Repost: Are Iranians White?

Original piece with 800 comments (!) here.

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 officially 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 51% or Iran. Most would be surprised to learn that. The rest are Kurds, Azeris (27%), Arabs, Lurs, Mazandaris, Qashqai, Balochis, Gilakis, Turkmen and Talysh. There are also smaller groups such as Assyrians, Armenians, Georgians, Kazakhs, Chechens and Jews.

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.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Repost: Caucasian Nationalism – A New Movement

Ha ha, this old post is so worth a repost. It was published 5 1/2 years ago! As you can see, it is totally not serious at all. The whole post is a big joke, written with my tongue firmly in my cheek. Have fun, boyos.

I just created this movement because no one else did. I did it because it is so dumb I do not expect anyone to join. It’s called Caucasian Nationalism.

I figure if you are going to be a racist, you may as well hate the fewest number of people possible.

I don’t have a breakdown on the population of humanity by race, but being a Caucasian Nationalist will possibly allow you to love as many as 1/3 of all humans as brothers. You won’t like the other 2/3, but most of them have big lips or squinty eyes anyway, so why would you want to like them in the first place?

Compare this to Nordicists who hate anyone not a Viking, Arab nationalists who hate the 97% of humanity who’s not a towel-head, and Orthodox Jews who hate 99.7% of humanity because they aren’t Hebes.

I advocate for the cause of all Caucasians everywhere, including Jews, Indians, Berbers, Arabs, Iranians, Egyptians, Afghans, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Tajiks, and Uzbeks. You need to be over 50% to get in.

If you have less than 50%, we will still pause a moment in your presence to bow before the Great White Man within you. That goes for US Blacks, Hispanics, Mongolians, Ethiopians, Altai, Uighurs, most US Amerindians and possibly Siberians.It is true that we will cleave off from a large section of humanity, but that is ok.

For the Asians, we will just fuck their women and take over their laundromats, and if the men object, we won’t care about these inscrutable yellow girly-men because they are skinny, wimpy, nearsighted, and weak, and we will kick their asses. If they try to defend themselves with martial arts, we will just respond with firearms.

For the Aborigines, Papuans, Melanesians, Polynesians and Micronesians, there is not much to do. They all live on islands, and Caucasians mostly don’t dig islands. Abos are pretty much history anyway, so no worries. Polynesians will be offered jobs playing steel guitar and dancing in our tiki restaurants.

Melanesians and Micronesians barely exist to us, and are too messed up to attack us, so we will let them catch rays on their beaches and leave us alone. No one even knows what a Papuan is.

For American Indians, if they are 51% or more White, they are in. Ok, that takes care of most of them right here. For the rest, we have not yet decided, but we will accept applications as White Man’s Squaw and for performing in our traveling cowboy and Indian shows. Other than that, they are sort of hopeless too, except for their casinos, but at any rate, they are not a threat.

If they ever get uppity and ornery, we will just mass-ship alcohol into their regions and get them all drunk like we did to the Chinese in the Opium War.

US Blacks will need to supply proof of at least 51% White ancestry to get in. The ones that don’t cut it, we will let them work as entertainers for our shows. We will also allow them to cook and wait tables for us in our fried chicken and rib joints. Other than that, we don’t have to worry much about them. Many US Blacks are too busy drinking, taking drugs, listening to gangsta rap, and murdering each other to bother us anyway.

Mestizos will need to submit applications to see whether or not they are over 50% White. If they are, they are in like Flynn. Too much Indian, the door. If they don’t dig it, they can go pray to the dead Aztec Gods and cast spells on us with their fake witches.

We beat ’em many times in the past, and it was usually a 15-0 wipe-out on our side. They barely got to third base. They will never get off the couch to rise again, and most are too overweight to do so anyway.

We don’t regard Amerindians, even with White admixture, as a serious threat to us. That they are considered a threat to entire nations is one of today’s best jokes. If they ever really rise up like Sendero, we will have to deal. Watchful waiting.

At first I thought that this was a brand-new movement, but unfortunately, one of the most horrible people on Earth, Alex Linder of Vanguard News Network, supports it too (although he wishes to excise all Jews and kill them). I’m a horrible person too, but I suspect that Linder has crossed the boundary of horribleness.

When I read that he was a pan-Caucasianist (except for the Jews), I had to respect him, or at least .0001% of him (like when I heard the Night Stalker loved cats). He wants to kill off a good portion of humanity, but at least he’s not a Nordicist, and he wants to save the East Indians, the Arabs and the Ainu. I felt there was a tiny speck of magnanimity amongst that black vision of his.

There is a very serious problem with Caucasian Nationalism. First of all, many of these folks will refuse to admit to being Caucasian. Others insist they are White, but no one else will believe them.

Tell a Malian they are White, and they will hug you and agree, but no one else will think they are. Jews truly despise the idea of being White, but they hate shvartzes even more, and Jews are certainly not Chinese.

Tell a Moroccan he is White, and he will embrace you, pack a bowl of hash for you in the waterpipe, invite you to marry his cousin, and start shouting about how the Berbers were the original humans. Tell a Pashtun he is White, and he will run up to you, kiss you on the cheek, invite you in for tea in the men’s room, and regale you with tales of being the original Aryans.

The real problem here is not one of identity; it’s more that so many of our Caucasian tribes hate each other so much they will never get together to join the movement, much less have each other over for tea. At the moment, many of them are busy massacring each other. This time-honored tradition is expected to continue into the foreseeable future.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

The Idea of Uncleanness or Contamination in Muslims, Jews, and Roma

By the way, this Middle Eastern Christian woman I referred to in the previous post didn’t like Muslims much at all. But she didn’t like Israel either. And I think she wasn’t ecstatic about Jews either.

American Zionists and Islamophobes probably jump for joy when they find a Middle Eastern Christian who doesn’t like Muslims. They think they’ve got a pal. Whoops, nope. I guarantee you that most Middle Eastern Christians who don’t like Muslims too much, also:

  • Hate Israel
  • Are not real keen on Jews

Anyway, this woman said that the Muslims had not been kind to her people. In the market in Urmia, Iran, where she was from, they don’t want the Christians to touch the bread. They think any food that a Christian touches is basically contaminated or unclean.

The Iranians have a similar attitude towards Iranian Jews – an uncleanness view. The Iranian state actually tries to promote positive attitudes towards the Iranian Jews. The Iranian Jews live pretty well and are well-protected by the state. They have two seats set aside for them in the Iranian Parliament, even though with a population of 6,000, they barely deserve even one seat.

A delegation of Iranian Jews accompanied “Nazi” Ahmadinejad to the US when he came for a visit. He’s obviously a real Nazi out to kill all the Jews if he invited a bunch of Jews to travel with him! However, despite the state’s efforts, old habits of Iranian Muslims for dealing with Jews (and Christians) die hard.

What’s interesting is that Jews themselves had ideas like this for a very long time. What do you think the Kosher rules about food are all about? They are all about cleanness and uncleanness or contamination. It’s also interesting that Gypsies (Roma) have the same ideas. According to them all non-Roma are unclean or contaminated.

This idea that the other people are unclean doesn’t seem to be a great idea for a group to have because the group that contends that all of the outgroup (everyone who’s not us) is contaminated or unclean seems to have a hostile attitude towards the outgroup (duh), and they also seem to have a tendency to con and rip off the outgroup (Jews and Roma).

“Everyone who’s not us is unclean or contaminated” doesn’t seem to be a real great way of looking at the world. Ultimately it is just tribalism though, the classic human instinct that’s good and bad, mostly bad in my opinion. By the way,  all of this SJW stuff is nothing but tribalist bullshit.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Is US Immigration Dysgenic?

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

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

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

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

Thinking Mouse: I didn’t read the article and now see you disagree with me, but I’ll explain why I think this category is appropriate.

Since I’m largely anti-HBD (though the African non-African dichotomy might have some merit), especially to the traits affecting many types of social capital, I really just see race as the social constructs and their origin. So when people look different, that could have an affect on the perception people have, and it used to in the past.

I think its that you are raised in America with its diversity, and maybe your lack of racism has made you accept more swarthier people as fulfilling the roles of good citizens, and therefore get a pass to the all so important group. In my view, by your criteria for a race, we might as well say that an Frenchman with dark hair and large nostrils/bulgy nose is Chinese cause they don’t look “that different”. Blue eyes and pink nipples are almost unique to Whites, that’s like indispensable right there.

Of course Arabs are White, especially North Africans like Moroccans and Algerians. However, there are Black people in those countries and they don’t count. Most Libyans are White. So are most Tunisians and most Egyptians. There are non-White Egyptians in the South. I had an Egyptian girlfriend once who would be more properly characterized as a light skinned Black woman. Light Egyptians and Moroccans openly identify as White.

Most Saudis and Yemenis are White. The Yemenis we have here are all White and identify as White. All Syrians are White and the ones here also identify as White. Palestinians, Jordanians, Lebanese, Iraqis and Gulf types are mostly White. However there are a few Blacks among these people in Iraq and the Gulf. Prince Bandar is not a White man.

Of course Persians and most Afghans are White. Afghans even identify as White. The ones I know told me they are Aryans, the original Whites. But some Afghans are Asiatics, like the Hazara. Most Pakistanis are White, and some even identify as White. There are some non-Whites down in the South, but all the ones I have met are as White as I am.

Many but not all North Indians are White, especially Punjabis, many of whom are as White as I am. Quite a few Uighurs and Nepalis are White, but many are not. Groups like the Mansi are similar and you have to look at them on an individual basis.
Of course Chechens, Azeris, Georgians, Armenians and the rest of the people of the Caucasus are White. Also Azeris, Armenians and Chechens at least identify as White.

Most Turkmen, Kyrgyz, Kazakhs, and Uzbeks, etc. and many Siberians from around the Altai are best seen as mixed race. Many Tatars and Bashkirs are also mixed race. All of these groups are so mixed with Asiatics that they can’t really properly be called Whites.

I would look at facial and bone structure. Really all Caucasoids are simply Whites. Look at the face and if the face looks like a White person’s face, no matter the skin color, they are White.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

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

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

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Incels in Middle Eastern Culture and the West: A Comparison

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

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

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Identity Politics or Tribalism Was Behind Many of the Most Horrific and Genocidal Crimes of the 20th Century

Zamfir: “Having a collective interest is not the same thing as a hard and fast identity like race, ethnic group, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, or even religion.”

Okay, I didn’t understand that “identity” for you has to do with only these kinds of characteristics. But then I’d put it this way: Any group of people that share collective interests can have good reasons to organize politically in defense of their interests. It doesn’t matter whether the reason has to do with their “identity” in your sense or instead something less “hard and fast” such as economic class.

Because people who organize around more banal everyday political issues are typically not as insane and flat out deranged, homicidal, paranoid, hypersensitive and even genocidal as IP types? I mean do you see Democrats running around screaming about the Republicans “They hate us! They hate us! They’re out to kill us! We need to fight back!” Do you see environmentalists or pro-abortion people saying that anti-environmentalists and anti-abortion people, “They hate us! They hate us! They oppress us and dominate us! They’re out to kill us!”

Ordinary politics is not tribal like IP is. Few people would say they are member of a tribe called Democrats, Social Democrats, Bolivarians, Sandinistas, environmentalists, gun control activists, anti-free trade types, anti- or pro-immigration activists, liberals, workers, or poor or low income people? Hell no.

And the people in the paragraph above don’t scream, carry on, act paranoid, have a huge chip on their shoulder and accuse everyone of hating them all the time.

Haven’t you noticed that IP people are all insane? They all say my group is completely innocent and good, and we are being persecuted, oppressed and dominated by this evil other group. They’re all hypersensitive to any slights, always accusing everyone of hating them. They hate us! They hate us! They hate us! They’re trying to kill us!
And there’s often genocidal language, sometimes towards the hated group and other times it’s, “They’re trying to kill of us!” Often it’s “they’re trying to kill all of us…we need to kill all of them!”Haven’t you noticed that IP people are all insane?
They all say my group is completely innocent and good and we are being persecuted, oppressed and dominated by this evil other group. They’re all hypersensitive to any slights, always accusing everyone of hating them. They hate us! They hate us! They hate us! They’re trying to kill us! And there’s often genocidal language, sometimes towards the hated group and other times it’s, “They’re trying to kill of us!” Often it’s “they’re trying to kill all of us…we need to kill all of them!”
Before the Tutus slaughtered 800,000 Tutsis, the radio played non-stop that the Tutsis had just murdered the Hutu president and were organizing a war to kill all the Hutus. The solution? Kill them first. Remember Hitler said the Jews are trying to kill us all? Solution? Kill them first. Notice how the Israelis are always screaming that their enemies are exterminationist Nazi type anti-Semites? They’re out to kill us all! Solution? Oppress them, dominate them, wage war on them, kill their soldiers and their politicians, assassinate their leaders.
Can’t you realize that almost all of the horrible things that are going on today are all based on IP to some degree or another. In the ME, they are slaughtering each other over religion or even factions of a religion or even factions of factions.
In Turkey, this is behind Turkey’s war on the Kurds and their conquest and annexation of Syrian land to expand the “Turkish nation.” The ethnic cleaning wars of the Balkans were all wrapped up in IP. The Islamist insurgencies in the Caucasus, Turkestan, Thailand, Sudan, East Timor, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Egypt, Nigeria, India and to some extent Syria and Iraq are Islamist jihads against the infidels; in the cases of Nigeria and Sudan, take exterminationist proportions.
The Hindu Buddhists wage an exterminationist jihad against the Hindu Tamils. The Myanmar Buddhists wage an exterminationist jihad against the Rohinga.
The Hindus oppress the Muslims of Kashmir and wage war on them. The Jews oppress the non-Jews of Palestine and wage war on them and conquer and annex their land. Muslims and Christians wage exterminationist wars against each other in the Congo. In Rwanda, Burundi and Zaire, Hutus, and Tutsis wage exterminationist wars against each other.
Saddam said the Persians were plotting to kill all the Arabs (and most Sunni Arabs still say that the Iranians are plotting to at least conquer all the Arabs). Solution? Kill the Iranians first. The Young Turks started their jihad against the Armenians by saying that the Armenians were plotting to kill all the Turks. Solution? Kill the Armenians. Similar things were said of Greeks and Assyrians. Solution? Kill 500,000 Greeks and Assyrians before they can kill us first.
Nazism was nothing but Aryan Germanic IP against non Aryans such as Gypsies, Jews and Slavs.
The war in Northern Ireland is a pure IP war.
Notice how all of these groups employ the IP extremism – “They’re trying to kill us all so we need to oppress/kill of them first!” Our tribe is 100% good, theirs is evil. We are defensive; they wage offensive war against us. They are haters and racists and we are not. They hate us!  They hate us! They hate us! You hate us! You hate us!
Notice how paranoid they all are and how hypersensitive they are to any slight and how they all immediately accuse you of hating them if you even look at them wrong? Notice the insane, “They hate us! They hate us!” all the while when the people screaming about people hating them are horrific haters themselves. But their hate and racism/bigotry is good and justified and the other people’s hate and bigotry is evil. We just want liberation and to be free! They want to oppress us and dominate us!
IP turns genocidal and exterminationist or at least slaughtering quite easily.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Who's White? Who's Not White?

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

Whites

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

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

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

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Why Do Some Countries Lack a Class Conscious Working Class?

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

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

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

The Race and Culture of Modern Day Turks

I believe the 12% Asiatic figure for Anatolian Turks is correct. The Turks are mostly native Anatolians, closely related to Kurds, Armenians and the original Ashkenazim from Northern Iraq.
I work pretty closely with some Turkic academics, mostly in Turkey but also in Russia and Uzbekistan. I have also seen photos of one of these Turkish professors with his class. Suffice to say that the Turks are very much White people. I was actually shocked at how White they looked because we have this idea that Turks are somehow non-Whites. I would say that they look a lot like Ashkenazi Jews or Italians, that is, rather Mediterranean or even Near Eastern looking but not as dark or as Near Eastern as a lot of Arabs.
These is an odd Asiatic element that is there is small doses. You can’t see it much except sometimes in the eyes a bit. I have seen many photos of Turkish women in particular who just look like regular European White women. Some are blond or even red-haired. I met a Turkish woman who had blond hair and blue eyes. She told me her ancestors were Georgian Christians. I have heard that the Turkish genome now is 35% Slavic, apparently from White slaves captured during the Ottoman Era.
If Italians, Jews, Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks are White, then so are Anatolian Turks. I would say that Kurds and Iranians look more Middle Eastern, but Assyrians look very much like Turks, and it would be hard to tell a Turk from a Greek.
Turkish culture is conservative, and Turkish men strike me as very masculine, even tough or hard.
Turkish women seem very traditionally feminine, and they are also more conservative than the men. I would imagine that a Turkish woman might be quite devoted to you, and I doubt if she would cheat.
The Turkish women I have met were quite educated and often very intelligent. In fact I was shocked at how intellectual they were. Maybe that is an areal thing, but if you ever meet an Arab woman, you might be surprised at how educated, intelligent and even intellectual she is. In that part of the world – Europe, the Near East and the Middle East, intellectualism is not despised as it is in the US.
They have some traditional attitudes about men. I met a few on the Net, and some of them liked me. But a couple found out that I was not employed, and they were appalled. Their attitude was that I was not much of a man. “A man is supposed to work,” they told me.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Munich Shooting Not Terrorism and Had Nothing To Do With Islam

Cyrus writes:

Mr. Lindsay, an update on certain aspects of this article might just be in order, perhaps? It appears to be much more interesting from a psychological standpoint than we had originally been led on to believe.
“The teen gunman who killed nine people in a shooting rampage in Munich on Friday was a mentally troubled individual who had extensively researched spree killings and had no apparent links to ISIS, police said.”

Yes this had nothing to do with Islam. It has about as much to do with Islam as the Cho and James Holmes shootings did. This is like the Aurora shooting. Was that about Islam? Neither was this.
Also he was a Shia Iranian. Iranians are not involved in the global jihad “kill the infidels” thing. That is exclusively Sunni. At least at this moment, the Shia do not believe in aggressive jihad to conquer non-Muslim lands and make them Muslim. Also the Shia have no connection to ISIS or Al Qaeda or any of these groups carrying out terror attacks on the infidels. In fact, the Shia are the victims of the global jihad types, as these types kill and persecute the Shia everywhere they find them.
Furthermore, he wasn’t even 1% religious. He chose the anniversary of and the Anders Brevik mass shooting in Norway and regarded Brevik as some sort of hero. He wanted to redo the Brevik shooting and indeed, like Brevik, he went after mostly young people. His room was full of books about mass shooters as he had been researching the subject extensively.
He’s just another “school shooter” type.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

California and White Decline

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

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

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Racial Types in Georgia

Interesting note here from the comments. I always suspected this about the Georgians, but was never completely sure about it. Hey if people from the Caucasus aren’t White, then nobody is, eh?
Gvanca Amirejibi writes:

This theory about Khazars is totally wrong. Georgians and Jews don’t look alike. Strabo said real Georgians were blond. But here lived many Greeks, Armenians, Iranians, Jews (here lived too many Jews – they returned to Israel only 30-40 years ago.) I as a Georgian am highly insulted that foreigners think that Georgians look like Armenians, Jews and Turkish people. The key why you think so is that here live too many ethnicities, including Azeris, Jews, Turkish and Armenian people.
Pure Georgians are hard to see. They are mixed now. I am a redhead with brown eyes. Almost all my other my family members have blue and green eyes. I had blond grandparents. I am white. Georgians are white. I repeat, it is highly insulting to be labeled Armenian and Turkish. Western Georgia is full of blond and blue-eyed Georgians. Eastern Georgians are more mixed. I have my roots in both western and eastern Georgia.
I think that pure Georgians should marry only pure Georgians. Our gene is in danger because of those people who look like Arabs and Jews. That’s why we are mistaken for Jews. I am disturbed because of that. I am white. Please don’t mistake me for an Armenian, a Jew, a Turk, an Arab, or an Iranian, etc.
P.S Most of those chicks are mixed. Unfortunately because of many wars and immigration in Georgia, Georgians married many Asian people. That’s the trouble of living on the border of Europe and Asia.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Who Should Christians Support in the Middle East?

Thelyniezian writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Most Caucasian Populations Have Significant Non-Caucasian Elements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This ANE component peaks in the Karitiana Indians of South America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

The Racialized Politics of California

Anonymous writes:

RL: All of the hardcore, out and out racists that I know are conservatives.
All the conservatives I know, vehemently insist that they AREN’T racists, and that their politics aren’t racist either. They truly, honestly believe they are just trying to be FAIR, and if a certain policy (eg, dealing with crime or welfare fraud), happens to have a “disproportionate impact” on a certain race, that’s their own damned fault for their disproportionate misbehavior. FWIW, a few of them are interracially married, or the product of such.
You can disagree that conservatism actually is fair or wise (in fact, I know that you do — this is a socialist blog)… but… as an insider, I’m telling you their true inner motives. Correct or not, in their heads and hearts they THINK they’re just doing the right thing — they are NOT, repeat NOT, acting out of hate.
Same for voting Republican. They honestly thought, 20 years ago, that the Republicans were the good guys. And they still honestly think, today, that the Republicans are the lesser of 2 evils. THAT is why they vote Republican. It has nothing to do with sending a “f*** you” to blacks.
You must know a very strange set of conservatives. OR perhaps we define the term differently.

Here in the California, almost all of the interracial couples would automatically be Democrats. You won’t find any Republicans or conservatives interracially married. That is something that you would just never see.
Here in California, you might find a few Black conservatives. I have met a few. But they were not interracially married, and they are rare as hen’s teeth anyway. Almost every Mexican American or Hispanic you meet here in this state is a Democrat. I can’t remember the last time I met a Hispanic Republican here in California, although when I was teaching school, I had some Hispanic kids who told me that their parents were Republicans. Their parents were Hispanics with high paying jobs. In general, as a Californian, you would wonder if Hispanic Republicans even exist. Most Asians are Democrats here in California. Japanese, Chinese and Korean Americans almost all seem to be Democrats. I can’t remember the last time I met one of those people who was a Republican.
It is true that you will find quite a few Laotian, Vietnamese and Hmong Republicans here in this state. Some of them might even be married to White people.
Politics here in California are unbelievably racialized. If you meet a White person here, there is a very good chance that they are Republicans who call themselves conservatives. If you meet an Hispanic, usually a Mexican American, they will almost always be a Democrat. Nearly every Black you meet except for a few will be Democrats. Most all NE Asians you will meet will be Democrats. It will be very common to run into SE Asian Republicans. They vote Republican because they fled from Communist regimes. Some other groups are hard to figure here in California.
Jews: Mostly Democrats, but it is not unusual to meet a Jewish Republican.
Arabs: All Arabs you meet will be Democrats.
Indians, Punjabis and Pakistanis: I have no idea who they vote in my state. I have known a number of them, but I never talked politics with them. They don’t seem to be very interested in US politics.
Armenians: Hard to say, maybe 50-50 split Democrats and Republicans.
Ethnic Whites – Italians, Portuguese, Greeks, Spaniards, Yugoslavs, etc.: Very mixed, but at least in this part of California, many of them are now Republicans for some odd reason. If you see an “Hispanic” Republican around here, it’s almost always as Portuguese or in some cases a Spaniard.
Other Hispanics (Central and South Americans): Apparently most of them are Democrats, but I haven’t asked many of them about their politics, so I don’t know. Central American neighborhoods in Los Angeles vote Democrat by high margins.
Iranians: Not sure how they vote. I have known some of them, but we never talked politics.
Filipinos: Probably vote Democratic. I have never talked politics with a Filipino, and I have known quite a few of them. They are not very politically involved. Filipino neighborhoods in Los Angeles probably vote very Democratic.
American Indians: Almost all of them are Democrats, and they vote more than you think they do. Never heard of a Republican Indian. Is there such a thing.
Bottom line is that the Republican Party here in California is a very White party and has been one for some time now. You will meet countless White conservatives and Republicans, but you will almost never meet one single non White Republican other than a SE Asian. If you see a conservative rally in this state, everyone holding a sign will be a White person, no exceptions. I have never been to a Republican Party meeting in this state, but I would imagine that everyone there would be a White person.
By the same token, the Democratic Party in this state is becoming the party of all of the non-Whites and some of the Whites. Democratic Party functions here in this state are quite mixed, but most of the real activists in the party are White people. The other races are just not that involved in party politics enough to go to meetings and whatnot.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Check Out the People of Lorestan

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI0DVXSbB00]
Here is a video of a people from Iran called Loris. They live in a place in Iran called Lorestan. They speak a language or languages closely related to Persian and one of the Kurdish languages. Apparently they are genetically related to both the Persians and Kurds.
There are some very interesting phenotypes in these men, though the hairdos seem like they are out of the 1970’s. The guys are dancing with each other, but that’s apparently their culture. As long as the guys don’t queer around with each other, I have nothing against men of other cultures showing physical affection, holding hands, dancing, whatever.
Some of these men look very standard European. Others look like Greeks. Still others have very interesting phenotypes that may be from the Caucasus. Others look like Gypsies. I was sent this video by a Lori friend of mine who refuses the “White” designation for some reason. He aid that his people, the Loris, are pure Aryan Iranids, with “no mountain nigger” in them. LOL, what’s “mountain nigger” in an Iranian context? What a funny term.
The music is interesting. I have heard some Pakistani music that sounds like this, and a lot of Punjabi music sounds like this.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Check Out the Stars of Iranian Cinema

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUGxcydWH0Y]
For God’s sake, where does anyone get off saying that Iranians are not White? Look at these beautiful women. They’re White people. They look like European or like any Euro-American actresses. And I must say that the longer I look at them, the more I think that Iranians look a lot Whiter than most Arabs do.
A most interesting people. I once told an Iranian dental surgeon that I thought that Iranians were, “Europeans outside of Europe.” He was Persian, and he had previously agreed with me Iranians were White people (almost all Persians will enthusiastically agree with this statement if you ask them).
He then smiled and said, “You never know. We don’t know where the first European man came from.” He seemed to be referring to the Indo-Europeans, of which he was a member of the Indo-Aryan branch.
Why do people have such a hard time agreeing that Iranians are White anyway?  Is it because they don’t live in Europe? Or is it some Nordicist prejudice on the part of Europeans?

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Iranians and Mediterraneans – A Close Relationship?

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

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

An Anatolian Homeland For Indo-European?

That may be, but the part about “proto-Europeans” coming from the Lower Volga is bullshit. All archaeological, anthropological, linguistic, and genetic evidence (not to mention, evidence from indigenous pagan religions/mythologies) point to an Anatolian origin of the Indo-Europeans.

During the LGM, European hunter-gatherer groups gathered in some refugia in South Central Europe (Iberia, Western Balkans, Ukraine…) and Northern Europe was almost entirely covered in glaciers, as were the Alps, Caucasus, Pyrenees, and other major mountain ranges.

After the LGM, the scant remnant of Upper Paleolithic survivors moved back north, but Southern Europe was depopulated, only to be repopulated again by Near Eastern agriculturalists at the dawn of the Neolithic. These agro-pastoralists from the Anatolian-Levantine refugium brought farming, livestock, and copper to Europe. Among the earliest farmers were the Anatolian proto-Indo-Europeans.

The Basques are probably remnants of the Mesolithic survivor population. The purest descendants of these Near Eastern settlers are the Greeks, Albanians, Armenians, and at least some Italians – also the Turks, who inhabit the PIE origin land – ironically Turks, who speak a non-Indo-European Altaic language, are probably more Indo-European than most Indo-European speakers, especially Brits or Indians.

Of course, there were other migrations around that time. A people closely related to the Mongols expanded westward across Siberia, over the Urals and into Scandinavia following the deglaciation. They introduced Uralic languages (Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian, Lappish) into Europe, and the Lapps are their most direct descendants.

But we have strong reason to believe that Indo-European spread from the Near East (most likely North-Central Anatolia) chiefly due to agriculture, not from Western Europe (as some White Nationalists might believe), from India/Pakistan (as many Hindu nationalists believe), or from Gimbutas’ fanciful Kurgan patriarchs (which Wikipedia deems as “official” and which you appear to take for granted).

[Actually, it surprises me that so many people take for granted some nutty hypothesis proposed by the Marxist-feminist Jewess Marija Gimbutas despite the lack of evidence or historical precedent. At least the Paleolithic Continuity Model is based on some evidence (albeit misinterpreted), and the Out-of-India hypothesis is based on understandable wishful thinking.]

Consider the following:

* As per your own model, virtually all Europeans cluster closely with each other and with Persians, Kurds, Caucasus folks, Jews, Turks, and some Semitic-speaking Levantines. Basques, North Africans, Arabs, and “West Asians” (i.e. Afghans) are minor outliers.

This interrelatedness suggests a strong demic diffusion and also implies that the stat that Europeans are 80% Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic remnants but only 20% Neolithic colonists is considerably off. How else do you explain that Europeans are generally closer to Iranians than to Basques?

* While Indo-Europeans are/were indeed fairly heavily male-dominated (Gimbutas was at least correct about this), this follows from a Near Eastern origin, as the Middle East was, and still is, very patriarchal. Ironically, Gimbutas located the homeland of those “evil patriarchal invaders” who decimated the “feminist utopia” that neolithic European society (allegedly) was in Scythia, which is believed to be the source of the Amazon legends…

* Indo-European languages show relatively strong affinities to Semitic languages, and probably Kartvelian and Pelasgian languages (the latter may have actually been Indo-European, related to Hittite), possibly Ligurian (probably Indo-European and related to both Celtic and Italic languages), and even Etruscan (controversially). No such closeness to Iberian (Basque), Ural-Altaic, or Dravidian languages.

* The oldest evidence of Indo-European languages comes from Anatolia (Hittite) and the Aegean (Greek in Linear B). Minoan (in Linear A) remains undeciphered and may have been related. Archaeological records demonstrate a settled native population.

* Even the pagan religions seem to cluster near the Anatolian center. Zoroastrianism and the Indic religions both descend from the Indo-Aryan religion, but the Persian religion is more similar to ancient European religious traditions than the Dharmic faiths are (because Hinduism absorbed some Harappan/Dravidian pre-Aryan influences.)

Greco-Roman and Germanic religions were more alike than either was akin to Celtic (Druidic) paganism, the Celts being more matriarchal and probably influenced by relatives of the Basques in Western Europe and the British Isles.

All this points to an origin for Indo-European in Neolithic Anatolia, but you are probably correct that the Aryans (Indo-Iranians, not blonde Germanic supermen) came into Iran and India via Central Asia. Most likely route being a clockwise migration around the Caspian Sea…

Excellent commentary, fascinating stuff.

I actually agree with an Anatolian homeland for PIE, however, I also agree with a secondary spread from the Lower Volga. So things are complicated. In fact, I argue that Indo-European is actually Indo-Hittite, with Anatolian being so far removed from the rest that it is actually a sister to the rest of the family. Just a look at Hittite shows you how archaic it is compared to the rest of the family.

The part about the Turks, Greeks, Albanians, Armenians, and at least some Italians being the remnants of the original IE people is probably true. So, in a sense, these are really the “original Whites.” Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Nordicists.

Gimbutas’ theory has always ween a bit nutty. There were no ancient matriarchies. As a female friend once said, men have always ruled. Why? She answered, “Men are bigger, men are stronger, men push women around and make them do what they want them to do.” Well, of course, and women are too weak to fight back.

As it is now, as it’s always been. In gender relations, it’s the law of the jungle. I also feel that matriarchies might have been inherently unstable, as I’m not sure that “female rule” works very well. We are having enough problems with what matriarchy we have in the West.

Patriarchy or male rule is sort of a bad deal for women, but at least it seems to “work.” And I have noticed that women from patriarchal cultures seem to be happiest in their femininity and in general. The men are masculine, the women are feminine, and everyone’s happy.

The more women rule, the more miserable women seem to be, and men never seem to be happy under female rule. For one thing, oddly enough, female rule tends to make women act masculine and men act feminine.

Neither is a normal role model, and I argue that the more masculine a woman is, the more unhappy she is, and the more feminine a man is, the more unhappy he is. That ‘s possibly because they are violating nature itself. When you do that, nature fights back, possibly by making you miserable.

Surely IE is related to Afro-Asiatic and Kartvelian, but I disagree that it is less related to Uralic or Altaic, and I also disagree that Uralic and Altaic represent some family. Ligurian and Pelasgian are probably IE, but no one knows what Etruscan is.

I definitely agree that almost all Europeans are quite close to Persians, Kurds, Caucasus folks, Jews, Turks, and some Semitic-speaking Levantines. It is interesting how close the Caucasians are to each other. Most Caucasians are much closer to each other than other major races are. There is much larger differentiation among NE and SE Asians, Aborigines, Papuans and for sure Africans than there is among Caucasians.

All around, a great comment. The rest of you may feel free to chime in if you have any thoughts or anything to add.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Is the "White" IQ So Superior?

Repost from the old site.
I confess that I love to beat up White nationalists, or for that matter ethnic nationalists of any sort (this is why I verbally eviscerate Zionists – they are nothing but the Jewish equivalent of White Nationalists).
There is nothing like nationalism, not to mention the super brain-killer of ethnic nationalism, to turn a smart person’s brain to useless mush. The problem is that beating up on WN’s is cruel. It’s like slapping a retarded person and ridiculing them in public. So I feel kind of guilty when I do it.
For a look at what a nightmare the White Nationalist movement is, and what a racist horror it represents, check out the sanest, most moderate outlier of the movement, American Renaissance. I hang out there a lot, and post lots of comments, when they do not get deleted, which is 75% of the time.
I post mostly on illegal aliens, which is all I care about race-wise, as I am utterly indifferent to the “Black problem”, anti-immigration xenophobia, Islamophobia, and all their other crazy obsessions. This is a good, frightening post to get you started.
It is a common, and fairly disgusting, White Nationalist argument that Whites are superior to all other groups in IQ, with the exception of NE Asians. WN’s typically define Whites as Europeans, but no one quite knows where to draw the line there.
For instance, many White Nationalists are so insane that they say Southern Europeans such as Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians and Greeks, and Balkans such as Macedonians, Serbians, Albanians, Croats and Bosnians, and West Eurasians such as Armenians, Ashkenazi Jews, Georgians, Caucasians and Turks, and Middle Easterners such as Iranians, Kurds and Assyrians, are not White. Most of these groups are clearly White.
There is a bit of a question when it comes to Iranians, Kurds, Turks and Assyrians, but most of these groups are White by any sane definition.
So WN’s like to crow about how they are smarter than just about everyone else on the Earth. It follows that letting in anyone from any of the stupid races or ethnic groups to a White country is going to pollute the gene pool, result in growing stupidity, an inability to think and compete and a declining standard of living.
I do think that they have a point, and I am not opposed to IQ tests for prospective immigrants other than spouses of Americans. Where I object is to the typical WN insanity of labeling entire races and ethnic groups as idiots who should not be allowed to set one foot on our soil.
First of all, Western culture is good for IQ, independent of genes. This alone should throw a serious monkey wrench into WN crap about intellectually inferior races being banned from immigrating to White countries.
Look:
Everyone knows that the East Indian IQ in Europe is 96 (Lynn 2005), and it’s 81.5-83 in India and Pakistan. Merely living in an improved Western environment raised it 14 pts. Jamaicans raise their IQ’s from 71 to 85 within one generation of living in the UK – 14 points. Most sane people think selective immigration could have only raised either of those scores only a few points.
Even if we grant 3 IQ points for selective immigration, we still get an 11 rise for both E. Indians and Jamaicans just for a Western environment. Even Moroccans raise their IQs from 84-89 (5 points) within a generation of living in Holland, and there was probably no selective immigration there at all, as the Europeans were just looking for manual labor.
73 IQ US Negro Blacks (taking a base African Black IQ of 67, adding in 17.5% White to raise it to 73) raise their IQ’s to 85 in the US merely by our Western environment – a 12 point raise. There was no selective immigration to America by Africans at all; in fact, the smartest ones might have died on the trip or been killed afterwards, or never got caught in slave raids in the first place, and slaves were chosen for brawn only.
Much of the Black raise has occurred since 1920. Everyone except WN lunatics agrees that US Negroes have raised their IQ’s by 1/2 a standard deviation (7.5 points) since 1920.
Hence, we can posit that Western environment raises the IQ of the vast majority of races and ethnic groups to 85-96 merely by its increased stimulation. For groups with IQ’s of 71-82, they typically see about an 11-12 point IQ rise merely by living in the West.
One of the things that WN’s like to crow about, when they are not preening about how Whites are naturally more beautiful than anyone else, is how Whites are surely smarter than those nasty, inferior SE Asians, at the very least. Sure the NE Asians are smarter, but Whites are surely better than short, flat-nosed, brown-skinned, backwards SE Asian house pet-eaters.
Well, let us take a look at this. First of all, Vietnamese are clearly more intelligent that 32 out of 42 White groups, less intelligent than eight White groups, and the same as two White groups. Vietnamese are clearly more intelligent than most White ethnic nations.
Averages of Vietnamese IQ studies done in recent years in Vietnam has come up with a score of 99.5. WN’s are invited to crow about how this is a whole .5 point below Whitey (although see the chart below for evidence of major variability in White IQ).
Richard Lynn, a serial liar who is a favorite of WN’s, has deliberately lied about the Vietnamese IQ in order to promote his stupid theory about Ice Ages and IQ scores. As high Vietnamese and Southern Chinese IQ’s fly in the face of his nonsense, he deliberately falsifies data. To arrive at a Vietnamese IQ of 95, he averages a Thai IQ of 90 with a fake Chinese IQ of 100 (actual Chinese IQ is more like ~105).
It is axiomatic among White Nationalists that Polynesians and Mestizo Hispanics are idiots. They sometimes exclude Chileans, Argentines and Uruguayans as Whites, but Argentines and Chileans are about 80% White, 20% Indian, and Uruguayans are probably around the same. In this way, Mestizos of the Southern Cone are not tremendously different from the 60% White, 40% Indian, Mexican-Hispanics in the US.
The chart below will show us some interesting things. First of all, if Mestizos are inherently inferior to Whites, why do Southern Cone Mestizos beat 4-15 different White nations on IQ? Second, since WN’s always call US Hispanics idiots, are WN’s also willing to condemn their White Balkan Croatian, Bosnian and Albanian brothers as idiots too, since their IQ is about the same as US Hispanics?
Since WN’s love to call Maori Polynesians of New Zealand stupid, are they willing to call the Whites of the Balkans stupid too, since their IQ’s are the same as the Maori?
Also note that the White IQ is highly variable in and of itself. Yes it is around ~100 or so in the US, but it is not necessarily that high in other places. In fact, the high US White IQ almost seems to be an outlier among the White groups of the world, towards the high side.
As far as White IQ’s go, you would think that folks who love Whites (WN’s) would know something about this. Guess not. Just to be fair, we will use the WN’s very own buddy Richard Lynn, except as noted.

US Hispanics   89
Croatia        90
Bosnia         90
Albania        90
Maori          90
Serbia         91
Cyprus         91.5
Chile          91.5 1
Greece         92
Macedonia      92.5
Ireland        93
Bulgaria       93
Armenia        93.5
Georgia        93.5
Israel         94
Romania        94
Argentina      94.5 2
Portugal       95
Slovenia       95.5
Moldova        95.5
Uruguay        96 3
Slovakia       96
Malta          96
Russia         96.5
Belarus        96.5
Ukraine        96.5
Spain          97.5
Czech Republic 97.5
US             98
Australia      98
Finland        98
Canada         98
France         98
Denmark        98
Andorra        98
Estonia        98
Hungary        98.5
Norway         99
Poland         99
Belgium        99.5
Iceland        99.5
Vietnam        99.5 4
Sweden         100
UK             100
Germany        100
Luxembourg     100.5
Netherlands    101
Austria        101
Switzerland    101
Italy          102

Notes

1. “Inferior” Chilean Mestizos beat four White groups, tie one.
2. “Inferior” Argentine Mestizos beat 13 White groups.
3. “Inferior” Uruguayan Mestizos beat 16 White groups, tie two.
4. “Inferior” Vietnamese beat 34 White groups, lose to eight, tie two.

References

Lynn, Richard. (January 2005). Business Today.
Smith, Douglas K., Wessels, Richard A., Riebel, Emily M. August 1997. Use of the WISC-III and K-BIT with Hmong Students. School Psychology Training Program University of Wisconsin-River Falls. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.
Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Support For South Ossetian Secession

Repost from the old site.
A good progressive principle, but one subject to some exceptions, is the principle of self-determination. This leads naturally to support for most if not all separatist movements. In my case, I do support most, but not all separatist movements.
It’s interesting of all the people around the world, that only leftwingers and various seceding nationalities support this principle. It’s also interesting that once nations secede and become their own state, suddenly they do not believe in the right to secede anymore! We on the Left have always upheld this basic principle.
The USSR held that all Russian nationalities had the right to secede. Unfortunately, it was not enforced much, but it was this very principle that allowed Gorbachev to permit the various USSR republics the right of secession in 1991. At that time, on at least that one variable, the USSR was the most civilized nation on Earth.
Its civilized nature was a direct result of the progressive principles that were embodied in the USSR by the first Bolsheviks in 1917. Later, Czechoslovakia split up into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The reason they were able to do this so civilly is, number one, because they are White, and number two, due to the decades of internationalism that had been inculcated into them by Communist rule.
I say that being White is important because I am absolutely convinced that only White nations are capable of breaking up civilly and peacefully without slaughtering each other in the process. In a way, breaking up your country without massacring your countrymen is the ultimate civilized act.
Even Asians, as civilized as they are, would never be able to break up one of their countries without turning it into a mass slaughter. On this metric, they are not that civilized.
What is it about Whites that allows them to break up a country? Is it altruism? Although studies are rare, in the US, Whites have rates of civic participation, volunteerism and donating to charity far above other groups.
Now, it is true that Communist China has not done a good job of living up the progressive principles of self-determination. Clearly, Tibet has a right to go free, and I would argue that East Turkestan does too. And Taiwan is a separate country. Mao never was a true internationalist. He was always a Chinese nationalist first and a Communist second.
Another reason to support secessionism is that the people who hate it most are the fascists. Idiots are always saying that fascism and Communism and fascism and socialism are the same thing. Let us call them on this one at least.
This is a prime difference between fascists and Communists, the Left and the Right. The Left supports self-determination and cultural autonomy for national minorities and the Right has always opposed this, instead choosing to force all national minorities into a single ethnoreligiolinguistic entity.
No one opposes separatist movements more than fascists, and no fascist nation has ever given one national minority an inch of cultural autonomy. Even in China, national minorities have considerable cultural autonomy and have the right to education in their national tongue.
It’s true that the USSR’s commitment to cultural and linguistic freedom varied throughout the lifetime of the state. Its commitment was highest in the 1920’s, wavered seriously in the 1930’s when Stalin murdered many leaders of national minorities and never attained earlier depths with the subsequent promotion of Russification by Stalin and his successors.
The Left nowadays is sleazy and unprincipled on the question of national self-determination. Sadly, the entire world Left refused to support the right of self-determination for the peoples of the former Yugoslavia, all because Yugoslavia was a Communist state. Then they all opposed the right of Kosova to break away from Serbia, I guess because Serbia used to be Communist state!
This leads us to the recent fighting in Georgia.
First of all, Georgia is pretty much of a fake state. Sure, there have been Georgians living in that area for a very long time, but the Soviet republic called Georgia included not only Georgians but other nationalities as well. Other minorities included Abkhazians, Adjarians and South Ossetians.
It is possible that the republic of Georgia was seeded with these minorities as a divide and conquer strategy by the early Soviets, who were not perfect on the national question. Seeding Georgia with non-Georgians would make it more difficult for Georgia to secede from the USSR. Similarly, splitting the poor Ossetians between Russia and Georgia was probably another sleazy divide and conquer game.
Anyway, in 1991, this completely fake state called Georgia (really just a republic of the USSR) gained its independence. If we are to support the principle of self-determination, we need to allow national minorities in fake states newly birthed the right to secede.
On what basis were Abkhazia, Adjaria and South Ossetia an inherent part of some entity called “Georgia”? On no basis whatsoever! On what basis is some new fake country one day or one month old entitled to the bullshit and fascist principle of “inviolability of borders”? On no basis.
So, when the Georgian state (really just a place with lines on the map with a lot of Georgians living in it, but drawn wider than the Georgian nation) got its independence, Abkhazia, Adjaria and South Ossetia surely had the right say, “Screw this, we want no part of this new state. We’re out of here.”
Adjaria, a Muslim region in the southwest, seems to have settled its beef without fighting, but Abkhazia and South Ossetia both waged nasty and ugly separatist wars and managed to secede from the new state of Georgia.
South Ossetia apparently wants to marry with North Ossetia and become a state in Russia called Ossetia. I’m not sure what Abkhazia wants to do. I think they may wish to join Russia also. Abkhazia is located in the northwest and populated mostly by Orthodox Christians.
South Ossetia is located in the north-central part of Georgia and is composed mostly of Ossetians. The Ossetians were formerly called the Alans, an ancient kingdom related ethnically and linguistically to Iranians. They speak a language that is close to Iranian and resemble Iranians physically.
Russia is being cynical about this, as befits an imperialist state. While Russia under Putin has fascist tendencies in the nasty repression on national minorities such as the Mari and the people of the Caucasus, Putin is willing, like all sleazy imperialists, do support secessionism when it benefits imperial goals.
Russia has it in for Georgia, lately because Georgia has lined up heavily on the side of the US. There are US and Israeli advisors working with the Georgian military right now, and Russia is terrified by Georgian threats to join NATO.
We need to note that NATO doesn’t have much right to exist anymore. NATO was set up to deal with the Soviet threat. That’s gone. So why is NATO still there? Apparently to form an imperialist bloc to oppose Russia! The Russians are furious about this, and rightly so. Who can blame them?
Sadly, it is also possible that Russia is using this as a payback to the West for supporting the secession of Kosova. The West, including the US in its extreme cynicism, first of all supported the secession of all of the former states of Yugoslavia (apparently on the cynical grounds that since they were seceding from a Communist nation, therefore the right of self-determination was invoked).
Then, just to stick it to Russia for the most part, the US and most of Europe supported Kosova and Montenegrin independence, just so long as they were pro-West. I supported it too, on the basis of solid principles called the right of self-determination. It is sad that the entire world Left opposed the independence of Kosova. This made Russia furious.
Yet in Abkhazia, in the same sleazy West that championed every micro-state to be cleaved out of the former Yugoslavia, not a single Western state, nor any state anywhere, would support the principled secession of the Abkhazian people from Georgian imperialism.
Does fascist Russia under Putin support the right of self-determination, however limited? Of course not. As a capitalist, and in fact fascist and now imperialist state, Russia clearly has no principles whatsoever. As payback to Kosova secession which hurt their pitiful fascist pan-Slavic feelings, the Russians are now supporting secession in Georgia. Principles? Come now!
This whole conflict is shot through with imperialism all the way. The US is supporting Georgia not out of any principles, because as an imperialist state, the US has zero principles other than profiteering, plunder and subjection of other states and peoples. The US supports secessionism when it benefits imperialist interests, and opposes it when it hinders imperialist interests!
And of course, it never admits this. When it supports secessionism, the US apparently invokes the right of self-determination. When it opposes secessionism, the US invokes the right of inviolability of national borders, as it is doing now in the case of Georgia. Contradictory, no? Sure is!
The sleazy and pro-imperialist US media fails to point out this dissonance, and your average educated American will inconsistently invoke, like a moron, either the right of self-determination of the right of inviolability of borders, depending, as they support the imperial projects that they have been inculcated to support.
This conflict, like all imperialist bullshit wars, boils down to various imperialist nations waging armed conflict over access to markets and natural resources.
As is, oil from Azerbaijan and gas from the Stans goes through Georgia and I believe hooks up with Russian pipelines. The US, Georgia, Israel and Turkey wish to cut Russia out of the deal and cut a new pipeline through Georgia to Turkey. At least some of the oil will then go to Israel and from there, through the Suez and out to the Indian Ocean and various nations in that region, in particular India.
Someone suggested to me that the West is cutting this new pipeline because they are afraid that Russia will cut off the flow of oil to the West. Forget it. They will not do any such thing unless pushed to the wall. The US, Israel, Georgia and probably Turkey are all doing this because they are more or less imperialist states.
This conflict is also shot through with old Cold War “Beware the bear” bullshit. Even after the fall of Communism and the return of capitalism to Russia, US imperialism and anti-Communists everywhere have continued to see Russia through and Cold War and anti-Communist lens. It is as if the fall of the USSR never occurred. Any analysis of the conflict between the US and the West that leaves out this essential element is lacking.
As a socialist, I want to ask the supporters of capitalism on this blog some questions.
Show me how advanced capitalism can exist without imperialism. Prove to me that an advanced capitalist state can exist in the modern world without becoming an imperialist power.
It seems to me that large capitalist states are typically mandated to become imperialist states and from there to engage in conflict, often armed, with other imperialist states for markets and natural resources. If this is so (and I think it is) how then can one support capitalism as it now exists, since it seems to be impossible to have large capitalist states that are not also imperialist?
As you might have guessed, I support the right of South Ossetia to self-determination and to secede from Georgia and the right, however sleazy, of Russia to assist them in this principled endeavor.
This conflict is getting real nasty real quick. Russia is threatening Israel and the US over their support for Georgia and the US has incredibly ordered Russia to withdraw its forces from South Ossetia. And the conflict very quickly seems to have expanded to Abkhazia. We have the potential for a really nasty conflict here.
I would like to point out that the neoconservative scum who now pretty much run this country are first and foremost ferocious imperialists. They are some of the most voracious backers of US imperialism out there. In this endeavor, neoconservatives have been picking fights with Russia for a long time now.
Many Jewish neoconservatives are involved in this imperial conflict with Russia, and unfortunately, in this light, they have supported Chechen independence not out of any decent principles, since neocons have no principles, but just to screw Russia.
The fact that elements of imperialism have supported the Chechen separatists rouses Russian nationalism and paranoia and makes Russia all the less likely to give the Chechens and other Caucasian peoples the independence they deserve.
It’s not known why the neocons have such a beef with Russia, but they also backed the Russian Jewish oligarchs in their fleecing of Russia. There seems to be an old beef between Jewish nationalists and Russia.
We can see the outlines of this conflict in the campaign to “free the Soviet Jews”, which was one of the original catalysts for the formation of the Jewish neocons back in the 1970’s. There may also be a “screw the Russians” mindset dating from the hostile history of Russians and Jews in Russia, a history replete with pogroms of Jews.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Why White Nationalists Hate Communists

Repost from the old site.
I’m going to use the word White Nationalist for White racist, but it’s true – 99% of White nationalists are racists. On the other hand, many WN’s are not neo-Nazis. The neo-Nazis are one end of the spectrum and the American Renaissance types are at the other hand. Whatever you say about the Amren guys, they’re not Nazis.
I gave WN’s the benefit of the doubt and studied them with an open mind for a long time, assuming the null hypothesis that they are not racists, but it’s true. Most WN’s don’t like anyone who isn’t White. A lot only like Europeans. There are some who like NE Asians, and some others who like SE Asians too.
I don’t think any of them like Arabs or North Africans, Afghans, Pakistanis, or Indians. Some like Iranians, but usually only a few. All WN’s really hate Black people. If there is one thing that holds WN’s together, it’s their hatred of Black people.
I finally realized, too, that a lot of WN’s are just not really very nice people, so in that sense, the whole “hater” thing is sort of true.
But I always objected to calling them “haters”, because I don’t think there is anything wrong with hating per se. I’m a Leftist; we hate all kinds of stuff! But a lot of these White racists really are just mean, nasty people deep down inside.
I think that whole “hater” term was thought up by the anti-racists, and I would bet most of them were Jews, just to make these guys look way more evil than they are.
Truth is that whole huge swaths of societies all down through time have been very racist and therefore “haters”. One could argue that American society up until the 1960’s was a racist, and therefore a “hater” society. Does that make any sense? If you see pictures or movies of Americans from the pre-1960’s era, do they look like horrible, mean, ugly, nasty, cruel, “hater” people? Well, of course not.
Probably all societies up until our modern era have been “hater” societies, since some degree of racism was probably the norm in historical human societies. Tribal societies were typically racist “haters” too, since most were locked in tribal war with, or at least despised, their neighbors. The typical Amerindian word for the tribe next door means something like, “Those no-good scumbag wife-stealing bastards over the hill”.
So we ought to quit calling these people “haters”, quit calling their groups “hate groups” and quit waging insane, Hollywood and ADL (Jewish) paid-for “wars on hate”. The Jews should talk anyway. Israel isn’t exactly a hate-free zone. It’s more like the land of the KKK version of the Jews. It’s a Jewish mirror of the KKK, except instead of being White supremacists, they are Jewish supremacists.
Let’s just call these groups what they are – racists. Racists can seem like very nice people, and their societies can be warm, friendly and caring, towards the people they like that is. But they’re still racists.
One thing I noticed after a while is that almost all these White nationalists really, really, really hate Communists.
It took me a while to figure this out. I think this is because in the US the civil rights movement was always said to be led by Communists. If you were for civil rights, you were a Commie. Period.
Also, Communists really are fairly egalitarian, and White nationalists, and racists of any kind, hate any form of equality. They are very much into inequality and hierarchy. Fascists also are very much against egalitarianism, are into hierarchy and actually worship inequality, though they do their best to lie and say they don’t.
After Communists, White nationalists hate socialists and liberals. So, really, White racists just hate the whole Left. I can’t see why any self-respecting leftwinger would want to defend these clowns too much. They’re basically our enemies, you know?

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

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

Since the sound quality was so poor, I decided to make a transcript of this interview available for you all. Enjoy it.
Robert Stark: We’re going to be discussing California issues, how the states have changed, and how it affects trends facing the rest of the nation, but first of all, I came across this article on Robert’s site called Some Sensible Positions for Liberal Race Realists and White Advocates. Your first point is to amend the Constitution to get rid of the anchor baby thing. Very sensible position that most Americans would support.
Robert Lindsay: I don’t know if they could get it through Congress and pass it as a Constitutional amendment, but all White advocates should be supporting this move. It is a very reasonable position to take. My position is that White advocates should not be taking crazy positions – almost all of them are taking these crazy, loony positions like “freedom of association” that are simply never going to fly.
This move to amend the Constitution to get rid of the anchor baby thing is a reasonable position. Your average reasonable person, especially White person, says, “Sure, why not? Good idea.” The Left is trying to portray this as racism, but hey, let them scream! Because your average normal American, at least White people, and even some Black people, looks at this and says, “What? They’re calling these people racists? Because they want to amend the Constitution to get rid of these stupid anchor babies? That’s not racist, that’s just rational.”
Robert Stark: I think that even liberal European countries don’t give out citizenship to anchor babies.
Robert Lindsay: Some countries may allow it, but I think most of Europe has gotten rid of it. Ireland recently had birthright citizenship, but they just got rid of it. We’re one of the last countries around to have this.
Robert Stark: Ireland has only been getting a lot of immigration recently because of their economy.
Robert Lindsay: There has been a recent trend for at least White countries to get rid of birthright citizenship. As far as the rest of the world goes, I don’t know, but I would be surprised if there is much birthright citizenship. Most countries don’t agree with the concept. Why should you get birthright citizenship? If you’re born in some foreign country, you get citizenship of whatever country your parents are citizens of.
Robert Stark: Yes, it should be based on the parents.
Robert Lindsay: You’re still a citizen of some country! You have a right to be a citizen of some country in the world. If a female American citizen and I go over to…Peru and have a child there, why is that kid a Peruvian citizen? That kid is an American citizen. It’s born of American citizens. Despite the fact that we are living in Peru now, we are still just American citizens living in a foreign country.
Robert Stark: What are your thoughts on dual citizenship?
Robert Lindsay: I understand that there is a lot more dual citizenship going around than people think. I mean, the anti-Semites go on and on about US Jews being “dual citizens” of the US and Israel. But my understanding is that there’s a lot of dual citizenship going on here in the US and in other countries as well. Immigrants from many different countries the world over who are here in the US actually have dual citizenship – US citizenship and citizenship in their home country. So apparently it’s not just a thing with Jewish Americans having Israeli citizenship – they are not the only ones.
Robert Stark: I think the Israeli issue is not so much the dual citizenship – a lot of immigrants have that – the main thing is that many people in positions of power in the government and politics are more likely to have dual Israeli-US citizenship.
Robert Lindsay: The real concern is that, say, your average person who has Irish and US dual citizenship is not some sort of virtual agent working for the Irish government. Your average person with Israeli and US dual citizenship is practically an Israeli agent! And that’s the whole problem right there. That’s the whole problem with dual loyalty and the Jews.
Robert Stark: Yes, the dual loyalty is a problem. And due to multiculturalism, it’s tolerated, when we really should not be tolerating dual loyalties.
Robert Lindsay: Dual loyalty is a problem with Jews due to the nature of Judaism and the Jews. Most other ethnic groups are not so ethnocentric as the Jews so we don’t worry about dual loyalty much with them. But due to the nature of Judaism, Jews are loyal to the Jews first and their native land second if at all. That’s why this dual loyalty thing keeps cropping up with the Jews – it’s inherent in the Jews themselves. It’s not an anti-Semitic canard.
Robert Stark: Yes, it’s just how they are.
Robert Lindsay: With the Jews, dual loyalty isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.
Robert Stark: Your next recommendation is to avoid overthrowing civil rights laws. Can you go into detail about what some of these civil rights laws are?
Robert Lindsay: The White advocates want to get rid of all civil rights laws! Every White advocate I have heard of wants to get rid of every single civil rights law that we have on the books in this country. They hate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They hate the Housing Rights Act, they hate the Voting Rights Act. They want to get rid of all of them and all anti-discrimination laws too. It’s true that Rand Paul is running for Senate now, and he agrees with that position, but nevertheless, that is a very fringe position to take. The day to get rid of civil rights laws has come and gone! The civil rights laws are here to stay!
Robert Stark: So you think that would be a very difficult idea to sell to your average person.
Robert Lindsay: Worse than that. It’s not going to happen! Those days are gone. That was maybe doable in say, 1980 or so…
Robert Stark: I think the real big issue is immigration…You’re critical of people who want to get rid of non-White immigration. Instead, you are calling for IQ tests.
Robert Lindsay: Yes, this would actually be a very interesting thing for White advocates to support. They were actually suggesting this in Germany. I don’t have any problem with that at all, but I don’t want it for spouses of citizens. If you marry someone from another country, they don’t need to take the test. But it’s a good idea, especially with these problematic immigrants. Some of these immigrants are a real problem.
Robert Stark: What groups do you see as most problematic?
Robert Lindsay: The Hispanic immigrants are a problem. Especially the ones from Mesoamerica. The ones from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras…And to some extent, those from the Dominican Republic.
Robert Stark: Is it because they are coming here illegally? Or is it legal immigrants as well who are a problem?
Robert Lindsay: I don’t think that all of the problem Hispanic immigrants are illegals. I would think that with Hispanics, the problem is IQ-related. If you said we are only taking Hispanics with an IQ of 98, which is the US average, therefore, all Hispanic immigrants, no matter how many you allow, are not going to cause an IQ decline in the country. I would imagine if you set it at 98 – your average Hispanic and their offspring who are causing problems – their IQ is below 98. The ones who are not causing problems, who are assimilating well, who act like you and me, their IQ’s are 98 and above. It’s a pretty good cutoff. It’s the dumber ones that are causing all the problems.
Robert Stark: How would this plan deal with the numbers of immigrants coming into the US? Do you think there should be a cap per country? Because right now, we take in I think almost 2 million people a year legally.
Robert Lindsay: Is it really 2 million?
Robert Stark: I think it’s maybe 1.5 million, but anyway, it’s pretty high.
Robert Lindsay: Sure, White advocates should advocate for a cap. 200,000, or 400,000…some kind of a reasonable cap.
Robert Stark: Isn’t this what Pat Buchanan has been advocating?
Robert Lindsay: I think that is a salable position. A lot of Americans might go along with that. And it really puts the pro-immigration, multicultural, PC crazies on the spot, because it forces them to say, “Terrible! They want to limit immigration to 400,000 a year! How awful! We need 2 million billion zillion a year instead!”
Robert Stark: As opposed to advocating for zero immigration, they won’t be able to play the card saying you are racist.
Robert Lindsay: Sure. You sound like some kind of a nativist nut if you say, “Yeah! We want zero immigration!” And it’s never going to happen anyway – zero immigration is not doable. Instead, you say, “Hey, we just want limits.” Then people have to stop and think, “Wow! 400,000? That’s a lot? How many do we actually let in every year, anyway? 2 million billion trillion zillion? Wow! Well, that’s way too many.” And it puts those idiots on the spot. They have to defend those insane high numbers as the only way to go, and they will have to say that those limiting immigration to say 400,000 a year are part of some evil racist plot, and that’s not going to work.
Robert Stark: And focus on the overpopulation issue as well. That’s important to bring up.
Robert Lindsay: Yes, I also wanted to say that in 1991, there was an amendment to the Civil Rights Act that dealt with something called “disparate impact.” And this, in contrast with the rest of the civil rights laws that need to stay, has got to go. Thing is, most people don’t even know what disparate impact is. No one’s heard of it, no one understands it.
But for instance the Ricci case, the firefighters case in New Jersey, was a case of disparate impact. Disparate impact says that if you give tests to a bunch of applicants, and the Whites pass the test, but the Blacks flunk at a higher rate, then there must be something wrong with the test. And you have to go back and redo the test or dumb down the test. It says that every time you have a racially disparate impact in any outcome, it’s always due to racism or bias in the testing, and that’s not necessarily true. Maybe the Blacks just could not pass the test.
Most people would be in favor of getting rid of disparate impact. And you would really put the PC idiots and the Black groups, etc. on the defensive because they would have to defend disparate impact and these crazy cases like the New Jersey firefighters, and most White people, and even a lot of Blacks, thought that case was an outrage. The goal is to push the PC-multicultural people into a corner and force them to defend things that sound really bad, and make us sound like the reasonable people. You see?
Robert Stark: The next one is getting rid of US colonies. I don’t think we need to go into too much detail here. It’s pretty simple, but in a nutshell, the US colonies are places like Puerto Rico and American Samoa. And they are big sources of immigrants. And because they can’t really be screened like foreign immigrants, they can simply come in in large numbers.
Robert Lindsay: Yes. They are unscreened immigrants, and they cause tons of problems. Our legal immigrants don’t really cause a lot of problems, to be honest, because we screen them really well. But the Puerto Ricans and the American Samoans can come here just like that. For them to come to the US is like you or me moving to Nevada. It’s like moving to another state. And it’s because they are unscreened that these groups cause so many problems. And there’s no reason to have colonies anyway!
Robert Stark: It’s ridiculous. We should let them secede. It doesn’t make sense.
Robert Lindsay: Why do we have colonies anyway? What are we, an imperialist country? Ok, we’re an imperialist country. Let’s have a conversation about this. Do Americans want to be an imperialist country? Let’s put these imperialists on the spot. Let’s force them to defend US colonialism!
Robert Stark: I think that Puerto Rico is a product of the Spanish American War. And I think the same with Samoa. So in a sense it is imperialism.
Robert Lindsay: I don’t know how we got Samoa. There’s also Micronesia, but Micronesia is not so much of a problem. But Micronesia is a colony too. We should not have any colonies. No country should have any colonies. And this is a Left position. Only the Left is totally principled on this position and says no nation should have any colonies. So by doing this, White advocates would be lining up with the hard Left, but that’s OK! Because the Hard Left takes a very principled anti-imperialist stand on this. Let’s force these elites to defend US imperialism! I want to see these guys on TV defending our imperialism and colonialism. You see, the Puerto Ricans and the Samoans and the rest don’t want to go – they don’t want independence.
Robert Stark: They want it both ways. They don’t really view themselves as Americans, but they still want the benefits of being American at the same time. That’s the problem.
Robert Lindsay: They like it the way it is. And if they become states, it is not going to be so good of a deal economically for them. But the way it is now, as colonies, it’s basically just a total scam for the colonies. But if they go on their own and become independent, they will probably just become ordinary 3rd World countries, and they will have a lot of problems as far as that goes. Why are we coddling these people?
Robert Stark: Another issue that is very important is schools. You are talking about these White advocates who are so fixated on Brown vs. the Board of Education, that it’s basically a done deal, and they are wasting their time.
Robert Lindsay: Brown vs. BOE is a done deal, right? Are they going to get rid of it? Even this crazy rightwing Supreme Court, are they actually going to get rid of Brown? It ain’t going to happen!
Robert Stark: So your main focus is on busing and that kids should just have to go to their local schools.
Robert Lindsay: Well, we shouldn’t say it’s evil or anything like that. “Oh! They’re busing Blacks into White schools! That’s terrible!” The main thing is that busing is just stupid. I mean, why are they doing it?
Robert Stark: And it ruins good schools. Like the schools I went to in LA public schools – they used to be decent schools, but they got completely ruined. And both the middle school and high school I went to were in fairly wealthy parts of LA. But they’ve both basically turned into ghetto schools through the use of busing.
Robert Lindsay: Well, sure, but I don’t want to say that because that sounds racist. Instead, I would just say that it’s a complete waste of money. And I would say that there is nothing wrong with a White school. They act like a White school is some sort of pathological thing. “Oh! Look at that school! It’s too White! Oh, we can’t have that! We need to make it half Black!” There is nothing wrong with a White school. It’s perfectly acceptable for a White school to be a White school and a Black school to be a Black school.
Robert Stark: The multicultural and diversity types, they use diversity as a code word for non-White. For instance, true diversity would be a school where each ethnic group would be say 20%. But on the other hand, they claim that 90% Hispanic and 90% Black is diverse.
Robert Lindsay: It’s ridiculous! The diversity thing has become like a fetish. I’m an integrationist, but we don’t need diversity everywhere. If some town is naturally a White town just because a bunch of White people went and moved there and few non-White people decided to move there, well, that’s OK! We don’t have to go fix it up by say, importing 20,000 Black people. If some town is naturally Black, well, that’s OK! Maybe a bunch of Blacks wanted to move there, and maybe non-Blacks did not want to move there.
There is nothing wrong with naturally segregated places, as long as it’s voluntary and we still have laws in place to ensure that anyone can go live anywhere they want to. And when you say that Blacks can’t learn in a Black school, and the only way that Black people can learn is if they’re around a bunch of White people, that’s very insulting to Black people. It really insults them. It says they’re inferior, and it’s a real burn on Black people. And I don’t know why Black people want to believe this insult about them. What’s wrong with a Black school?
Robert Stark: You’re right, that’s what busing implies – that Blacks are inferior, and they need to be around White people in order to learn. And affirmative action implies the same thing. Most of your proposals are pretty reasonable, but saying we support affirmative action? California, which is a liberal state, actually voted to end affirmative action. I don’t see how saying we support affirmative action would appeal to most of the public if the majority of people are opposed to it.
Robert Lindsay: Well, you could always say you support affirmative action but only if the non-Whites are just as qualified as the Whites. But the point is that that pretty much rules out most affirmative action right there! This was how affirmative action was supposed to be, but it’s never been that way.
Robert Stark: But that still is reverse discrimination against Whites – if they are equally qualified, choosing the non-White. I think the best strategy would be to have economics based on economics or geography. It would benefit a lot of middle class Whites in middle America. If you look at the Ivy League universities, they are really dominated by the ultra-wealthy and then a few slots left over for affirmative action. And this is your last point – say we have no problems with well-behaved Blacks who wish to fully integrate into White communities.
Robert Lindsay: Right, that’s a good idea, because almost all of these White advocate types are segregationists, and they push things like freedom of association. That’s what this Rand Paul is pushing. It’s not going to happen. You’re not going to get freedom of association back in where White communities can have housing covenants that say we don’t want any Black people, or we only want White people. Ain’t gonna happen. Ain’t gonna happen! Instead, we should say that if there are Black people out there who wish to move to our communities and are willing to assimilate to the values of our White communities and White culture – welcome to our city!
Robert Stark: Then you say that this will force the PC crowd into the dubious role of defending Black culture.
Robert Lindsay: Yes, because then they will say, “Oh! They only like White culture! Racists!” To that, we should respond, “We like White culture. We’re White, we like our culture. There’s good and bad about it, but we prefer our culture. And personally, we feel that a lot of Black people would be better off adopting White culture or assimilating to White culture than in getting into their own Black culture.” And then the PC crowd will scream, “They’re saying White culture is better than Black culture!” But your average person, especially your average White person, hears that and thinks, “Hm. You know what? White culture is better than Black culture!”
Robert Stark: The one point that we left out is to support the immigration of White Hispanics into the US. So, how is that really practical? You’re saying our immigration policy would have to explicitly address race, and do you think that would be practical?
Robert Lindsay: Well, White advocates are already saying that they only want White immigration coming into this country.
Robert Stark: What are the White advocates’ position on White Hispanics?
Robert Lindsay: They never discuss it. The only thing they say is that we will only accept immigration from Europe. And that’s never going to happen. We may as well branch out and say, “Well, we’d like the White Hispanics to come here.” Because then it would be a lot harder for the PC Left to accuse the White advocates of racism. “They hate Hispanics! They hate Hispanics!” And people would look at that and say, “Are you sure they’re racists? They don’t seem to mind the White Hispanics.” And then the PC Left will retort, “Sure! They like the White Hispanics, but they don’t like the non-White Hispanics!”
Robert Stark: They would still be able to play the race card, but it would cause division among Hispanics. It’s interesting, because on our last show, we were covering the Rick Sanchez incident. Rick Sanchez is basically White, but because his family is from Latin America, he takes this view that he’s somehow a minority, and it’s sort of our own fault, because in Latin America, the Whites down there in many cases are fairly racist against the non-Whites down there. But we classify everyone from the region as effectively non-White, i.e., Hispanic. It’s ridiculous.
Robert Lindsay: The White advocates in the US are almost all Nordicists. They don’t like the White Hispanics very much. They tend to label them as non-Whites. And the only Whites who they think are really White are from Northern Europe.
Robert Stark: Well, the first immigration act in the 1920’s was a Nordicist thing because it favored northwestern Europeans.
Robert Lindsay: It was, true. White racism in the US has always been Nordicist, but your average White person in this country is no longer a Nordicist.
Robert Stark: I think this Nordicism thing has pretty much died out…
Robert Lindsay: No, no, no…
Robert Stark: Because if you look at these pro-White forums, there are Italians, Greeks, or Eastern European descent, but you are personally into that Pan-Aryanism philosophy.
Robert Lindsay: It’s a good thing, Pan-Aryanism, because once you get into Pan-Aryanism, it gets harder and harder to call White advocates racists. Because the PC Left says, “Oh! They’re racist!” Sneer sneer. Then people say, “Hey, wait a minute. They like Moroccans, right?” Then the Left says, “Well, yeah, but they’re still racists!” Then people say, “Wait a minute. They like Syrians. They like Iraqis and Lebanese…” The Left says, “Doesn’t matter! They’re racists!” Sneer. Then people say, “Hey wait. But they like Turks. They like Armenians, Chechens, Iranians…”
Robert Stark: David Duke is into that Pan-Aryanism stuff, because he visited Syria and Iran, and he pointed out that he saw people who were so called Aryans when he was there.
Robert Lindsay: Well, we shouldn’t be saying that. We should instead be saying something like, “All Iranians are White.” We shouldn’t say, “Well, there’s a few of them who are real Aryans, but most aren’t.” Grumble grumble.
Robert Stark: All of them? Do you consider Ahmadinejad White?
Robert Lindsay: Yes! Absolutely. If you look at Iranians on a gene map, they’re right next to Norwegians, Danes and English. They’re White people! And if you look at them, they look White. The people I talk to are California racial liberals, but they almost all say, “Iranians? They’re White! They look like White people.” And if you talk to Iranians, they all claim White too. So this whole idea that Iranians are non-Whites is just kind of a fringe concept. It ain’t gonna fly.
Robert Stark: People assume that all Middle Easterners look alike, but there are some big distinctions. Someone from Saudi Arabia is completely distinct from someone from Lebanon.
Robert Lindsay: Well, yes, but I think Saudis are mostly White. Yet some of them, like Prince Bandar, he’s a pretty Black looking guy. Some of those Gulf types, they have so much Black in them that you can’t really call them White anymore.
One thing I wanted to go back and talk about on my list here. We need to get serious about throwing seriously disruptive students out of school.
Everybody wants to know, “What do we do about the schools?” For the whole White advocate crowd, and many ordinary Whites, the overarching racial question often is, “What about the schools?” The White advocates look at the mess in mixed schools and scream, “Re-segregate the schools! Black schools for Blacks! White schools for Whites! Get rid of Brown versus BOE!” Well, you know what? That ain’t gonna fly.
Robert Stark: I agree. The way you deal with these kinds of racial issues is you go around the race aspect by just dealing with people based on their behavior. And the anti-racist types, they’re still going to call you racist because they make excuses for bad behavior. But screw them. All we need to do is to say that students who are continuously disruptive should be send them to separate schools. And if they get their behavior under control, then they can go back to the regular schools. But it’s unfair for students who want to learn to have to put up with that crap.
Robert Lindsay: They’re destroying the schools. I hate to say it, but it’s especially true with the Blacks. There seems to be a tipping point of around 13% Black, and then things start going downhill. And just like Fred Reed said (I got this idea from him) when these Blacks start acting really bad, just throw them out! Throw them over to Psycho Kids Central High or wherever where they can screw off all they want. That is a completely reasonable position. Most people, especially most White people, would support it. I don’t know about Blacks, whether they will support it.
But once again, the PC crowd will be backed into a corner, and they will be forced to defend these students who act absolutely horrible, and just flat out destroy schools. They destroy Black schools, they destroy mixed schools, they destroy all kinds of schools. And in response to their charges of racism, we will say, “Well, it’s not just for Blacks. We will throw the bad Whites out. We’ll throw anybody out.”
Robert Stark: Yes, anyone. You can’t call it racist, because it’s a colorblind solution.
Robert Lindsay: And once again, we will force these PC characters to defend the worst acting, most horrible students in the whole country, total brats, that are destroying schools for everybody else. And that’s a terrible thing to defend. I want to see them defend that behavior. See, that’s a reasonable thing that’s actually doable. Getting rid of Brown versus BOE, getting rid of integration – those are not reasonable goals.
Robert Stark: Yes, these people, they’re just living in a fantasy. Like on immigration, they want to shut it all down, but in reality, we will be very lucky if we can even stop amnesty.
Robert Lindsay: Agreed. We probably can’t even stop amnesty. We can’t even throw these illegals out of here.
Robert Stark: Yes, we can’t even throw out the illegals.
Robert Lindsay: First things first.
Robert Stark: Practical solutions that are doable…
Robert Lindsay: I don’t think we can deal with legal immigration at all right now. First things first. First of all, we need to deal with illegal immigration, and we can’t even deal with that! These PC crazies want to legalize all the illegals, for Chrissake. Let’s deal with that first. Politics is the art of the possible. And these people, these White advocates, especially these White nationalists, they are advocating positions that are totally unreasonable. They are completely non-doable, fringe, ultra-radical positions. I doubt if these folks have the support of 5-10% of the population for these radical things that they want to do. And what’s the point of that? What’s the point of being a total loser? I don’t get it.
Robert Stark: Well, if you look at the new A3P Party, most of their platform is pretty reasonable stuff that sounds similar to the stuff that you’re advocating here.
Robert Lindsay: It’s a good idea! It’s a good idea to come across like a moderate. One of the goals of politics is to come across as reasonable and to force your opponent to take crazy positions and defend those crazy positions. Fine. Put crazy words in their mouth, and then make them defend them.
Robert Stark: These issues all tie together, but originally I intended to discuss California, and we still have a decent amount of time. To start off, we are both from California, and we are both originally from the LA area, and both of us have moved up to Central California. And Robert, can you tell us, what are the changes that you have seen throughout your life and that have happened to our state and what are some of the biggest and most negative changes that you have seen?
Robert Lindsay: Well, I’m not going to call for a return to White California. That’s an era that is done and gone. And I did not mind growing up in a multicultural California. When I was growing up in the 1970’s, California was about 70-80% White. It was 80% White in 1970, and it was 70% White in 1980. So it was about 75% White during that era. I spent most of my time in a White community, but I was totally comfortable with a California that was 25% non-White. That was normal to me, it felt good and OK.
I don’t have to live with all White people. We can have some non-Whites around. We grew up with the Mexicans. The Mexicans are a part of this state. They’ve been here from the very start. This state used to be a part of Mexico. The Mexicans – they’re part of the neighborhood!
Robert Stark: But the problem is the sheer numbers. Because the PC, Open Borders types try to say, “Oh, you hate Mexicans. You’re scared of Mexicans.” But most White Californians are pretty used to being around Mexicans. They’re part of the landscape. It’s not really an issue that they are here. Instead, it’s an issue of numbers.
Robert Lindsay: Yes, right. The Mexicans in this state assimilated really well back in the 1970’s. And now, there are a zillion of them, they’re not assimilating, and they’re causing tons of problems. And they were not causing tons of problems back in the 1970’s.
Robert Stark: You wrote that Mexican-Americans are assimilating into low class White culture.
Robert Lindsay: The assimilated Hispanics, the ones that are second and especially third generation, a lot of them are assimilating to a sort of a White trash culture. Like the lowest of the Whites, the worst of our people.
Robert Stark: I saw that a lot at the Wallmarts in Fresno. Not so much in LA.
Robert Lindsay: Yes, it’s not a good thing that a lot of them are assimilating to. One thing that I have noticed is that the Hispanics who have a deeper connection to Mexico – first generation immigrants and some of their children – now I don’t really like the illegals all that much, but we have a lot of them around here. But actually the ones that have a really deep and intense connection to Mexico, who are still into the Mexican culture, a lot of them tend to act pretty good. They have a tight-nit family structure.
Robert Stark: Yes, I noticed that when I was in a public high school in LA, the recent immigrants minded their own business, but there were others who emulated the whole gangta rap culture. They wore baggy jeans and listened to rap.
Robert Lindsay: Those are not the recent immigrants!
Robert Stark: Yes, the gangbanger types are children of illegals or in some cases, even grandchildren of illegals.
Robert Lindsay: Yes, they are the children of the illegals. And now we are getting into multigenerational gangbangers. But around here, the ones that are still deeply connected to Mexico, they generally act pretty good. They act like Mexicans, people from Mexico itself. They act like peasants.
If you go down to Mexico – I used to go down there 25-40 years ago – your average Mexican generally acts pretty good. They are conservative, traditional people, they have a very tight-knit family structure, and they keep a close watch on the girls. And for instance, the traditional Mexican girls, they don’t try to sleep with every guy in town. It’s dishonorable to be a slut or to be a prostitute and sell your body.
But I see these Mexican Americans who are assimilated, 3rd generation, and they start selling their bodies on the street and shooting heroin and just sleazing out to the max. And the ones around here that are deeply connected to Mexico, a good, proper Mexican girl, she won’t do that! To them, the worst thing on Earth is to be a whore. And, you know what? I’ve got to respect that. There is something valuable about that.
The family is often very protective of the girls. They have good, strong role models. The male has a strong role model. The female has a strong role model. The Mexican women are very feminine, they’re very nice to men, they’re very friendly. I don’t really have anything against the peasant culture of Old Mexico. There’s a lot to be said for peasant cultures. In many ways, they are good, traditional.
Robert Stark: You also said that you have seen the cultural decline of the White middle class. You wrote an article about that. Can you explain some of the things you have observed about the White middle class over time? They also seem to be assimilating into lower class culture and they seem to be getting less intellectual.
Robert Lindsay: Part of what is going on is the wiggerization of White people. Things are just getting a lot trashier. Back in 1970’s, White culture, if you had tattoos, you were considered to be a sleaze. Especially a woman, if a woman had tattoos…we knew women who had tattoos, and people hated them and treated them like they were whores. The only people who had tattoos were people like bikers or maybe Marines.
For a White middle class person, that would be considered a totally sleazy thing to do, to get a tattoo on your body. White people were supposed to be like these White bread, upper middle class, well-mannered types. Now, just about every White woman you see is decorated like a cannibal! They have all these piercings all over their bodies. I don’t want to put them down too much, but it seems sleazy to people from my generation. It seems as if there has been a trashification of our people.
Robert Stark: That sort of thing used to be seen only in lower class Whites, but now it’s seen in middle class people too. It’s due to the TV. People don’t value intellect so much anymore.
Robert Lindsay: Maybe, but White culture has always been anti-intellectual. You can go read Richard Hofstadter’s Anti-Intellectualism in American Life where all the way back in the 1950’s, he was talking about this sort of thing. I think that what’s going on is that White middle class people, especially young people, have decided it’s cool to look and act like a low class person.
Robert Stark: We have been talking a lot about race and demographics, but I would like to talk about the issue of the environment in this state and the over development and urban sprawl that the state has been seeing, and how both liberals and conservatives deal with this issue. It’s fascinating because liberals are promoting all this immigration, and business interests go along with them, but the conservatives – they’re apologists for this urban sprawl and this horrible overdevelopment.
Tom McClintock, who is this anti-immigration politician in the state…I knew this woman who was running for state assembly, and she was complaining about all of these tract homes going up in Ventura County, and his attitude was that they could do whatever they wanted to with their land. But I see that mentality as the same mentality as the people who are for Open Borders or defend job outsourcing. It’s really just as bad.
Robert Lindsay: Well, you see, he’s just a typical Republican. I don’t get the Republicans or the capitalists’ point of view. For instance, on housing, their POV is that…we have to keep on building houses? What? Forever? How long are we going to be building these units called “housing starts?” That can’t go on forever. We have to keep building new houses, new houses. And in order to keep building new homes, you need an increasing population. This is the whole growth-based economic mentality. And I don’t think it’s sustainable – endless growth forever. You can’t.
Robert Stark: So the immigration issue, it’s basically the same mentality. If you look at the places where the elites live like Marin Country or Malibu or Carmel, they’ve done a great job of conservation and low, sustainable growth with lots of open space there. They want to keep their own places beautiful. But if you look at the big money interests, they profit off an increasing population because that means more consumers. Some of these people are Democrats, some of them are Republicans, but it doesn’t matter. Instead, it’s just all about growth is good for making a profit.
Robert Lindsay: Endless growth. But isn’t that kind of crazy? Isn’t there ever going to get to be a point where people have enough money, and we don’t need to keep on growing forever? Apparently, you can’t have this endless growth without having endlessly increasing population. And more and more houses. And more and more cities. And more and more roads. And more and more everything.
Robert Stark: These neoliberal types, they say we need to keep bringing in more and more immigration as a way to grow our economy. It’s insane because it’s not sustainable, and you can’t have an economy that is based on that model.
Robert Lindsay: What’s going to happen? At some point, the whole world is going to look like New York City. What are we going to do? Are we going to start building cities on top of cities? Are we going to start building cities underground, or on top of the ocean, or under the ocean, or up in the sky? And this endless growth thing, it can’t possibly be an environmental position. If you’re an environmentalist, you can’t take this endless growth position. Why do we always need new houses in the US? I don’t understand why. Obviously because our population is growing, right? Are we going to start building second homes? Why does everyone need a second home? Do people need third houses? Do they need fourth houses?
Robert Stark: Or the size of the homes. They want these gigantic homes on one acre lots, and it’s wasteful of space. It’s not at all resourceful. And these same types – they claim to be fiscal conservatives and fiscally responsible. But this endless growth is not fiscally responsible because it’s very wasteful of natural resources.
Robert Lindsay: Those huge lots are not so great. It would almost be better to pack people into cities and then have big open spaces. But people like those big lots. I was living on a one acre lot up in the Sierra foothills. It’s not bad, there are still a lot of wild animals out there with 1-5 acre lots in the country, with those rural ranchettes.
Robert Stark: It’s fine if people have big lots up in rural areas or in nature, but the main problem is suburbia, which is a disaster.
Robert Lindsay: There are no living things anymore in suburbia. The only animals are the humans and their pets. There are a few animals that are adapting to suburbia – the raccoons, the skunks and the opossums. In some of the suburbs now, you have some coyotes.
Robert Stark: Thank you for being on, Robert.
Robert Lindsay: Sure.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Report on Al Quds Day Demo in London

This is a report from the progressive World People’s Resistance Movement (Britain) on the annual Al Quds Day demonstration in London. As you can see, it was a fairly secular affair, with little religious fundamentalism or anti-Semitism in evidence.

Lurid predictions of the march being dominated by overtly homophobic, anti-women and anti-Semitic groups like Hizb ut Tahir and Muslims Against the Crusades were proved false, as neither group had a visible presence. The Muslim Association of Britain, who were listed as one of the organizers, didn’t appear either, though even if they had, their presence (and even that of Hizb) would have proven little as both have been regular attenders at anti-war demos for years.

The demo was mainly (80%) Shia – not surprising as Khomeini initiated the idea 30 years ago. Hizbullah flags and Hamas flags were in evidence but – again contrary to the expectations of the demo’s critics, only two or three Iranian flags (there were actually more Lebanese flags). This is about the same as you would get at any anti-war demo.

There were a few people hawking pictures of Khomeini, and I saw a couple of people holding them but the chant “We are all Hezbollah” was eclipsed by the more secular “We are all Palestinians.” There was the occasional Allah Akbar, but most slogans were of the “Free free Palestine” variety.

As for the gender issue, I saw a number of Asian women not wearing any head covering (and plenty of white women too) and only two wearing the Niqab. I mention this only as a measure of fundamentalism or lack of. Men and women marched together, which is ironic given that I can remember being at various demos (gay rights, womens’ rights and anti-nuclear) in which there was a degree of segregation introduced by feminists.

One man leading the chanting with a megaphone was wearing a Rolling Stones tee-shirt – hardly Taliban material! And a woman who was wearing a headscarf wore a tee shirt with the slogan “Live to Love” on it; again probably not the sort of thing the moral police in Tehran would have liked!

As for anti-Semitism, there were more Jewish people on the Al Quds demo than on the pathetically small counter demonstration (about 30) which included fascists, Zionists and, sadly, the Iranian Green Movement.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

A Recent Comment on Human Genetics and Races

Here is a recent comment on the Peopling of India post by an Indian commenter. I will answer his questions later on in the post:

Please try to answer all of this long winded set of questions, thanks. Firstly, you seem interested in this topic and well educated on it say as much as me (love your theories they make sense based on my previous online research and discussion with other people of Indian and indo-Iranian+Near Eastern origin), in fact even more, but how are you valid, are you an anthropologist, scientist of some sort, or do you at least have sources (no offence)?

Can you pleases check out these genetic findings on this website: does this data not contradict yours? Is it valid?

Also Pakistanis are not genetically distinct, correct, and I heard Iranians, Indians, and All Aryan(Indo-Iranian) are closely related genetically as are all Aryans, including Europeans, is this true?

Dravidians are essentially just darker Mediterranean (a phenotype not really from the Mediterranean) Caucasians with a distinct language and culture?

Tribals seem like non-Caucasians that have adapted some local languages but kept their own.

So essentially you are saying Europe, the Middle East and Caucasus were likely inhabited by Australoids from East Africa who became Caucasians in India and outside of India?

So the Australoids would have been the first race to diverge off of Negroids, and if I am right, according to recent research, they would have mixed with Neanderthals who mixed with everyone who was not Negroid?

One more are, Veddoids, Tamils/Elamites, and Kalash intermediates or something else, and aren’t Nagas Mongoloid?

What are Andamans and Negritos racially?

Firstly, you seem interested in this topic and well educated on it say as much as me (love your theories they make sense based on my previous online research and discussion with other people of Indian and indo-Iranian+Near Eastern origin), in fact even more, but how are you valid, are you an anthropologist, scientist of some sort, or do you at least have sources (no offence)?

I am just a journalist who has researched the subject for a few years now. I have no formal credentials whatsoever.

Can you pleases check out these genetic findings on this website: does this data not contradict yours? Is it valid?

That data is very interesting. I think it claims that the Indians are very old and consist of two stocks, North Indian and South Indian. North going back 40,000 YBP and South going back 70,000 YBP. Problem is that if you go back that far, all Indians looked something like Aborigines. Indeed the Aborigines were partly created by an infusion of proto-South Indian stock (Carpenterians) 12,000 YBP went by boats to Australia.

Also Pakistanis are not genetically distinct, correct, and I heard Iranians, Indians, and All Aryan(Indo-Iranian) are closely related genetically as are all Aryans, including Europeans, is this true?

Pakistanis are pretty hard to tell apart from the rest of Indians, yes. But it does appear to be a separate small race amid the Indids.

All of the Indo-Aryans are indeed pretty closely related nowadays, even archaic types like Tamil types. The archaic types are so close to the rest probably through mass interbreeding. All people on the subcontinent are close genetically. The Iranians are fairly close to the Indians, but they are somewhat more distant. The Iranians are the link between the Europeans and the Indians via the Italians. It works like this:

Italians -> Iranians -> Indians

Groups separated by only one arrow are fairly closely related. By two arrows, not so close.

So you see the Iranians are the link between the Caucasians of the East and West.

All Europeans are not that closely related. The groups in the Caucasus are very distant from the rest, as are Turks, Russians, Jews, Orkney Islanders, Sardinians, Basques and Sami at the very least. At lesser distance, but still far from the rest are Yugoslavians and Greeks.

Dravidians are essentially just darker Mediterranean (a phenotype not really from the Mediterranean) Caucasians with a distinct language and culture?

No one knows what the Dravidians are. At the least they seem to be the basic cross between the ancient Australoids of India with the more modern Aryan types from the steppes in the north. There is also evidence of an infusion of ancient Caucasoid stock moving into India 12-17,000 YBP from the area between Lebanon and the coast of Iran. These people may have been related to the ancient Elamites, and Dravidian languages may be related to Elamite. Genetically, this stock looked like Arabs. So the Dravidians may be in part ancient proto-Arabs or proto-Iranians.

Tribals seem like non-Caucasians that have adapted some local languages but kept their own.

Tribals at this time are genetic Caucasians but have skulls that are Australoid.

So essentially you are saying Europe, the Middle East and Caucasus were likely inhabited by Australoids from East Africa who became Caucasians in India and outside of India?

No, it is not correct that Europe, Caucasus, and the Middle East were initially inhabited by Australoids. The Caucasus and the Middle East were originally inhabited by Africans. Europe was originally inhabited by proto-Caucasians, but they did not look much like White people. They may have still looked like East Africans or Masai. Later on, they looked a lot like Amerindians from the US Northwest.

The original Australoids did come out of East Africa as Africans, but they turned into Australoids. And the Australoids were the first race out of Africa, correct. The survivors of this first group are people like the Andaman Islanders and the Mani.

However, the Caucasian race has a different provenance. They came out of East Africa as Africans too, but more recently, only 42,000 YBP. So Caucasians are a more recent split from Blacks. The proto-Caucasian stock may have resembled the Masai, but no one really knows. They moved into the Middle East and then to the Caucasus and South Russia. There, they met with migrating proto-Chinese types (maybe resembling Ainu). From a mixture 2/3 Ainuid and 1/3 Masai type, the Caucasians were born. The Asiatic eyefold was somehow lost.

In Asia, the Australoids progress into modern Asiatics by evolution. The progression occurs first in NE Asia and later in SE Asia. Ancient SE Asians look like Melanesians.

So the Australoids would have been the first race to diverge off of Negroids, and if I am right, according to recent research, they would have mixed with Neanderthals who mixed with everyone who was not Negroid?

Yes, everyone outside of Africa mixed with Neandertals, maybe in the Middle East first, then later in Europe.

One more are, Veddoids, Tamils/Elamites, and Kalash intermediates or something else, and aren’t Nagas Mongoloid?

Kalash are a completely separate race of Caucasians. Caucasians are split into two races – Kalash and Non-Kalash.

Veddoids, Tamils, tribals, etc, are Caucasians by genes and Australoids by skulls.

Nagas, etc. in the Northeast are Mongoloids.

What are Andamans and Negritos racially?

Based on genes, I think that they are some sort of Asiatics. I do not know about the Andamans. The Andaman genes are very distinct, but how distinct I am not sure.

The Mani in Thailand have genes that look Thai.

The Aeta in the Philippines have genes that look Filipino.

Etc, etc.

However, if you do race by skull type, all Negritos are members of the Australoid race, as are Tamil types and others that look like Tamils in India.

Genetically, the Australoid Race only has Aborigines and Papuans in it.

By skulls, it consists of Ainus, Melanesians, Aborigines, Papuans, Negritos, Tamils, Veddoids, tribals and similar South Indian types and Fuegian Amerindians.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

What Is Pan-Aryanism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whites are:

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

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

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

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

What’s Going On In Iran? (With Emphasis on Iranian Nationalism and Iranian Secessionist Movements)

Repost from the old site.

Updated February 6, 2008:

Most people do not realize that the famed Shah of Iran was actually a blood and soil, Persian supremacist, ethnic nationalist, primordialist, volkisch, fascist along the same lines as Hitler’s Nazis and Milosevic’s Serbs. Yet it is true – in fact, the Shah even formed an alliance with Nazi Germany.

The Nazis attempted to form all sorts of alliances with people they mistakenly regarded as genetic inferiors – including Bosnian Muslims, Palestinian and Iraqi Arabs, Ukrainian, White Russian, Latvian, Lithuanian and Estonian rightwing nationalists, Iranians and some of the upper-caste peoples of East India.

The East Indians, of course, are part of the original Aryans – the light-skinned invaders who descended from the steppes into India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Afghanistan at various times in the past 3,500 years. In India, they displaced the native Indians – the Dravidians or South Indians – and pushed them to South.

They also twisted the Hindu religion by adding on their casteism, which was apparently not present in the original pre-Aryan system. Originally, in the caste system, those at the top were the lightest-skinned and the lowest castes tended to be the darkest. It is interesting that over thousands of years the Brahmins have become progressively darker.

The Nazis were fascinated that these Brahmins regarded themselves as fellow Aryans and even sent researchers over to India to measure skulls and analyze the facial characteristics of statues and engage in other peculiarities of Nazi racial research. The Brahmin class of India has always returned the favor and many have long been supporters of Hitler, Nazism and fascism in general.

The fascinating article linked above deals with something that is little known to most Americans – a neat summary of many of the views expressed by what are best termed Iranian nationalists. Americans have no understanding at all of this ancient, proud culture.

The piece notes the Western deceit that modern nationalism began with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1600’s Europe, when the principle of inviolable national borders was first codified. In fact, this is a Western narcissistic view. Other nations, in particular Persians and Iranians, have a long history of what could be called nationalism, depending on how one defines the term, dating back maybe 2500 years to Cyrus the Great.

US idiots like George Bush and the council of clueless super-Zionist advisors whispering in his ear provoke this ancient culture at their peril.

The piece goes on to discuss the Minorities Question in modern Iran. Most people do not recognize that Persian and Iranian are not synonymous. Persian is an ethnic group, but Persians only constitute 51% of all Iranians. Azerbaijanis are a huge group in the northwest, constituting 23%.

US imperialism and Kurdish nationalism make much of Azerbaijanis supposed desire to break away from Iran, but there is not much truth to that. Those who say such things do not understand history. It is true that there is an Azerbaijani minority that invokes irredentism and wishes to break away from Iran and reunite with “northern Azerbaijan”, the independent state of Azerbaijan.

But the majority of Azerbaijanis have no desire to do such a thing. People do not understand that despite the racist Persian ethnic nationalism of the Shah, Azerbaijanis have typically ruled Iran for many centuries now. In fact the Supreme Jurisprudent Ayatollah Khameini is an Azerbaijani.

The Sassanid Empire was one of the most prominent empires in the world from 200-600, a rival to the Roman Empire. This culture, to many, represents the pinnacle of Iran’s power in the world. Its religion was Zoroastrianism and it was characterized by great tolerance towards religious minorities, especially Christians and Jews.

The Sassanids were defeated in the mid-650’s by invading Arab Muslim armies, many Iranians were put to the sword, and many Iranian nationalists have resented the resulting forced imposition of Islam ever since. According to these nationalists, there is a difference between those societies where Islam was “native” – supposedly Arab societies, and those where it was imposed by force – supposedly all non-Arab countries.

This greatly simplifies matters, and in many ways is false. For instance, Islam has deep roots in the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Muslim India, Eastern China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkey, Albania, Kosova, Bosnia, the Caucasus and in Sub-Saharan Africa.

So the case of Iran is not generalizable. In most cases, where Islam conquered non-Arab lands, many of the natives converted and become passionate Muslims. In fact, some of the world’s most ferocious and fundamentalist Muslims have traditionally come from non-Arab lands like Afghanistan and Pakistan. But in Iran, something different happened: Islam ran up against Persian nationalism.

To understand the conflict between Iranian nationalism and Islam is essential to understanding modern Iranian culture. The Khomeinists have enraged Iranian nationalists by declaring wholesale war on Iranian nationalism. According to the mullahs, there is no need for Iranian nationalism since Islam supplants it. Iranian nationalists are often theologically diverse, secular, atheists, agnostics, or even Zoroastrians.

Even worse, the mullahs seem to have imposed a pro-Arabism on Iran. This is sure to infuriate Iranian nationalists. Iranian nationalists have always had a resentful and bigoted attitudes towards Arabs (and some towards Muslims – who they regard as having a barbaric Arab religion).

When you hear an Iranian nationalist hurl an insult like “lizard-eating Mohammadens”, this is the rage they are mining. It is the rage at a primitive culture of desert barbarian wanderers – so barbaric, in fact, that they “ate lizards” – that invaded the glorious, superior, Sassanid Zoroastrian Empire and destroyed it, supplanting it with inferior Arab Islamic culture and religion.

The mullahs have not only waged war on symbols of Iranian nationalism, but they have also tried to import Arab culture and language, much to the fury of Iranian nationalists. Since, to Islamic fundamentalists, Arabic is the language of Islam (a bigoted and irrational construct on its face), they tend to promote Arab culture and language over native culture and language.

This tends to produce friction between Islamic fundamentalists and non-Arab nationalists in the non-Arab parts of the Muslim World. For instance, it is often difficult to find a copy of the Koran in any language other than Arabic. And many non-Arab Muslims claim that Arabs, especially Gulf Arabs, look down on them and despise them when they go Mecca on hajj.

The Arab chauvinism in Islam has been a long-term hindrance to spread of the religion. Furthermore, for centuries after the conquest of Islam, the greatest Iranian poets, authors and scientists – beloved by all Iranian nationalists – were ordered to be killed by the fundamentalist Islamic morons ruling Islam at the time. Few of these heroes of Iranian culture were killed, but the fact that their deaths were even condoned stings.

It is important to note that Shia Islam was also imposed at the point of the sword sometime later and many Sunni Iranians were put to death.

The remains of this violent religious imposition can be seen today, when one notes that Sunni Islam (Iran is only about 75% Shia Muslim) continues to hold sway in the outliers of the Iranian state – in the desolate Balochi barrens of the southeast, in the northeast near Afghanistan, and in wild, mountainous Iranian Kurdistan in the northwest.

All of these parts of the Iranian state remain largely outside of the regime’s control, and Sunnis continue to complain, legitimately, of discrimination by Iranian Shia Muslims.

The rage between Iranians and Arabs is difficult for outsiders to fathom, but is essential to understanding the region. Sunni Islam is synonymous with Arab identity and nationalism, as Juan Cole astutely notes, in the same way that White Christianity is synonymous with American nationalism. Hence, the secularism of Arab nationalists has always been a bit of a lie.

The Arab masses and regimes are Sunni. Shia minorities have traditionally been suppressed in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and even in Lebanon. This is the root of the Sunni-Shia conflict that rages ferociously in Iraq today.

See here for a particularly bigoted and insane example of Sunni Iraqi bigotry from the interesting blog of a secular Iraqi woman. Note that she ridiculously claims that Shia Islam was invented by the Iranians to destroy the Sunni Islamic civilization of the Arabs.

I realize that sounds like the ravings of a mentally ill person, but this is how many Sunni Muslims, especially Sunni Arabs from Mesopotamia, the Gulf and the Levant, regard Iran and Shiism.

When we understand this sick, crazy, racist hatred, we can understand why Saddam attacked Iran, and why he was supported in that war by all of the states in the Arab peninsula. We can understand why the secular King of Jordan intones darkly about a “Shia Belt” snaking ominously from Iran, across Iraq, to Syria and Southern Lebanon under Hezbollah control.

We can understand the insane, Nazi-like massacres of crowds of Shia civilians – men, women and children of all ages – in Iraq by both the Sunni Islamist guerrilla animals and Saddam’s secular, Shia-hating fascist Arab nationalists. We can understand why the government of Yemen launched a murderous war on the Zaidi Shia of northern Yemen, who constitute 40% of Yemen but are locked out of the state.

We can understand why the Sunni Muslim states of the Gulf are supporting the preliminary plans for a US attack on Iran, and why these states and the Iraqi Sunni-Nazi rebels will stand up and cheer till they can’t talk if the US invades Iran. We can understand why the viciously racist Sunni Arab bigots of Iraq intone darkly, “We will never be ruled by the blackhats (the Shia)”.

While the Arab attitude towards Iran and the Shia has always been one of sheer, Nazi-like racist hatred, the Iranian attitude towards Arabs has tended to be one of the disdain of a supposedly superior people for a supposedly inferior one.

I have droned on enough on this subject, and we need to move on to the rest of the post. If you wish to dive into this fascinating matter further, click the link above and take a crash course in Iranian history, the minorities of Iran and modern-day Iranian nationalism. I hope you enjoyed this excursion.

April 7, 2006

Iranshahr, Sistan-Balochistan Province: Sunni Islamist guerrillas shot and seriously wounded Hojatoleslam Yusef Mohammadi Soleimani, a top cleric who represents Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the Centre for Higher Education here.

April 8, 2006

Iranshahr, Sistan-Balochistan Province: 6 armed Sunni Islamist guerrillas abducted Eshaq Nezamdoust, a local Iranian official who was in charge of distributing oil products here.

April 9, 2006

Iranshahr, Sistan-Balochistan Province: Sunni Islamist guerrillas shot dead 2 Iranian army officers here, Mostafa Ahmadi and Behzad Qolipour.

May 4, 2006

*****
Many of you are probably aware of the furor over Mahmud Ahmadinejad, the figurehead President of Iran, and his comments regarding Israel and the Holocaust. This much-distorted comments are grist for the propaganda for a campaign to get the US to wage a military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, primarily for the benefit of the Zionist state in Israel.

If the US won’t do it, “mad dog” Israel says, then Mad Dog Israel herself may be forced to take matters into her own hand. Ahmadinejad shoots off his mouth quite a bit and says some dumb things, but it’s important to note that he is just a figurehead with little power. Remember when reformist Khatami had the same office as Ahmadinejad, and all the Iran-haters said that Khatami had no power anyway?

Well, shoot, Ahmadinejad has the same power as Khatami. If Khatami had no power than Ahmadinejad also has no power, logically speaking. In Iran, the office of the President seems to be mainly utilized these days to vent off steam from the unhappy population, to give them somewhere to channel their dissatisfied energies.

Ahmadinejad’s comments in question concern his purported remarks to “wipe Israel off the map” and his Holocaust denial. First of all, let us note that Holocaust denial in various forms is not unusual at all amongst Arabs and Muslims, especially Islamists.

Furthermore, many misguided non-genocidal persons on both the Right and Left, are caught up in the nonsense of Holocaust Denial and Holocaust Revisionism. Lamentable as it is, it does not necessarily make one a new Hitler.

As far as Ahmadinejad’s comments to wipe Israel off the map, Juan Cole makes clear that he was apparently paraphrasing Khomeini’s remarks from 25 years ago, when the Ayatollah compared Israel to the Shah’s regime, and said in poetic Persian that “the Occupation regime over Jerusalem shall vanish with the page of time”. Cole is adamant that there is no killing of anyone, much less military action, implied in that remark.

Nevertheless, led by the Jewish Lobby and their Gentile fellow travelers on the Fox TV circuit, the US neoconservatives have been hammering out a devious propaganda campaign designed to paint Ahmadinejad, and Iranian Muslims in general, as insane suicidal maniacs out to finish the work that Hitler started.

The supposed evidence is the Holocaust revisionist remarks and the “wipe Israel off the Earth” remark, which Cole has convincingly demonstrated that it is being misquoted. Supposedly, Ahmadinejad is a member of a Shia mystical sect that believes that the 12th Mahdi, or hidden Mahdi, who supposedly vanished on the site of holy Shia mosque in Samarra that was recently detonated by Al Qaeda, is going to return soon.

This religious belief is roughly analogous to the Christian crazies who think that the “end times” are here and Jesus is coming back soon. The common thread in both loony beliefs is that the world is coming to an end. Because Ahmadinejad believes in this nonsense and supports suicide bombers fighting the Zionist regime in Israel, the Israeli Lobby paints him, and an entire nation of Shia Muslims, as suicidal nutcases.

They want to get a nuclear bomb in order to suicidally fire it at Israel, which in the process will destroy Iran with the inevitable US and Israel nuclear retaliation. Clearly, this is a serious question: Is Iran actually capable of such an insane act? We can’t afford to be wrong about our answer here. I have thought about this for months now, and I do not believe that Iran or its leaders are suicidally insane.

I realize there are ominous consequences if I am wrong, including the deaths of maybe 100,000 Israeli Jews. But I am willing to stick my neck out here, just for the sake of argument. I would also like to take this time to argue passionately against any kind of lunatic US or Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program, a disastrous idea with truly dangerous consequences.
******

May 13, 2006

****
Kerman Province, Between Kerman and Bam: Armed terrorists with the radical Sunni Islamist group Jundallah (Army of Allah) disguised themselves as cops and set up a roadblock on this highway deep inside Iran and stopped motorists and pulled them out of their vehicles. 11 males were lined up next to a ditch and executed. A 12th man was killed when another vehicle was sprayed with gunfire as it drove past.

A 12-year-old boy was wounded by gunfire, but instead of finishing him off, the terrorists strung him up on a power pylon. He survived, but was badly traumatized. Afterward, the terrorists fled into the Kofout Mountains southeast of Kerman.

The scene of the terrorist attack by Jundallah on the Kerman-Bam highway 130 miles from where Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran come together. Terrorists set up a fake roadblock and murdered 12 civilians in cold blood here.

The murders stunned the nation, which despite its “terrorist” reputation, is actually a very safe country for travelers. Jundallah has its origins in the Sunni population of the Iranian province of Sistan-Balochistan.

The Sunnis here complain of discrimination and ethnic cleansing by Iranian Shia officials, charges which have a basis in fact. There are suggestions that Jundallah may be based over the border in Afghanistan, possibly in the wild deserts of Nawruz Province. Clearly, Jundallah has a safe haven in the area where Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan all come together. This is one of the more dangerous places on Earth.

Travelers heading there are advised to take a bodyguard, or preferably several bodyguards. None of the three governments in the region have much control over this area. It is overrun with drug traffickers (usually smuggling heroin or opium), who travel in large, very heavily-armed convoys.

They periodically fight it out with Iranian troops. Iranian troops have lost an incredible figure of hundreds of troops in just a few years fighting running battles in this border region with drug traffickers. Jundallah has links to Al Qaeda. In March, they killed 22 people in Zahedan, a very wild and dangerous city located where Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran all come together. Last year, the group beheaded an Iranian security officer.

Iranian officials say that Jundallah is the arm of Al Qaeda inside Iran, and they say that Jundallah leader Abdolmalek Rigi is bin Laden’s right hand man in Iran. That is probably correct.
*****

May 15, 2006

Kerman Province: Iranian Basij and Revolutionary Guard paramilitaries tracked down and killed 10 terrorists who murdered 12 drivers in cold blood on the Kerman-Bam highway 130 miles from where Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran come together (see May 13 entry for details).

May 19, 2006
****
Syria: Syrian officials arrested dozens of leaders of the various Shia Arab Ahwaz fronts who are waging guerrilla war in Iran’s oil-rich Ahwaz Province. I cannot support this struggle, which is simply designed to steal much of Iran’s oil wealth. However, the Arabs in this region fought bravely in the Iran-Iraq War and suffered heavy casualties.

They complain that they do not see much of the oil wealth in this region. The area was heavily damaged in the war, and the Iranian government hasn’t even rebuilt it very much. The Arabs also complain of discrimination. There is some truth to all of this, but one of Iran’s top military leaders is an Ahwaz Arab.

If Iran had any sense, they would institute affirmative action to hire Ahwaz Arabs, rebuild the Ahwaz region and let the area see much more of their present share of the wealth. This conflict has always been fed by Arab nationalist fascists like the Baath fascists in Iraq, whose hatred of Iran borders on the insane and pathological.

Furthermore, in recent days, US and British Special Forces and intelligence are in the region assisting the insurgency. By arresting most of the top leaders of the insurgency, Syria is spitting in the eyes of Arab nationalist bigots all over the Arab World, and is throwing its lot in with Shia solidarity (Syria is ruled by a Shia sect) and Syria’s alliance with Iran.
*****

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

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 51% or Iran. Most would be surprised to learn that. The rest are Kurds, Azeris (27%), Arabs, Lurs, Mazandaris, Qashqai, Balochis, Gilakis, Turkmen and Talysh. There are also smaller groups such as Assyrians, Armenians, Georgians, Kazakhs, Chechens and Jews.

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.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20