, a high-IQ industry, competes effectively with biotech from huge Western corporations and sells its excellent competitive products the world over.

All of these achievements have been done with a Cuban IQ of 85, lower than that of US Blacks, who White Supremacists consider to be a failed people, mostly due to an IQ of 86.8 or so. If Cubans can do so well with an IQ lower than US Blacks, how can US Blacks be a failed people due to IQ?

I don’t really believe that other societies produce inferior musicians or music, but maybe my tastes are different from yours.

What I would like to do is to eliminate illegal immigration and reduce legal immigration. I don’t care what race or ethnicity comes here, as I don’t buy your arguments that they are genetically inferior per se.

I would say that the combined average IQ of the immigrants we let in cannot be lower than the US average (either 98 or 100 right now, depending on scale used). So if 100 immigrants of whatever constellation of groups is let in, let their combined average IQ be 98-100. If the Jamaicans, Nigerians, Filipinos, Mexicans, Palestinians, Indians, Thais and Algerians we let in all average 98-100 IQ, what’s the worry? I don’t buy your argument that a 98-100 IQ person from one of these ethnicities is still somehow genetically inferior to a 98-100 IQ White American.

You say that Whites are going extinct and we are being flooded with non-Whites, but how are you going to save the White West? Even if you cut off all non-White immigration, you will still be only 6

Not to mention cutting off non-White immigration will be politically impossible. All the non-Whites will oppose it. Now you need to get 7

Do you honestly think that you can pull that off? It sounds impossible. Both political parties, the entire MSN media, etc will be deadset against it and will flood society with propaganda against it calling those who support it KKK, White Supremacists, Nazis, racists, etc.

Kazakh Girls

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abPit0-noG0&feature=related]

These are some of the most beautiful women on Earth. Their genetics is very complex. On some charts, they make it barely into the Caucasian square as Northern Turkics, yet on others, they look quite a bit like Mongolians.

Genetically, they average 2/3 NE Asian (mostly Mongolian and Turkic) and 1/3 Caucasian. The Caucasian is of Iranic element. Take a nice dose of NE Asian girl and add a healthy lesser mixture of Eurasian Caucasoid, and you end up with these startling beauties.

It’s hard to say what they look like.

They seem to resemble Japanese women a lot to me, but Mongolians say they look a lot like Mongolian chicks. If you use your imagination, you can even see Amerindian in them. Looking around some more, some look Korean, and others seem to look something like Thai or Cambodian women. Many of them seem to be simply unclassifiable, since you’ve never seen women who look quite like this. Probably more than anything else, they look like some of the Cantonese-Caucasian Amerasian mixes you see around here in the US.

We Whites, even us Pan-Aryanists, can’t really claim them, but the Asians seem to claim them as fellow Asians. They’re a tribute to hybrid vigor!

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tghJbSom7TQ&feature=related]

The ones in the video above are models from beauty contests, but the picture quality is sort of crappy. The girls in the first video are more ordinary looking.

Here’s to Kazakh girls!

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

What Did the Ancient Caucasians Look Like?

The Cro-Magnons of Europe were clearly one of the earliest Caucasoids present in the skeletal record. An ancient specimen called Cro Magnon 1 was found in Cro Magnon village in France in 1868. This is the type specimen for the Cro-Magnons. Cro Magnon 1 is referred to as the “Old Man,” though he was probably only about 40-50 years old. Half of his face had been eaten away by some horrible fungus and he had lost most of his teeth as a result, but he still had incisors. He is dated at 27,680 YBP.

This is one of the best specimens to look at for a view of what the ancient Caucasians looked like.

The best analysis to date indicates that the Old Man was not a member of any extant race of man; instead, he was part of a race that no longer exists. He resembled the Indians of NW America more than any other group of extant humans.

A Makah Indian girl in a recent photo. Ancient European children looked like this.

The Makah Indians of NW Washington are a good example of the NW American Indian phenotype, and quite a few of them have survived.

Theresa Parker is Vice President of Makah Lummi Tribe in Washington State. The Lummi are another tribe in Washington that still has a lot of survivors. Parker is a good example of what ancient Europeans looked like.

So he looked like a Makah Indian from the Olympic National Park region of Washington state.

Makah Indian whalers, pretty much undiluted with White and therefore pure phenotype, in 1910. Ancient Caucasian men looked like this.

That the Makah are Amerindian Mongoloids and the ancient Caucasians were Caucasoids is unusual, but back then, the classic races of man had not yet formed.

An archive photo of Makah Indian women making baskets. Ancient European Caucasian women looked something like this.

Classic Mongoloids are only known from 9,000 YBP. Before that, they did not exist. Classic White Caucasians only go back 11,000 YBP in Europe, and blue eyes and red hair is even more recent (9,000 YBP). At 12,000 YBP, Europeans looked like Arabs and had genes that looked like Arab genes. So Arabs may be the remains of ancient Caucasians.

They Walk Among Us

Neandertals, that is.

New data indicates that all of the Out of Africa (OOA) people (that is, everyone but Blacks) are related to Neandertals, in part anyway. About 1-

Forget it. They didn’t do the math right. The Neanderthal difference between Whites and Blacks accounts for a whopping .0

Multiculturalists like to shriek about how much genes humans share with each other, but so what? Humans share 9

Sequencing of the human genome to look for human-Neandertal interbreeding has been going on for some time. For a long time, there was no evidence of any human-Neandertal breeding, but that was because they had not finished sequencing the entire genome. Now that they have finished, it’s clear that there was breeding between humans and Neandertals.

The breeding occurred when we first moved out of Africa 70,000 YBP, when the breeding occurred in the Middle East, and later on, there was more breeding in Eurasia. That breeding occurred soon after we moved out Africa in the ME means that all Out of Africa humans are related to Neadertals. Blacks are the only humans with no Neandertal in them.

Range of the Neadertals in Europe, Eurasia and the Middle East. They lived from about 400,000 to 30,000 YBP.

Much nonsense is being parroted about about this interbreeding. It was interbreeding because Neadertals and humans are so far apart genetically that Neandertals are a completely separate subspecies from modern humans. Subspecies of living organisms can always interbreed, but are usually prevented from doing so since they do not inhabit overlapping territories.

The fervor on the White nationalist boards is high, and predictably idiotic. WN’s all around the globe are swooning over these hideous, primitive Neandertal creatures.

A Neandertal kid. Good Lord, even the kids are hideous. I think they might still be alive, actually. I've seen kids like this around some trailer parks.

We bred with Neadertals! Niggers didn’t! Dontcha realize that this makes Whites superior to niggers, and it makes niggers inferior? Many theories are tossed about. Whites bred with Neandertals, and that’s what makes us superior to inferior niggers (those cool Neandertal genes), bla bla. Many posts are glorying in the wondrous beauty, brains and achievements of the great Neandertals.

Yeah, like I want to be related to this guy. Get real.

I had to LOL the whole time I was reading this stuff. This is one of those times I feel like playing Lou Reed’s song, “I Wanna Be Black.” Seriously, Blacks are superior for not having any fucking non-human Neandertal blood in them, not inferior! That Neandertal, non-human blood in us doesn’t make us better than Blacks, in fact, it’s an embarassment! At least Blacks are fully human! We Whites are part non-human. FFS, how humiliating is that?

I realize that there's porn for every fetish out there, but it's hard to believe there would have been much of a market for Neandertal porn. I hear Black guys never fucked these chicks. Good for them!

Neandertal women were incredibly ugly. Yes, our people mated with them. To me, this means that either guys will fuck anything, or human females love to fuck stupid hulking brutes who can barely even speak (Neandertals were apparently not able to speak human language, but they probably had advanced sign language).

There are many posts suggesting that breeding with Neandertals is what gave Whites and Asians their brains, since, you know, Neadertals were so damn smart and all. It’s true that Neandertal did have a large brain. But so what. So does a fucking elephant. But some suggest that most of the brain had gone over to memory. One theorist suggested that a Neandertal could remember every single day of his life, nice if he ever got questioned by the cops for an unsolved Paleolithic murder, but not much good otherwise.

In addition, all OOA folks have Neandertal in them, including Papuans (IQ 64) and Aborigines (IQ 62). Yeah, lot of good those super Neandertal rocket scientist brains did them, huh?

It’s clear that the Out of Africa folks (Yeah, the “niggers”) thoroughly outcompeted the Neadertals. Much is made of the Neandertal toolset, but the OOA folks had a better one. And the OOA folks had speech, which may have trumped them all. No one knows if we exterminated the Neadertals or if they just could not compete in a changing environment (I figure we took them out) but at any rate, the OOA folks handed the Neandertals’ asses to them quickly.

That WN’s are falling all over themselves for these hideous Neandertal non-humans shows how stupid racial nationalism is. At the end of the day, its sin is the sin of pride. As pride makes  a man act foolish (consult any good Greek tragedy) so does racial nationalism, nothing more than egotism writ across the entire race, with the volk subbing for the ego.

It's possible that either some Neandertals still live among us, or some Whites have a lot of Neandertal genes. Some researchers say that Nickolai Valuev, a Russian boxer, may be up over 9

One last theory.

Jews are Neandertals.

That’s the Jews are so evil, you know. Because they aren’t human. LOL.

“The Unsentimental Vision of Mark Twain,” by Alpha Unit

Mark Twain is a racist.

Or Mark Twain is most decidedly not a racist.

Well, it depends on who’s talking about him.

He actually occupied sane middle ground on the issue of race. Ground arrived upon with difficulty, sure. But isn’t sane middle ground the only place to be?

His novel The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, fed and force-fed to American kids for generations, was banned in various quarters right from the outset, labeled by its detractors as coarse trash. It wasn’t until much later that anybody cared that it contained the word “nigger.” In more recent times its use of this word and its depictions of Jim the slave have been decried for their potential to inflict catastrophic damage to the psyches of Black youth – and undermine the general welfare in these enlightened times.

Some people make the case that Huckleberry Finn is clearly an anti-racist novel. I tend to think so. But being anti-racist in Mark Twain’s time was not the same as being anti-racist now. Twain was not the equivalent of today’s American “liberal.” He didn’t deny the concept of race. He didn’t see racial distinctions as irrelevant.

What I admire about him is his recognition that Brown and Black people deserved to be respected in their own right. They weren’t less human than White people. Whites had no God-given right to treat them however they wanted.

Mark Twain did not entertain, either, any notion that Black people were automatically ugly in comparison to Whites. Because he actually saw them as people, he easily saw what he described as their beauty.

While visiting India, he compared a beautifully-garbed Indian delegation to what he and fellow Christians could have produced had they put on a show of their own. It wouldn’t have been as impressive, he said.

Then there would have been the added disadvantage of the white complexion. It is not an unbearably unpleasant complexion when it keeps to itself, but when it comes into competition with masses of brown and black the fact is betrayed that it is endurable only because we are used to it.

Nearly all black and brown skins are beautiful, but a beautiful white skin is rare…Where dark complexions are massed, they make the whites look bleached out, unwholesome, and sometimes frankly ghastly. I could notice this as a boy down South in the slavery days before the war. The splendid black-satin skin of the South African Zulus of Durban seemed to me to come very close to perfection…

The advantage is with the Zulu, I think. He starts with a beautiful complexion, and it will last him through. And as for the Indian brown…I think there is no sort of chance for the average white complexion against that rich and perfect tint.

Twain recounted this trip in Following the Equator, written toward the end of his career, in which he chronicles his travels to India, Fiji, New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa. While traveling he got to see firsthand the way White colonizers interacted with those under their control.

He expresses sympathy for the Whites who must secure their lives in these strange territories they have put themselves in, and acknowledges the difficulties of both Whites and natives in trying to co-exist under trying circumstances. But he clearly recognizes that it is the natives who have the worst of it.

He tells the story of a White squatter who encounters some Aborigines while at his home – Aborigines who are clearly hostile. Afraid of what he sees as an imminent attack, the squatter persuades them to have a meal with him. It was a Last Supper of sorts; the pudding he served them contained arsenic.

Twain’s assessment:

It was better, kinder, swifter, and much more humane than a number of methods which have been sanctified by custom, but that does not justify its employment. That is, it does not wholly justify it.

He goes on to describe the way Whites had typically interacted with racial “others”:

In many countries we have chained the savage and starved him to death…In many countries we have burned the savage at the stake…In many countries we have taken the savage’s land from him; and made him our slave, and lashed him every day, broken his pride, and made death his only friend, and overworked him till he dropped in his tracks; and this we do not care for, because custom has inured us to it; yet a quick death by poison is loving kindness [in comparison] to it.

In assessing these and other acts that the civilized had committed against their inferiors, he concludes:

There are many humorous things in the world; among them the white man’s notion that he is less savage than the other savages.

This year marks the centennial of Mark Twain’s death. He was a great observer and critic of humankind, and remains an amazing teacher, to those who would be taught.

Every people he observed was of the same fallible humanity. The idea of one race’s inherent superiority over any other? A joke.

References

Twain, M., Warner, C.D., Paine, A.B. 1922. The Writings of Mark Twain, Volume 21. New York: Gabriel Wells Co.

American High School Girl Beaten to Death in Mexico

Elizabeth Mandala, an 18-year old high school girl from Sugar Land, Texas, went with two Mexican men, age 38 and 43, old enough to be her father, on a trip to Mexico to learn how to be a coyote and smuggle illegal aliens into the US. Smuggling illegals is a very good paying business. At the time, she was also working as a stripper in a local strip club. She was said to be “smartest girl in her class.”

Elzabeth Mandala, 18 year old US high school girl, beaten to death in Mexico.

I guess not too smart though.

She and the two men were found near the small town of Mina in a Toyota pickup truck that had crashed into the back of another truck. All three had been beaten to death. The killers then apparently staged the car accident. There was a cement block on the gas pedal of the crashed vehicle.

The two Mexican men were Dante Ruiz Siller, 38, and Luis Ángel Estrella Mondragón, 44.

Siller, a merchant, and Mondragon, a cab driver, were from a small town near Mexico City.

Comments are wide-ranging, many asking why Texas allows 18 year old girls to be strippers (All US states allow this). Many others asked why her mother allowed her to be a stripper and to go off to Mexico to learn how to smuggle illegals. I would say that she’s an adult and she can do whatever she wants, but that’s just me.

Her classmates at Kempner High School were shocked.

There is a lot of commentary about this on the White nationalist sites, much of it retarded, of course. Much of it is centered on the WN’s notion that Elizabeth was a mestiza, not White. However, the last name Mandala is Sicilian:

Mandala Name Meaning and History1. occupational name for a seller of scarves, from Greek mandilas.

2. altered form of Mannalà, a name of Arabic origin, derived from mann Allah ‘grace of Allah’. The surname is characteristic of the Palermo region and eastern Sicily.

Looks like Arabic -> Greek -> Sicilian language. The Sicilian language has a ton of Greek and Arabic words in it.

A number of Mandalas moved from Sicily to Houston, Texas around 75-125 years ago. All came from the same small village of 919 people in Sicily. Santa Cristina Gela is actually an Arbëreshë village in Sicily near Palermo. The Elizabeth is from Sugar Land, which is near Houston. She is plausibly related to this CBS photo gallery.

Furthermore, on her Facebook page, she has several friends with the same last name Mandala, quite possibly relatives. These Mandalas are all Italians living in Italy right now. The second one seems to be some sort of a Greek-Sicilian, which is possible, as there are Greek-speaking communities in Sicily. Furthermore, she is a fan of a Facebook group that is entirely in the Italian language, so it’s possible that she speaks Italian.

Excellent Shot Across the Bow at the Nordicists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Roman Empire extended its influence to Britain, and many Roman Nobles moved in what is today known as Wales. As an obvious result, a great

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

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

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

I’ve seen mixed people in Sweden (a great

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

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

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

Some very nice comments here. First of all, my prejudices. I regard Nordicists as splitters who are trying to divide out great White race. Further, I like Med Whites a lot, and I surely consider at least all of the Meds in Europe as fully, 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Myth: Whites Are More Likely to be Pedophiles and Child Molesters

There is a long-standing myth perpetrated by Blacks and White anti-racists like Tim Wise that Whites are more likely to molest children than any other race. This goes back to some stereotype of the creepy, nerdy, weirdo White guy who can’t get laid so he molests kids.

About time we shot this myth full of holes like it needs to be.

First of all, let’s look at child abuse in general, including sexual and all other types of abuse.

Stats:

Relative to their population, likelihood of child abuse compared to background population rate:

American Indian  +10
Blacks           +9
Hispanics        no difference
Whites           -3
Asian            -6

On an individual basis, American Indians are most likely to abuse a child in some way or other, then Blacks, then Hispanics, then Whites, then Asians.

The high Amerindian rate is probably due to the utterly collapsed nature of Amerindian families and societies as a whole. The high Black rate is because, well, Blacks have elevated rates of most crimes compared to Whites, Hispanics, Asians and Amerindians. Low Asian rate is probably because across almost all crime stats, Asians typically have the lowest rates of them all.

As you can see, not only are Whites less likely to abuse kids than Blacks, they have one of the lowest child abuse rates of any ethnic group in the US, surpassed only by Asians.

The argument that Whites are more likely to molest children uses these statistics:

Those inmates who were convicted of committing violent acts against children were more like to have been White, a percentage of nearly 7

The figure is from the Bureau of Prisons, 1991. In 1991, Whites were 7

The problem with the 1991 report was that, as usual, Hispanics were lumped in with Whites in terms of crime perpetrators, artificially inflating the White rate. The 1994 Justice Department report finally disaggregates Whites from Hispanics.

We can compare the BJS Report to the 1994 Census. According to the 1994 Census estimate, the US population is broken down thus:

7 11. 1

Extrapolating the Census data above to the BJS Report, we find that the Hispanics are broken down thus:

26,077 Hispanic molesters =

23,743 White
1,480 Black
303   American Indian

The results,

Whites    56.
Hispanics 23.
Blacks    19.
Other     1.

Now compare to their presence in the general population for likelihood of being a child molester as opposed to an average American:

Race     Molesters Population Ratio

White    56.
Black    19.
Hispanic 23.

This lines up with anecdotal reports of high rates of sex crimes in areas overrun with illegal aliens from Mesoamerica.

The myth lies shattered.

Hispanics are 2.3 X (13

Blacks are 6

Additional evidence comes from child abuse reports which were reported to authorities, which honestly are better because excellent anecdotal evidence from Black websites and interviews with Black women who grew up in the ghetto inform us that sexual abuse of girls is rampant in the ghetto. Some of the women even say things like, “All girls are molested in the ghetto.”

However, in the ghetto, sexual abuse of girls is considered so shameful that it may not even be discussed, and hence is seldom reported and there are few arrests. The whole affair is covered up with massive denial. This rings quite true with me as pathology of all sorts is elevated in ghettos, so why would child sexual abuse not be so.

This may also explain the relatively high percentage of White men imprisoned for this crime since White men who commit this crime are much more likely to be arrested and Black men often just get away with it and are never caught. So victimization surveys ought to clear this up for us.

According to this study at The Root (Drake et al 2011), Black children are reported to authorities for all types of abuse 7

Black children are 2
<p>Where did the myth come from? It’s not certain, but for most crimes, especially violent crimes, Blacks have rates that are up to 6-9 times higher than Whites. For child molestation, these wildly elevated rates for Blacks are not seen; instead, the Black rate is close to double the White rate, not 6-9 times higher. So in child molestation, Whites much more approach parity with Black crime rates. This greatly increased White rate vis a vis Blacks compared to other crimes may have given rise to the illusion that Whites are more likely than Blacks to commit this crime.</p>
<h3>References</h3>
<dl>
<dd>Drake, Brett; Jolley, Jennifer M.; Lanier, Paul; Fluke, John; Barth, Richard P. and Jonson-Reid, Melissa. February 7, 2011. <a href=Racial Bias in Child Protection? A Comparison of Competing Explanations Using National Data. Pediatrics 2011 127:3 471-478.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Imaginary Conversations About White Privilege

Conversation 1

Earnest PC Leftist: Hey, you have White Privilege!

White Person: I do? Nah, I don’t think so, man. LOL, what’s that, anyway?

Earnest PC Leftist: Yeah, you have White Privilege, and it sucks. You need to get rid of it.

White Person: But I don’t even have it in the first place, LOL. How am I supposed to get rid of it LOL?

Earnest PC Leftist: You have White Privilege, and it sucks! You need to get rid of it!

White Person: Bye.

Conversation 2

Earnest PC Leftist: Hey, you have White Privilege!

White Person: Like Hell I do. I just lost my job, my car got repoed, my kid ran away from home, my dog bit me, my wife is divorcing me, and my house is in foreclosure. The only good thing is that I’m not quite suicidal. Yet. And see that bottle of Jack Daniels sitting there? Well, that’s the other good thing.

Earnest PC Leftist: Yeah, you have White Privilege, and it sucks. You need to get rid of it.

White Person: (Rolls eyes). Sure thing, take my White privilege. Hell, they’ve taken everything else I ever had. Help yourself, man. (Disgusted sarcastic smile).

Earnest PC Leftist: Yeah, but look, losing your job, getting your car repoed, having your kid run away, having your dog bite you, having your wife divorce you and getting your house foreclosed is so much worse if you’re Black! It’s like 10 times worse! If those things happen to you when you’re White, it’s so much better! You have no idea!

White Person: (Rolls eyes). Yeah, I can imagine. I’m so lucky to be White, damn. (Cynical, sardonic smile.)

Earnest PC Leftist: You have White Privilege, and it sucks! You need to get rid of it!

White Person: Dude. Listen. I got to get going, OK? Nice talking to you.

Conversation 3

Earnest PC Leftist: Hey, you have White Privilege!

White Person: Really? Cool, guess today’s my lucky day. I won a $20 lottery ticket too. God works in small ways, you know.

Earnest PC Leftist: Yeah, you have White Privilege, and it sucks. You need to get rid of it.

White Person: LOL, why should I do that? You think I’m stupid?

Earnest PC Leftist: White privilege is evil. You’re oppressing poor, helpless non-whites.

White Person: LOL, yeah, I’m feeling bad already. Listen, take your morals to the bank and try to cash them in. See how much they give you for them. I’m sure they’re worth more than gold! (Sarcastic smile.)

Earnest PC Leftist: You have White Privilege, and it sucks! You need to get rid of it!

White Person: LOL, yeah right. I don’t think so. Get rid of it? Homey don’t play that. I kind of like the way this White Privilege tastes, and the price is right, too. Hey, waiter! Can I order seconds on the White Privilege? This stuff is to die for. Give my regards to the cook for this dish. And by the way, if it’s not too much imposition, could you show me where I can find a recipe for this White Privilege dish? I want to make some of this White Privilege shit at home. This stuff hits the spot.

Earnest PC Leftist: You have White Privilege, and it sucks! You need to get rid of it!

White Person: (Holds one hand, opening and closing it while grinning). Talk to the hand LOL.

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)