Alt Left: The Relationship Between Feminism and Marxism and Between Marxism and Identity Politics

Rod Fleming: Hmmm…Gloria Steinem took most of her political thinking straight from Marx, and Steinem is at the root of modern feminism, along with Dworkin, another disgrace to the species and the most overtly sex-negative of the credible 20th-C authors. There were other prominent socialist thinkers than Marx who are also reflected in Steinem but the identitarianism inherent in modern feminism seems to come from Marx. We can argue as to whether their interpretation of Marx was accurate or not, but it’s clear that they are reflecting his influence.
Essentially, Marx depends on identities — proletariat, bourgeoisie –and identities are obviously the core of modern Identitarian or ‘Intersectional’ feminist thinking.
Marx, along with Engels and later Lenin, of course, was a Jew who had left Germany because of antisemitism (specifically, the problems over Jewish emancipation) there. I think it’s likely that the experience of actually being a scapegoat did have an influence on his thinking and the progress of Marxist political philosophy generally. It’s probably not possible to be a Jewish author and not think in identitarian terms, since it is impossible to think outside the Logos and the Jewish Logos is conceived on the notion of an essential and heritable Jewish identity that is independent of belief.
That is why atheist Jews are still Jews; being Jewish is not about theology but about an unimpeachable sense of identity that exists through blood. An interesting sidelight is found in the US, where people whose families, for generations, were born in the US and who are themselves indistinguishable from any other modern white American, still claim to be Scots, even though they would understand hardly a word of any Scottish dialect, archaic or modern and have not a scoobie about Scottish culture. I have never, ever, encountered a person of US birth who claimed to be English. Identitarianism is much deeper than one might think.
Whatever, identitarianism, repackaged by feminists as ‘intersectionality’ is the curse of modern life in the West.

Dworkin never talked much about Marx. She just talked about how much she hated men.  Radical feminists say they are Communists and they are, but they never talk political economics. All they ever talk about is how much they hate men. Incidentally, Socialist Feminists would have thrown Dworkin out of their movement for that because Socialist Feminists forbade feminists from hating men and said men and women workers had to struggle together against capitalism.
I haven’t the faintest idea if any of this is true. I have read quite a bit of those early feminists, and I rarely hear them quote Marx. I have read Steinem quite a bit, and I can’t remember her quoting Marx. More importantly, is Gloria Steinem a Marxist? Hell no.
Radical feminism came out of Marxism in a sense, but they substituted class struggle for the struggle between the sexes. Instead of proletariat and bourgeois, you have women and men, women as an oppressed class and men as an oppressor class.
The Socialist Feminists completely reject Radical Feminists on this question and accuse them of substituting class struggle with gender struggle. For Socialist Feminists, the primary struggle is a class one. Further, both Marxist and Socialist Feminists officially state that men and women workers need to work together to battle capitalism and establish a more just society, so neither wing is much into man-hating, although on the Western Left, you find an awful of lot of quoting of radical feminists. Radical feminism formed the theoretical base on the whole 2nd Wave and much of the 3rd Wave.
Marx was not an Identitarian at all. In fact, many socialists and Marxists have strongly opposed modern Identity Politics as basically bourgeois politics that does nothing but divide the working class. Many of the worst critics of IP have come out of the Left. They really hate dividing the working class into all of these micro-identities.
Marx never discussed IP in any form.
He barely talked about the Woman Question. Engels talked about it more.
Marx and Engels were both backwards on race, and neither liked homosexuals.
Both of them were rather socially conservative men by our standards.
Proletariat and bourgeois are not identities. Those are classes. Identities are generally things you are more or less born with – race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

Rod Fleming: –and identities are obviously the core of modern Identitarian or ‘Intersectional’ feminist thinking.

This is correct.

Rod Fleming: Marx, along with Engels and later Lenin, of course, was a Jew who had left Germany because of antisemitism (specifically, the problems over Jewish emancipation) there.

I don’t think so. Marx was an atheist Jew. In 1844, he wrote a tract called On the Jewish Question which bashed Judaism to Hell and back. It has been labeled an anti-Semitic tract forever now, but I don’t think it was. He didn’t like any religion and he hated Christianity and Islam just as much.
Marx left Germany because he was a journalist and editor of small newspapers and journals and a political organizer who founded some of the first Communist organizations in German or in Europe for that matter. These organizations were shut down and raided, and a number of their members were imprisoned. Marx fled political persecution and imprisonment to Paris and then to London.
I think it’s likely that the experience of actually being a scapegoat did have an influence on his thinking and the progress of Marxist political philosophy generally.
Except that to my knowledge, Marx never experienced much anti-Semitism. As an atheist Jew, Marx had all but left the Jews. Marx also called for the assimilation of the Jews, and many Jews consider that to be antisemitic. There was a not a huge amount of anti-Semitism even in Germany in the 1840’s and 1850’s. People were too busy worrying about other things. Germanic, especially Austrian, antisemitism really took off in the late 1800’s when racial antisemitism first got started with Mars and the rest. Mars founded the first Anti-Semitic League in Germany in ~1880. However, by that time, he had already married and divorced three different Jewish women. Perhaps this is why he turned anti-Semite? Just kidding.

Rod Fleming: It’s probably not possible to be a Jewish author and not think in identitarian terms,

This is probably true but no one gets more outside of the Jews than Jewish Marxists, and no Jews have criticized the Jews as strongly as the Marxist Jews. They are widely considered to be self-haters. For instance, Trotsky, when asked if he were Jewish, described his nationality as “working class.”

When Victims Rule: The History of the Jews

Ha. Jews don’t play victims. This is truth. Take it as fact. Jews ARE victims.

I know Jews and they are great. I’ve had sex with many Jewish people and I know for certain what they are like.

Yeah. Me too. I had a Jewish girlfriend for 6 1/2 years. She agrees with me 100% about Jews too. Many of my parents’ best friends were Jews, so I grew up around these people all my life.
And I will grant you that Jewish women are good fucks. They just don’t have that Catholic/Christian hangup about sex unless they are Orthodox, in which case their hangups are worse than Catholics/Christians. Assuming that the author means Jewish women when he said Jewish people? Yikes. I wish I could report whether Jewish men are good fucks, but I have no data. Maybe when I come back as gay in a future lifetime I will be able to give you a report.
Jews have twice the per capita income of White Gentiles. Jews are victims!
Jews, 2% of the population, have 28% of the income. Jews are victims!
Jews run Hollywood, the fur and diamond trades, and dominate retail trade, the media and finance banking. Jews are central to Wall Street. 45% of professors at top Ivy League universities are Jewish. Jews are victims!
Jews, 2% of the US, are vastly overrepresented on the Supreme Court and in the House and Senate. 60% of Cinton’s Cabinet was Jewish. Jews are victims!
There’s almost no accepted anti-Semitism in the US and it’s absent from mainstream culture and polite society. No country has ever been friendlier to the Jews. Instead of antisemitism, Americans suffer from Judeophilia, which is about as crazy though not as evil, but is nevertheless very dangerous (see 9-11 attack). Jews are victims!
Jews called neoconservatives run our foreign policy in the Middle East and in other places. Israel is the 51st state or maybe the only state in the US. Jews are victims!
Jews have the fourth largest military on Earth and for all intents and purposes cannot be attacked, invaded or defeated. Jews are victims!
Instead, Jews are an imperial power that dominates, controls and oppresses all of its neighbors, occasionally attacking them, killing their soldiers and government officials, flying over their countries, bombing their countries. It has stolen land from all of its neighbors, so it is also a major colonial power in the Middle East. They have settled many of these lands stolen in Nazi like wars of aggression, so that makes them one of the last settler-colonial states too. They came into the neighborhood and immediately declared war against all of their neighbors and many other nations too and it’s been like that ever since. Jews are victims!
Granted Jews have suffered and been victimized tremendously in the past and in some places, this goes on even today (see France). However, they are not victims anymore. Instead, they are rulers. They rule over the rest of us. Or it is a case of “when victims rule” which more or less sums up the history of the Jews for a long time now.
Whatever you want to say about Jews here in the US, and you can validly say many things about them good and bad, they’re certainly not victims. The very idea that they are at all is comical.
But boy, Jews sure love that victimhood, don’t they? I knew a guy, an older man, who was a critical Jew. One time he said,

Don’t ever try to take away the victim status from a Jew. Nothing is more important to the Jew than his vicitmhood. Most Jews would nearly kill to keep their victimhood status. It’s that important.

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.

Israel: Journey to the End of the Night

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

The Strange Links Between Antisemites and Rightwing Zionists

Israel actually gets a lot of support from out and out fascists, including some anti-Semites and people with Nazi links. I know that Richard Spencer has praised Israel as a model for the racist Whites-only state he wants to create. Kevin MacDonald has also written a nice article on Israel as a model. Israel is indeed a model for anyone wanting to create a racist ethnic nationalist state. There’s not a lot of difference between a racist Jews-only state and a racist Whites-only state.
In this fascinating piece Judith Mirville discovers many more fascinating links between these two most unlikely allies.
I will tell you why fanatical antisemites and Protocol-centric conspiracy theorists love Trump, the arch-neocon, the Jewiest among the Noahides: there is no incompatibility at all between being a Nazi White Aryan supremacist and an ultra-Zionist, no matter if you are a Likud car-carrying member Jew or a Jew-outjewing gentile neocon.
You must first realize that first White supremacist theories sold to the Western World, especially most of the Anglo-Saxon ones, were pro-Jewish and justified themselves of Biblical Jewish origin: the most fanatical branch even claimed of descending, as all true White Anglo-Saxons, from the Biblical tribes of Judah and Israel. That form of racism which is responsible for the dehumanization of Irish, then of Negroes, then of Amerindians, then of East Indians, existed long before the more publicized one born in Central Europe and Germanic countries justifying itself of the Vedas, of the recent discovery of Sanskrit, and of the Aryan invasion theory of India and of Europe.
British Anglo-Saxons in India snub natives and see themselves as Jews or would-be Jews having conquered yet another non-Biblical people – they would dominate it as true Veda-perfect Aryans of the kind there no longer was in India due to caste miscegenation only later on, and even then this was only ideological enrichment, not reconversion: most of the first White Indo-Aryan supremacy theorists postulated that the authors of the Vedas and of the Jewish sacred scriptures were the same people as they pushed for invasion of heathen lands. O
ne very popular exponent of such a synthesis was Edouard Schuré, in his 1900-published semi-doc book The Great Initiates. The over the top rabid antisemitism of the Nazi party was a departure from, not a continuation of, the racist mainstream; actually it is rather the result of a late hurried electorally-tailored compromise of that ultra-right-wing party with the Austrian antisemitism of leaders such as Lueger who were clearly of the non-Marxist Left, not of the racist right, witness the fact the latter (and not the Marxist) had pushed for the most advanced social measures that were still being passed at municipal level in Vienna and around.
Rabid antisemitism was the original Left ingredient put in the Nazi witches’ pot so as to seduce working masses into fighting with their own bosses against the Reds (and their own interests), and most bourgeois German Jews laughed of such a feat of cunning on Hitler’s part. To get an idea of that little-mentioned fact, read the book or view the film The Serpent’s Egg.
Antisemitism has always been recuperated, not begotten, by the economic Right: I wouldn’t go as far as to say that antisemitism is a left-wing position, but it is not one of the Right neither, it is one that positions on the third axis of multi-factor analysis of the political spectrum.
The first factor in factorial explanation power as an eigenvalue is always, be the right-left one, i.e. whether you identify with the common man and with the victims or with the privileged and the conquerors to define yourself, and whether you identify with more general or particular interests — even most of the American Left actually classifies as more right-wing than the rest according to that definition with all shades of pink in between.
The second is authoritarian versus freedom-loving — the term Libertarian is now unusable for that meaning since most American so-called Libertarians are authoritarian personalities among other detestable traits. The third factor in factorial explanation power as an eigenvalue is localist (not nationalistic – it can be village-centred Sicilian Mafia or Basque anarchistic) versus globalist (not necessarily present-day globalist ideology, it can also be Marxist International or in favour of big social nation-states aiming at global reach) with all intermediate shades: Jews are globalist on that axis as we may expect, but nothing prevents a globalist from having right-wing egotistical and authoritarian personality.
There is even less incompatibility between a Nazi-like antisemite and a perfect Adelson twin brother neocon like Trump in that most Nazi-like antisemites in the US exist thanks to the Zionist establishment as a social management tool, not as an indigenous formation. The KKK, despite a few lone wolves like D Duke, has always been pro-Jewish in theory and favoured by Southern Jews against the Blacks, as has always been the Southern antebellum paradigm, not counting the fact it is anti-Catholic and anti-Irish Presbyterian Scottish by mystical reference and therefore Biblical-Zionist as regards magical rituals.
They are traditionally and most spectacularly used for Jewish-solidarity enhancing false flags, and they are also used by Jewish bosses to destroy worker solidarity so as to turn workers’ interest issues into racial ones.
The Great Divide in the US, apart from the class and left-right divide which has always been the first in importance everywhere except in the virtual media world of a few very maligned countries, has always been White (or better said general privileged newcomer)/Amerindian/Black, since the country was founded by the act of killing Indians to make room for Negro or Irish slave plantations. There are the conquering ones (the Whites), the ones targeted for elimination (the Indians), and the imported slaves (the Blacks), or if you will the superiors, the rebellious inferiors (the Indians), and the exploitable inferiors (the Blacks).
The superiors in America by tradition either are Jews, as was the case with the Southern plantation system where they were both the international traders in cotton and the educated professional elite, or fancy themselves as Biblical Jews of a more perfected kind. Antisemitism in the US only aims at renegade Jews, particularly those who harbour universalistic ideas or tendencies, which good Jews should never entertain under the pain of losing their status as such.
All antisemites in the US go to great lengths to explain that the only Jews they inveigh against are false Jews like Eastern European Khazarians. This is a very stupid position, by the way, as the most rabidly supremacist Jews are traditionally the Sephardics and Mizrachis ones, especially those of recent North African origin. Contrary to East European ones, they were never subject to left-wing ideas, and they were always proud to be concentrated in parasitical, predatory sectors of activity and of having participated in various slave trades.
On their own side, Jews have been most of the times White or pro-White racists of the grandest kind. Some say that Talmud-based Orthodox Judaism postulates that only Jews are actual real humans. That is not accurate or rather true by odor only.
The traditional (and most widespread among North African Orthodox Jews (whom I know well) position is that most bipeds now peopling Earth not being humans but animals or rather natural-born biological robots in apparent human form, only a minority of those bipeds being descendants of Biblical Adam and deserving the title of human.
There had been humanoids for hundreds of centuries before as modern archeology indicates, but humans as such existed only from the date Biblical fundamentalists agree upon to have been the beginning of the Jewish era. That is the way these Jews have always managed to conciliate Biblical literalism and archeological data.
Sub-Saharan Blacks are clearly non-humans according to their view – they are not even simian but reptilian by nature, and their erstwhile most cunning leader was none other than the great Tempter of Eve mentioned in Genesis. Not all humans are Jews according to that view, but the first human, Adam, was intended to be a Jew and to breed the rest of humanity as a Jews.
Non-Jewish humans, who would spontaneously serve the Jews by their own nature, were to be sired by Jewish lovers of non-human females, hence the fact that having a Jewish mother, not merely a father, makes one a Jew by default (a non-Jew can also desire to be a Jew or have a Jewish soul giving all the powers of a Jew).
A Jew is defined as some human having been promised by his creator the reversal of the one big punishment for the Fall which was the loss of the power of human speech to force obedience upon all animals, non-human humanoids, and even inert mineral beings and elements such as wind and clouds as by robots. By obeying the Law in a letter-perfect way, a Jew is supposed to recover the dictatorial power of his word over everybody and everything else. That is the only point for those North Africans in being Jewish.
Manifestly obeying the Law doesn’t make most of these Ultra-Orthodox Jews into people capable of granting all their wishes by merely uttering orders to every non-Jew and non-human being around. Many nevertheless try as if the thing were just normal. Don’t be surprised when so many of them speak to you as if you were their butler. They conclude that something is missing in their obedience to the Law that is the aspect of the Law for initiates only, that deals with magic: the Kabbalah.
North-African Jews believe in Judaism as being ideally the supreme form of witchcraft – their thing is not a religion in the common sense. The North African Jews believe they are the only true Whites. Adam was the first White who appeared; other humanoids were coloured of various hues. The ancient Jews were nearly as white as milk, the other peoples of the Earth are White inasmuch as there is a greater percentage of Jewish blood running in their veins, that is to say a greater percentage of Jewish males having originally sired them.
The reason why nowadays the best Jews are not so white is of course the partial degeneracy caused by their disobedience and lack of hard work in recuperating their magical powers as described by the Kabbalah. In addition, many North African Jewish groups and tribes are originally converts, not Hebrews, who are growing Whiter and Whiter with the generations passing as they manifest their virtues and powers.
People who betray their Jewishness or Whiteness cease to be Jews and Whites, and sometimes their skin darkens pretty fast, as is said was the case with Ham, the father of Ethiopians (not all Blacks – most of them not being human at all), but in general that result is achieved by encouraging those fallen ex-Whites or ex-Jews to breed with darker non-humans.
I for one see no incompatibility between Nazi-like antisemitism and Jewish supremacism, they actually strive to promote exactly the same people as they define them and to discriminate against the same people. It is two darshanas, two side-views of a same doctrine, and both fit in marvellously in greater caste-extolling Hinduism.

Congressmen Push for 20 Years in Prison for Any US Citizen Who Even Supports a Boycott of Israel

Look up at that headline. I can’t even believe I wrote that. How could this even be happening in the land of the free (sic)?
Senators of both the Republican and Democratic Party incredibly are introducing a new law that would make it a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison for any US citizen to even support boycotts of Israel.

It was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC].

Well of course. One of most evil PAC’s in America would obviously be behind one of the worst criminal justice bills in memory. It’s already illegal, incredibly enough, for any business in the Unites States to boycott Israel for any reason. Heavy fines are laid out on a regular basis.
Even requesting information about boycotts of Israel would carry up to $250,000 civil fines and up to 20 years in prison and $1 million in fines. Unbelievable.

If passed, this tyrannical bipartisan bill would blatantly violate the constitutional rights of every United States citizen by punishing individuals based on nothing but their political opinions and decisions as consumers.
There is no coming back from that.

No shit.
A man who has now anointed himself king named King Donald is already tearing up the Constitution and getting ready to declare himself Dictator for Life, and the 40% of America that are now open traitors (also called Republicans) are backing this project by a percentage of 85%.
This is where democracies go to die.
Not that we ever had one anyway, but we came close there for a while.
Republicans obviously all hate democracy, as democracy is the direct antithesis of the aristocratic hierarchical oligarchic rule (not much different from royalism) that they all support.
Conservatives hate democracy because conservatism itself, otherwise known as aristocratic rule, is the complete opposite of democracy. Democracy and conservatism (aristocratic rule) can only be enemies forever. Well of course the Rich hate democracy.  Democracy hates the rich. You would think the feeling would be mutual. And of course their foolish, masochistic supporters who are middle class and below are Stockholmers. They’re literally worshiping their class enemies, the very aristocrats who oppress them.  It’s nuts, like the serfs worshiping their lords. Wait, that’s what it actually is. Why not just take some broken glass and cut up your arm? At least you would be a faddist then.
As if Republicans who are currently driving a stake through the heart of democracy for good now to fulfill their lifelong dreams were not enough, we also have to deal with (((certain people))). It’s obvious (((which people))) are behind this diabolical bill. Ahem. (((Those people.))) I’ve got some news for you. (((Those people))) hate democracy too. (((The Chosen))) are literally aristocrats by dint of God’s golden touch alone. How can a (((people))) obviously superior on every level to everyone else support any sort of democracy? It’s not even possible.
These (((people))) have a naturally totalitarian style. Kevin MacDonald makes this clear in his essays and books, and that for that crime, (((certain people))) launched a years-long totalitarian campaign at my alma mater to get him fired for the profound crime of telling the truth. Totalitarian people are allergic to the truth. Truth and totalitarianism are like oil and water. They don’t mix. Hell, they won’t even be in the same room with each other.
(((These people))) have always lived under totalitarian rule the whole time, hundreds or thousands of years, when they lived under the dictatorship of the rabbis. The community would decide on a party line, and the dissenters would be fiercely pummeled over time to the point where the whole community was united on any cause they get behind. Dissenters were treated as aliens and worse as traitors to their own people.
This lasted even after the ghettos were liberated starting with Napoleon. This sort of rabbinical totalitarian rule where the community had to speak with a united voice on issues of great importance continued in the shtetls of Eastern Europe all through the 18th Century. In this sense, the people who were liberated from their ghettos promptly went and created new ghettos called shtetls. And they have now created the biggest and worst ghetto ever. It’s called Israel. The ghettos are portrayed as a bad thing, but (((these people))) often love living in the ghettos. In many cases, (((they))) built them themselves. They were very useful in preventing the worst enemy of (((their people))), assimilation.
Israel is anything but a free country. It’s as free as the Apartheid South Africa which it is modeled on. Israel can never be democratic due to the nature of the (((naturally totalitarian people))) who reside there.
We are digging our own grave. Having (((these people))) in your country is one thing, but once you let (((them))) take over like this idiot country has done, you can just kiss your nation, your country, your democracy, the whole ball of wax, goodbye. (((They’ve))) been thrown out of most countries (((they))) ever lived in. You think that was a coincidence? You know why? Because of crap like this. They kept pulling crap like this, and finally the rest of the people had it up to here with them, and they booted them out the door.
Letting (((these people))) run our country is a suicide pact of the worst order for the rest of us or for any Gentile people. It is folly of the worst order, and dangerous folly at that.
What are we are thinking?

Mill, Friedman, Hobbes and the Jews

Latest from Judith Mirville. She is pretty hard to understand, but I can generally understand what she is talking about if I sit back and think about it a bit. She really pushes my brain to its limits, and I love that.

You, Robert, think that with Jewish Libertarians, America has reached the very bottom of the pit : No, you are dead wrong, Libertarians are just at Ground Zero.

Political attitudes can be dispatched among not two but three main categories in a surprising neat way:

Some take pretext of the pursuit of the common good or some form of abstract general good to justify their existence. That is the case with most brands of socialism and also of advanced liberalism such as John Stuart Mill’s. Some Jews, actually a great plurarity of the most vocal ones, not only identify with that attitude but go as far as to define the whole Jewish phenomenon as a kind of vanguard of Humanity’s long march towards a better future.

Some others take pretext of the pursuit of their own personal good only together with that of a certain limited group they identify with as necessary allies as the motivation for their existence at the expense of any others it maybe necessary to destroy or exploit for the advancement of one’s personal good without any concern for any kind of common good in the belief that either such a common good doesn’t exist (as Margaret Thatcher loved to state) or that it will care for itself all the better that way.

In this way the greatest common good cannot but result from the unleashing of as many combined egoisms as possible as the Philosophers of 18th Enlightenment Movement loved to state or more recently Milton Friedman.

Some other Jews that have been more conspicuous as cult figures so as to occupy the limelight identify their Jewishness strongly with that attitude, and may go as far as to define the Jewish condition as the the entitlement to use others and the whole world for one’s own personal good.

The debate seems to have happened only between these two categories, the Left and the Right, and more and more to the advantage of the egoistical Right with the years passing in America, against the backdrop of an external world that is just getting more and more fed up with such a superpower caring only for itself and its holy place Israel.

But this is leaving a third term out of the equation: many other people, far more numerous than we think, vie for the destruction of others and the pursuit of the degradation of their surrounding world as the one sole proof of their worth in their own eyes, of having any worth as human beings, of their very being alive.

They will pursue the defeat of others even at the expense of their own victory; they will kill and make suffer even if it might mean more misery or sure death for themselves, confident as they are that such an attitude guarantees the best survival rate by the very sexual pleasure of crushing as much other beings “for the hell of it”, and makes one capable of developing occult powers stronger than the physical law themselves.

They pursue no common good since they believe the Universe is perfect as it is as the battleground of the war of every being against all other beings for the absolute power of life and death over all other beings, a living being being nothing else than a spark of will to destroy other beings to put forth its own genes.

Such people believe that the greater good, or better said God’s work creating new forms of life through the agency of warring genes, will result from the synthesis of all malevolences of everyone against everyone and especially against the deserters of the grand game of life, the prideful and deluded socialists that hope for another better universe and the lazy and lustful libertarians that think the universe to be a hotel they are entitled to.

This attitude is prevalent in many cultures.

It is prevalent as a rule among Blacks, who seem to be biologically programmed to behave that way or at least to be governed by such an elite of Butt Naked and Idi Amins to the point they will respect none other.

It is also prevalent in India especially within the framework of the Shaivite religion that is very coincidental in its formulation with the theses of sociobiology and see in God none other principle than of ruthlessness of everyone against his neighbor as the sole guarantee the cosmic order will work.

But the primitive Jewish religion (not the Talmud, which many consider decadent as it is too heavily influenced by Greek philosophy and Roman law and Boy Scout style do-gooder attitudes more generally tempered by just a little dosage of egoism and tribal indifference for the outsiders) had and still has the best, simplest and most mathematical formulation ever, which is to be found among Jewish vitalists within the fold of psychoanalysis and sexual liberation based on the unleashing of instincts.

Iraqi MP Breaks Down in Tears Pleading Parliament to Save Yazidis from Genocide
A true genocide is taking place near Sinjar, Iraq. ISIS conquered the town of Sinjar, home to many Yezidis. Most of them fled, but some were captured by ISIS. 1,500 men were executed in front of their families. The women and children were then sold into slavery. Many of the purchasers were ISIS fighters and presumably the women are to be some sort of sex slaves or possibly wives of the fighters. The problem is that in Yezidism, the penalty for marrying or even dating outside the religion is death by stoning (warning: very graphic video at the link). These poor women are truly stuck between a rock and a hard place.
The Yezidis say they are Muslims, and I do believe that Yezidism can be seen as a highly aberrant form of Shia Islam similar to Alevism, Alawism, and Druze, if Druze can be seen as Islam at all. Yezidism also incorporates from Judaism, Christianity (especially Nestorian Orthodox Christianity) and even Zoroastrianism. At base, it appears to be a split from the original Zoroastrianism or perhaps even a precursor to that religion. Ultimately, Yezidism is a tribal religion of Iran. It may be one of the oldest religions on Earth, with forms of it dating back possibly as long as 8-10,000 YBP.
Local Arab Muslims say that the Yezidis are devil worshippers and they are widely condemned for this. ISIS calls them apostates for leaving Islam, but they were never really a part of formal Islam anyway. Yezidis however did become part of the Islamic religion around the year 1200 following a Shia Sufi prophet-type figure. Perhaps you could argue that they are heretics, but apostasy does not seem to be a correct analogy.
A good overview of the Yezidi religion is here.
Whether or not the Yezidis worship the Devil is an open question. If you ask your average Yezidi, they will insist that they do not worship the Devil. In fact, they are not even allowed to say his name. However, the religion is extremely complex, and my analysis indicated that Yezidis do indeed worship the Devil, but in their theology, the Devil is the good guy, not the bad guy. He represents good and he does only good things, and he spends all his time fighting evil. So the Devil in Yezidi theology is akin to Jesus in Christianity. The  Yezidis certainly do not worship evil in any form. Instead they worship good and hate evil, like most formal religions.

Pakistan Is Israel

Yeah, Muslims are hypocrites. No kidding. Muslims are about the biggest hypocrites of all. I think they way worse hypocrites than Jews actually. Jews actually have a certain sense of universalism and wanting to take the high road.
Of course, Judaism as a religion is as shitty as any other religion. I think it might be one of the worst religions of them all.
Judaism is based on double standards. It’s right there in the Talmud, on every single page. There are two sets of rules, one set of rules for the Jews, the Chosen People, and another set of rules for the goyim. Everything a deeply religious Jew does is based on this system of dual morality.
Islam isn’t much better in this regard, in fact, I think it is even worse.
Two sets of rules, right? One set of rules for the Muslims and another set of rules for infidels living under Muslim rule, no?
Infidels living under Muslim rule are the victims of dual morality the same the goyish victims of Jewish scoundrels are are.
The more you think about it, these two religions are very similar.
They are both ancient tribal religions that starkly split the world into the Elect, the believers or Chosen versus the Forsaken, the goys or infidels. The only difference is that Jews treat the goys around them a lot better than Muslims treat the infidels among them.
And Judaism isn’t about taking over the world. All they want is a piece of a sandbox in the middle of the desert. The Muslims want it all, global conquest. Scary people.

The Moshe Feiglin Plan for Gaza

Scary stuff.
This guy is the head of the major faction of the ruling party, the Likud. Most people do not realize it, but the Likud really is a hard rightwing party. It is nothing more than far right fascist political party, and it always has been. The roots of the party are in man named Jabotinsky, who wrote what amounts to the ultimate Likud party statement in 1921 (The Iron Wall) that has governed their philosophy ever since.
Feiglin is considered one of the real hotheads of the rightwing of this rightwing party. Some of his party is embarrassed by him. The Israeli Left hates him. While Netanyahu is a “shadow fascist” (does not display overt fascism), Feiglin is the real deal, a hardcore, hardline ultranationalist fascist of the 1930’s type. He even admires Hitler (as many fascist Zionists did) except for the Jew-killing part of course. These fascists have more in common than you think. A Nazi and a Jabotinsky Zionist might be able to get along just fine as long as they agreed to separate homelands.
Feiglin has also made some very ugly statements about Arabs.
He has made some anti-gay statements, but lately he is sucking up to the increasingly powerful Israeli Gay Lobby.
Feiglin of course is an Orthodox Jew. I honestly think he could get along with Hamas. Hamas are Muslim fundamentalists, and Feiglin is an Orthodox Jew. One’s as religious as the other. I think on some level they respect each other as deeply religious persons. And I have always felt that the real enemies of both the Muslim and Jewish fundamentalists were their secular brethren.
Seizing Gaza and throwing out the Arabs would be nothing new. The Jews have been doing this in Palestine since 1932. It really accelerated from 1947-1949 and then again in 1967. Every month of the year, Israel steals more land and throws more Palestinians off their land. It’s as regular as clockwork. Zionism is a settler-colonial project that is still in its active settler-colonial phase. Think the US before 1890.
Steal more land!
What’s scary is that this nut is really in the Israeli mainstream now. Israel internal politics have become quite frightening in recent years. How much further to the right can they go?

On Dhimmitude and the Zakat

From here:

squeezethejuice (Muslim): There is nothing wrong or immoral with Jizya, b/c those paying also get benefits that even we Muslims are not entitled to. And should always be comparable in amount to the amount of zakat that Muslims are expected to donate; same order of magnitude. Among the benefits, for example, they are exempt from joining the Muslim army and potentially fighting defensive wars against their own Christian or Jewish brethren, even those who have committed acts of violence against innocent Muslims.
What ISIS and the others don’t understand about Jizya is that we Muslims are bound to offer security & protection to those paying it, i.e. no threats or anything.
And there are more ways to pay Jizya than just money. While the Jews are rich and will never be in this situation, poor Christians can offer their young daughters in marriage to Muslims, and of course we should consider their Jizya paid for the next 5 years if they have done so.
Angemon (non-Muslim): Zakat is 2.5% of the yearly income, jizya has always been crushingly heavy with the intent of humiliating non-Muslims. Those two taxes are not “comparable” or in the “same order of magnitude”, and historically the jizya was collected through force, mafia style – it’s no coincidence that the term “mafia” comes from the Arabic and originated in a region who was once under Islamic rule.
And it’s not that non-Muslims were exempt from joining the Muslim army – the Janissaries were originally non-Muslims abducted from their families – because they had a special status. It’s that Muslims were too afraid of letting non-Muslim owning weapons (for fearing a rebellion) or letting them fight (especially when Muslims were fighting against he native trying to get their land back).
Think about it: if non-Muslims were paying the same amount of tax as Muslims and not being drafted to the army them human nature would cause Muslims to convert out of Islam and not the other way around. When Muslim conquered a new land they were in minority so they couldn’t risk letting the conquered getting their hands on weapons and starting a rebellion.
And can you imagine a Muslim leader, indoctrinated to believe that Jews and Christians are always scheming against Muslims, let’s say, Christians from a land he just conquered to fight against Christians who were trying to drive the Muslims out of their lands? Why would Christians being forced into battle against their own people side with the Muslims? No, non-Muslims were forbidden from owning weapons and fighting because Muslims feared for their safety. Would they need to fear for their safety if they treated non-Muslims fairly?
Even if we were to overlook the jizya, there are plenty of degrading conditions in the pact of Umar that make it quite clear that non-Muslims in a Muslim state don’t have the same rights as Muslims. Heck, let’s let Abu Waleed explain by his own words how “wonderful” life is for non-Muslims in a Muslim state:
Besides the barrage of lies about jizya and the status of non-Muslims in a Muslim state, poor stj makes a remark about Jews that was probably straight out of a deleted scene from Borat. What do you think it would happen to a Jew who couldn’t afford to pay the jizya in the hands of someone who seems to think all Jews are rich?
We know what happened to Kinana when he told Muhammad he had no treasure hidden. He was tortured with fire on his chest and, since he neared death without saying anything, Muhammad had him beheaded. And since Muhammad is the example Muslims are supposed to emulate…
stj also seems to believe that it’s ok for poor Christians to sell their daughters into marriage with Muslim men as payment for the jizya. So much for “security and protection”, non-Muslim women in a Muslim state are to be used as chattel for the enjoyment of Muslim men.
Notice that he said that “There is nothing wrong or immoral with Jizya” because those who pay it, even if they do so by selling their daughters into marriage, are entitled to the “benefits” explained by Abu Waleed in the above video, so he doesn’t see anything wrong or immoral with using non-Muslim women as currency. So remember, if you think it’s immoral to sell a girl into marriage to someone who will regard and treat her as subhuman trash you’re an “Islamophobe”.

Note the Youtube video above. That is exactly what dhimmitude is supposed to be under the Islamic state, and for centuries, non-Muslims probably had to live in dhimmitude. However, state-imposed dhimmitude has been dead since about 1900. Even in Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, it does not exist. I believe some form of dhimmitude was enforced when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan.
It looks like ISIS is trying to impose some sort of dhimmitude on the Christians under its rule. The Shia are faring war worse. ISIS simply kills any Shia they can get their hands on. They do the same thing to any Alawite they can get their hands on in Syria. ISIS also kills Yezidis at random and on sight. Both Yezidis, the Shia and the Alawi are considered to be heretics. When ISIS took over the Druze region of southern Syria recently, a number of Druze villages were ordered to convert to Sunni Islam or die. The villages duly converted. In truth, Druze really isn’t even Islam, although it looks a bit like it. Some Christians have also been given the “convert or die” or the “convert, leave or die” option by ISIS in Syria.
Since dhimmitude for all intents and purposes has not existed for 115 years, it seems a bit silly to rant and rave about how Muslims force all non-Muslims into dhimmitude when they are the majority because it is simply not true.
However, these Al Qaeda radicals do indeed want to bring back dhimmitude is some form or another. Jihadis have raided Christian homes in the Dora region of southern Baghdad and ordered Christians to pay the zakat or be killed. After ISIS took over a town in Syria recently, they ordered all Christians to pay a zakat. The zakat was quite a hefty amount, and most of the Christians did not have it.
As you can see in the video, the purpose of dhimmitude is to make life as a non-Muslim under Muslim rule so awful and humiliating that many non-Muslims simply convert to Islam to get out from under the oppression. All of the arguments for the zakat are false. It’s not a protection tax; instead, it is more like a Mafia protection racket. The non-Muslims are told to pay protection fees to the Muslim Mafia. If they don’t pay up, bad things are going to happen just like if you refuse the pay the Mafia’s protection tax. There is no humanitarian aspect to this tax.
The Muslims have always lied about what happened in the countries they conquered. In most lands it was the same story. Gradually, over time, more and more non-Muslims converted to Islam, although Spain, the Balkans and India were exceptions. The Muslims say that more and more infidels simply embraced Islam over time, apparently because it is so groovy. That’s clearly not what happened. They were terrorized into converting via dhimmitude.
Egypt has a large number of Coptic Christians. However, under Mubarak, they were not allowed to repair their churches when they started to fall down. This is one of the tenets of dhimmitude – Christians are not allowed to repair existing churches nor are they allowed to build new ones.
Also the periodic terror that is inflicted on non-Muslims in many to most Muslim countries can be seen a form of dhimmitude.

Auster Acts Stupid

Lawrence Auster is a pro-White Jew who may or may not be a White nationalist. He’s a member of the Alt Right.
His pro-White views stem almost overwhelmingly from his dislike of Blacks. This dislike is common among many East Coast urban Jews. They grew up in older Jewish districts that turned heavily Black. Many grew up with Blacks. Others left but had older Jewish relatives or friends, often parents or grandparents, who stayed.
Some of the worst and most up-front racists I ever met in the 1970’s were Jews from back East. One was from Jew York. The others were from Detroit.
Once I was going over to the Detroit guy’s place in Newport Beach to buy some pot. He was a drug dealer, first pot and then cocaine. I had a Black guy with me, friend of mine from university, who wanted to buy some pot. The Jewish guy, JE, heard that a Black guy was coming and started laughing his ass off. He said no Blacks were allowed in his apartment.
I told the Black guy, and he looked crushed, then sighed and said, “It’s ok,” and sent me in to buy the pot anyway. I got in there and tried to talk to JE, but he would not stop laughing. He was alternately laughing and talking about niggers.
I got back to the car and tried to explain JE’s position to the Black guy, and he tried to understand. JE was from Detroit, a great city that more or less got ruined when Whites (and Jews) moved out and Blacks moved in en masse.
Back in the 1970’s, such unapologetic racism was rare among the Whites I hung out with around LA and Orange Counties.
I assume that this is the same thing that is going on with Auster. Auster is  a Christian convert from Judaism, and he is on board with the Christian Right against the Degeneration of America. He’s also a Libertarian, of course.
Nevertheless, he’s still very much an ethnocentric Jew, and of course he’s a Zionist. He’s quite the Islamophobe. Like the Catholics, the Jews tend to take a bite out of you, almost from birth. I used to date this lady lawyer down in Orange County. She was active in the left wing of the Democratic Party, and so was I. We were both members of the Campaign for Economic Democracy (CED), Tom Hayden’s left Democratic Party thing he set up with Jane Fonda. I met a lot of nice, cute chicks in that group. Left politics is a great place to meet women. One time we were over at this guy’s house at a meeting. The guy said he was Catholic, but he wasn’t praciticing. The lady lawyer started laughing. “You can never leave the church. She said. They take a piece of you. You’re always a Catholic. It gets in your blood.”
Judaism is much the same, as my Irish Catholic doctor suggested. “They take a piece of you then,” he chortled. “Just like the Catholics!”
That’s about it. You can take the Jew out of the Jewish community, but you can’t take the Jewishness out of the Jew. Even converts out of Judaism or atheist Jews often retain a very strong Jewish identity and resulting ethnocentrism. You often wonder why they even bothered to convert as they haven’t really left the Jews at all!
Here he is acting dumb about Islam, talking about Pat Buchanan:

Buchanan cannot acknowledge the true nature of either Nazism or Islam, because Nazism and Islam both require the destruction of the Jews, and therefore for Buchanan to oppose either Nazism or Islam would put him on the same side as the Jews, which would make Buchanan cease being Buchanan.

Islam requires the destruction of the Jews? The Jews lived under Islam for 1,300 years and they managed to survive. Some Jews live under Islam to the present day. Don’t see much destruction going on. On and off violence, yes. Destruction? No.

Helen Shapiro, "I Don't Care"

Fantastic song from 1962. What’s odd is she was Jewish and performing under her Jewish name. Jews in show biz have always changed their names to Gentile names, especially back then.
She’s such a cute little doll in this video, I almost fell in love with her. Then I went and read up on her and almost fell out of my chair. She was only 15 years old when she recorded this song. You’re looking at a 15 year old girl in this video.
She later became a Messianic Jew. Messianic Jews are still Jews, but they say that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah (he was of course) and they are following him. So they are not completely Christians either. Some call them Christian Jews.
This is not the same thing at all as a Jewish convert to Christianity. Jews don’t like Christian converts, but I believe they hold a particular contempt and rage for Messianic Jews. However, Messianic Jew are covered by the Law of Return and area allowed to make aliyah to Israel.
I can’t believe I missed out on this singer all these years.

Are Jews Brighter Due to Mongoloid Genes?

Gay Area Girl writes:

I heard a someone speculate that Ashkenazim are more intelligent than Whites because they possess more Mongoloid genes due to being (supposedly) descended from the Khazars, and later accumulating genes from the Genghis Khan and his army, though inland Central Asian populations have significantly lower IQ’s than Coastal East Asians (source Huax.)

Ashkenazim are not smart due to Mongoloid genes. Those Khazarian genes are not that great for intellgience anyway.
Turks have more genes from the Mongolian raiders are Jews do. Afghans, Iranians, Iraqis all have plenty of genes from Genghis Khan. So do the Hazara, who may well be the leftovers of Khan’s invasions. None of these groups are particularly bright.

Ashkenazi Jews 118?
Mizrachi Jews   93
US Whites      103
Turks           93
Kazakhs         88
Afghans         86
Iranians        88
Iraqi           90
Hazara          86?

*IQ based on a US score of 100, which puts US Whites at 103.
As you can see, the addition of genes from Khan’s conquerors doesn’t exactly do wonders for your IQ. We can see this by comparing the results in groups who have substantial introgression of genes from Khan’s invasions. If anything, Khazarian genes of genes from Khan’s raiders would have lowered the Ashkenazi IQ.
The Ashkenazi IQ, without their sojourn in Europe, may well have ended up around 93, where the Mizrachi Jewish IQ is. We can also see that the introgression of 100 IQ White genes in a 90 IQ pre-Ashkenzi population is not enough to raise the figure up to the astounding 118.
The best explanation is probably genetic selection pressures while the Ashkenazim were in Europe. The Ashkenazim practiced a form of Talmudic Judaism in their ghettos whereby the males were required to learn to read and study the Torah and the Talmud. The Talmud is 13,000 pages. This was during a time when few could read or write. Reportedly those who could not cut it simply converted to Christianity and left Judaism to marry Christian women.
Also Jews highly valued intelligence. The rabbis would have virtual IQ tests to see who would marry their daughters. The boys would all compete to get the girl. The smartest boy would get the rabbi’s hottie daughter. Wealthier Jews and rabbis tended to have larger families.
Later, Jews got into various trades such as money lending, banking and accounting which required a lot more brain work than that of your average Christian peasant, an uneducated serf toiling the soil. Presumably Jews who could not cut it may have left Judaism. Jews are extremely inbred, as can be seen by the number of genetic diseases that they have. Presumably this inbreeding has somehow selected for various genes promoting high intelligence.
Car Guy writes:

The IQ structure of Jews is probably furthest from that of Mongoloids: More verbal, way less visuospatial. It’s more in line with Whites’, which isn’t surprising — Jews are essentially White people, thanks to centuries of mixing.

Car Guy is correct. The Jewish IQ looks very “White” or “European.” It doesn’t look East Asian at all. Of course Jews are White people – just look at them.

Opium for the People

“Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.” — Napoleon.

A few decades before Marx, a few folks already had it all figured out.
Twenty years after the Jacobin Liberation, another great liberation was planned, this time of all of Europe. Across the continent, from Lisbon to Moscow, there was one ancien regime after another. Bonaparte, prefiguring Woodrow Wilson and the democracy-spreading neocons, was out to liberate them all.
A spectre haunted Europe, the spectre of Napoleon. The lords and royals trembled in their boots. Feudalism had barely been overthrown in much of the land, and in decrepit or pure forms it struggled on.
All across Europe, progressive, liberals and what passed for the Left supported Napoleon. The Modern Right, defined by Burke for the first time during the Revolution, shook with fear. Prior to Burke, the Right was only those who ruled in the name of God.
In his own land, Napoleon opened the gates of the Jewish ghettos, extended full rights to them and in so doing, to all minorities. With the stroke of a pen, he extended what was nearly the world’s first full rights to minorities. Previously, human society had always been the usual zero-sum game, majority rule meant majority abuse, and it was never easy being a minority.
After centuries in the ghetto, the Jew emerged a pitiful and damaged creature. Progressives and liberals all over Europe took up the cause of the assimilation of the Jews, the only logical response to the plight of the Jews.
As Napoleon is the father of all modern Jews in sense, so was he the father of the modern Jewish progressive spirit. It is little known, but prior to Napoleon, the Jews had always been deeply conservative. Their politics was the usual reactionary politics of the rich.
As they emerged from the ghettos and tasted real discrimination, the Jews became lit with the fire of revolution. If the Jews could be liberated, then so could all men. It was from here that the Jewish reform movements sprang, and passionate Jews, eyes lit with fire, burst forth to be a light unto nations.
This was the impetus for the 200 years of Jewish reformers, progressives, liberals and revolutionaries that followed.
By the late 1800’s, Jewish reaction had had enough. Orthodox Judaism was formed, really just the old reconstituted rabbinic superstition and stultifying stupidity of the ghetto.
Several decades later, nationalist revolutions rocked all of Europe. The empires, religious and otherwise, were crumbling. The era of the nation-state (in its own way really a democratic movement at core), for better or for worse, had begun. The same year Marx published his Manifesto. In another 2 or 3 decades, the streets of Paris would run red with blood, and the Paris Commune was smashed. 30,000 corpses lay in the Parisian streets.
The Age of Revolution had begun, but really it all started in 1812 via a proud little man, his hand warming in his coat.

Do the Jews Deserve All This Attention?

Gay Are Girl writes:

Kevin MacDonald is too obsessed with Jews for his own good. Jews just don’t deserve that kind of attention.

Ah the Hell with the Jews. The Jews are boring. Yawn.
The only people who think Jews are all that are Jews themselves and anti-Semites. I really don’t think the Jews deserve all this importance.
Simone Weil, the great French writer and Jew converted heroically to Christianity, described Judaism as like a stage where the stage is darkened except for a single spotlight that focuses on a main actor, who is moving about or giving a speech. All the audience is focused on that actor in the spotlight. Everything else is dark, the rest of the stage, even the audience.
In Judaism, the actor in the spotlight is simply the Jews. The rest of the world is there, but it is in darkness, so in a sense it is as if fact the entire Gentile World simply does not even exist. All that exists is the Jews, their trials and tribulations, their books and whatnot.
That is why some Medieval Jews even built their own ghettos, and a Medieval Jew would not even drink tea or break bread with a Gentile. This was done to create walls, figurative and real, between the Jews and the rest of the world. If you refuse to eat or have tea with 99% of humanity, it is as if they are not there. You can never know them and will never know them, but it’s ok because you don’t want to. They are to you in a sense in darkness, but that’s good because that’s where you want them to be.
It’s often said that Jews hate non-Jews. There is some truth to this of course, but Weil’s analogy is better. More properly, to the religious Jew, the rest of us simply do not even exist at all! How can you hate a black hole, a cipher, a phantom, something that is not even there? In order to hate something, first of all it must exist. An object not even created into existence cannot exist long enough to be hated.
Of course, if something does not exist, you can’t really care about it either, but that’s another matter.
On a Usenet board, a wise fellow who was also, it is true, an anti-Semite, said that Jews saw non-Jews as like that pet lizard you have in your terrarium or like those deer out in your yard wandering around and grazing on your plants. Even if you are an animal lover, your lizard or your yard deer are just not on the same level as your fellow humans. They are something else, and yes, they are also something on a lower plane.
There is truth to this too, but I still like the spotlight analogy better.
The Jew sees himself and his kin as not just the center of the world but as the center of the universe. It’s a fallacy, but we give credence to this unpleasant fantasy by going on and on about the Jews and, as the anti-Semite does, placing them in a central position in our universe as some sort of focal point of omnipotent and omnipresent evil that must be combated.
The philo-Semite in mirroring Jewish solipsism and narcissism and the anti-Semite in also imitating the Jew by placing him a central place (but in contrast to the Jew, as evil and not as good) both flatter the Jews and fuel-inject their obnoxious and silly chauvinism.
Don’t fall for it.

How I Came To Be an "India-Hater"

Seriously? writes:

If you’re looking for an Indian to go out of his way to proclaim love for Christians and Muslims, you’re not going to find one. My Brahmin Hindu mother has four best friends, whom she spends all hours of the day talking to: two Pakistani Muslims, a Sikh, and a white Christian. No Hindus. She has no need to go around showing this off to prove her tolerance.
What you’re asking for is unreasonable. Indians don’t run onto the streets, trumpeting their respect for other groups of people. No one does. It’s true some Indian American communities are insulated, but much less than Muslim and East Asian ones.
You guys kind of remind me of newly converted high school atheists, who, upon hearing not everything they’ve been told about Christianity has been accurate, go out of their way to make Christians (in this case Indians) much worse than than they really are. It’s all really just an angry reaction to what you perceive as a lie.
I’m sure you’ve heard of the lost tribes of Israel, the Parsis, etc. who found refuge in India. I’m sure you can also imagine few other places, much less Europe, would have absorbed these diverse groups and accepted them so fully.
There’s no denying that, while not all Indian Hindus are tolerant, India has been much more tolerant than other civilizations have been. India may very well have been the first truly multicultural society on Earth.
Think about it, India has all the major religions (along with many minor ones), perhaps a hundred different ethnic groups, all coexisting. It’s been that way for thousands of years and still is now. Now think about Pakistan which was once the same way, where all the other major religious groups have since been all but wiped out.
But I guess when you found out that India wasn’t entirely the land of peace, and there have been a few attacks against Muslims, you suddenly brandished this next to meaningless piece of information. You wanted to make Hinduism and India look as bad as Christianity and Islam do. It’s understandable, but both wrong and an exercise in futility.

Not at all. I have known about attacks on Indian Muslims for years. I was always suspicious of Hindus and Indians, but I let it pass because I am a liberal and we are supposed to love everyone.
My close friendships with a couple of Indian Hindu Brahmins were very eye opening. Very nice guys, good people, but Hindutvadis and Indian nationalists. They hate the British, Pakistan, Muslims, Christianity, the White man, Europeans, European civilization, on and on.
There was a rage there that was very hard to describe. And they believed the most profoundly anti-scientific non-theory, like rejection of IE and the Aryan Migration Theory. They tossed about all sorts of antiscientific tripe. They both supported the caste system to the hilt, while saying it didn’t exist anymore, while railing against reservations.
Before that, I knew a few others. I had a good relationship with a couple of Hindu guys from Delhi who worked for me, except the programmer grossly oversold his abilities to me in a typical Indian fashion. His brother was so profoundly classist that I had to school him on how that was not cool in the USA to act so classist like that. He arrogantly dismissed my concerns.
I knew a Hindu woman from Pune who hated the US and Pakistan. She was kind of a trip though. Always bugging me to send her dirty pics. I kept sending her dirty pics, but she said they weren’t good enough. She wanted pics of me fucking various women, but to tell the truth, I didn’t have any! She was pretty kooky and emotional.
Every Hindu I ever met was stark raving nuts on the subject of Kashmir. They all insisted that all Kashmiris loved India and that the whole problem was Pakistan stirring up shit among content and happy Kashmiri Muslims. I told them that Kashmiris themselves wanted to go free and be independent and not join either country, and they all acted like I was speaking Greek. They were brainwashed worse than a North Korean, and this was in the world’s biggest democracy.
Then I met a lot of Hindutvadis on the Net and that was a real eyeopener. Then I read a lot about US programmers losing their jobs to Indians and the hatred these Hindus had for the White West, and that was really eye-opening too.
The rage, really the impotent rage, of Indian nationalists and Hindutvadis is very frightening and reminds of other ultranationalists the world over and throughout history. Honestly, Hindutvadis remind of me Nazis in the 1930’s.
They done us wrong! We are getting back at them!
I’ve met only a few Hindus here in the US. Mostly I have met Sikhs, who I am starting to think are just Hindus are disguise! Mind you, I made some Sikh friends here of a sort (one was one of my physicians, a Sikh nationalist), and some of them were ok. The best and most progressive Sikhs are the Sikh nationalists – the rest of them are just typical backwards and reactionary Indian nationalist types, little different from Hindus.
The more I dug into the Sikhs, the more I figured out they are just as backwards and barbaric as the Hindus. Really disappointing.
The few Hindus I met here were odd. A couple were doctors. They could be very, very friendly until you asked them something about their country. Then they got very bizarre and suspicious, shut up immediately and often left the room.
One guy was a physician. Between visits, I looked up his name and it turned out he was some mid caste from Andra Pradesh. Next time I saw him towards the end of the visit, I asked him if he was from Andra Pradesh, and he flipped out, said yes and left the room. Then he turned cold and hostile when we had to have some dealings afterwards. He acted like I was an enemy spy.
The few regular Hindus I have met around town are Gujaratis (Patel) and Punjabis, and they are profoundly arrogant. I do not know why. They get incredibly weird if you ask them anything about India, and even weirder with me because it’s obvious that I understand the place more than 98% of Goris.
Not that I let Islam off the hook. I already think that Islam is backwards, barbaric and reactionary. But many Muslim societies are quite stable and even prosperous. There is little crime or social disorder. Things work, in an odd way.
It’s really up for grabs which religion is worse – Islam or Hinduism. Both are reactionary, backwards, sexist and barbaric. Hinduism tosses in feudal to make it a full monte.
Islam is expansionist and treats minorities very poorly, but Hinduism doesn’t treat minorities well either. Prejudice against Muslims in India is profound. There are routine pogroms and mass murders committed against Indian Christians. Sikhs were treated to a near genocide a couple of decades ago. Hindu tolerance leaves much to be desired. Further, as Hinduism hardly accepts converts, it doesn’t even absorb minorities via conversion, which is at least one nice thing about Islam.
Secular Muslim societies, now under attack all over the Middle East, worked very well and were very tolerant towards minorities. Much more tolerant than Hinduism.
Of all religions, Hinduism cares about human beings the very least of all. It’s quite possibly the most backwards and barbaric remaining ancient religion. We can theorize this as all ancient religions seemed to resemble Hinduism in their polytheism, nature worship and caste system.
Monotheistic Judaism was advance upon Hinduism, but as a tribal religion that hardly accepts converts and preaches hatred for those outside the tribe, it’s still an ancient tribal religion in some ways similar to Hinduism. It’s a typical tribal anti-universal religion.
Monotheistic Islam which held out the branch of conversion to all of humanity was an advance upon amoral and casteist Hinduism. There is also a socialist feature to Islam, and at its root, it is a law and order religion par excellance. No Muslim was above any other Muslim; all were part of the ummah.
Monotheistic Christianity represented a further advance upon Islam, holding out the branch of conversion to all of humanity. Heathen were to be loved and saved, not declared war on or converted by force. Modern Christianity preaches pacifism and no longer converts by force, which was never common anyway. Christian pacifism was an advance upon militaristic Islam, and Christian socialism went beyond the rudimentary socialism of the Koran.
At the end of the day, I just feel that there is something terribly wrong with Indian people in general and with their whole society. It’s fucked up something bad.
And as long as that’s going on, I am going to continue writing about it.

The Institute on Religion and Public Policy

Repost from the old site.

Joseph Griebowski is one odd fellow. He’s head of a very strange organization called Institute on Religion and Public Policy. It will be discussed in an upcoming post. Griebowski himself is some sort of a hardline Zionist. He’s also a weird, Strangeglovian-looking character. It’s apparently got some kind of big neoconservative and possibly Jewish money behind it.

He goes up on Capital Hill and travels all over the world agitating for “religious freedom”, generally in lands that are being targeted by the neocons and International Zionism. He’s also apparently waging US imperialism’s war of words with China. His specialty is humanitarian intervention bullshit as my commenters have been discussing lately. His particular angle is “religious freedom”.

If your country is not allowing enough religious freedom (which, frankly, is none of our Goddamned business) then he’s going to wage fake human rights war on you in service of International Zionism or US imperialism. Lately his targets have been South Sudan, Darfur, China and Kosovo. Imperialism doesn’t care about S Sudan or Darfur, but Zionism does. Imperialism hates China though.

For Kosovo, imperialism supports them, but probably hard right Zionism hates them for being Muslims in Europe. Looks like they have conned all sorts of suckers into going along with this scam. Looking through the officers and staff, I can’t see any reason why most of these people give a flying fuck about “religious freedom”.

Furthermore, they for the most part seem to be serving US imperialism in one way or another. So I figure this is just some bullshit “religious freedom” garbage to push the interests of US imperialism and Zionism. On their Board of Directors is a motley collection of Christians (almost all rightwing Catholics, fundamentalist Protestants or Baptists), Jews of various types, wacky New Age kooks, etc.

Why Jews Hate Ethnic Nationalism Except Their Own

Repost from the old site.
I just got banned from another blog, a Leftist one of course. The usual charge being that I am a White Supremacist and and anti-Semite. I’m banned from all sorts of Leftist sites on these grounds, hopefully I will be banned from many more, and I’m happy as punch. Neither charge is the remotest bit true, and anyway on White Nationalist sites I am often regarded as a lunatic antifa anti-racist Enemy of the White Man.
Keep em guessing, what the Hell. Life is a role-playing exercise and I can wear lots of hats, and sometimes you might not even recognize me.
It started when went over to this great big anarchist blog where some of the most famous anarchists in the blogosphere star and tried to start some fights as usual. Like good anarcho-fishies, they bit the hook, ran me around the boat a few times, gave me a good fight and almost broke my rod. In the end, yeah, I was banned, but they were flopping in the gunny sack. Win-win.
My crime was suggesting that White people should be proud of their heritage and not ashamed of it, assuming they can do this without transforming into racist assholes, which is admittedly difficult.
Well, some Jewish guy chimes in that the idea of Whites being proud of themselves is laughable, and Blacks have way more to be proud of (I tell ya, Jews are natural comics), and he, as a White, of course feels no pride whatsoever. I responded that the reason you feel that way is you are Jewish, and noted that many Jews don’t feel proud of being White and are even self-hating Whites.
I added that I was confident he was quite proud of being Jewish, as almost all Jews are.
Ok, some silly anarcho-dude comes back with the old rejoinder that Jews don’t feel any more pride than Irishmen. LOL! This is 2008, not 1858, darn it. I can’t believe that so many liberals and lefties actually believe this.
Almost all White ethnics here in the US have been detribalized in terms of their national origin. Some retain a tribal mindset to some degree (Armenians in my area are some of the most tribal Whites around) but the rest have more or less just coalesced into the Great White American Mess where heritage is little more than curiosity.
Well, anyway, back and forth, Kevin Carson (Guy gets 210 visitors a day to his blog, and I get 6,000, and he gets a Wiki page and I don’t?) comes on and deletes all my posts and those of some real-life White Nationalist scary guy called Ian Jobling, who quit American Renaissance due to his Jew-worship and now plays some funny kind of White Nationalist Jew-worshiper carnival sideshow on his own site.
As far as White Nationalist sites go, Jobling’s is surely one of the most reasonable, if such a thing can ever be reasonable. But on these sites you have to look to the comments for the real scary stuff, and in some creepy way, all of these sites are just nasty. Furthermore, I want to know Dr. Jobling’s agenda.
What proposals is he putting forth, and what does he support or oppose? We can hardly tell by looking at the blog or his Wikipedia entry.
All I can tell is guess is he is for imperialism, or at least he thinks it gets a bad rap. The real problem, says Jobling, is not Anglosphere (= White) imperialism, but it’s dark-skinned Americans dropping out of school and getting knocked up and stuff. Yeah. He wants to retain White majorities in all the White countries.
On the principle of national sovereignty, first of all, I would say, go to it, palefaces. But in the US, with Whites at 64%, the battle is clearly lost. The resulting scramble of WN furies in the US is something like Hitler’s last stand, doomed, as the Allies closed in on him (sorry for the bad analogy). New Zealand is probably headed in the same direction as the US, but the rest of the White states look pretty secure, White-wise and all.
Apparently he also opposes civil rights, although he downplays that in hopes to suck you in, but all US WN’s hate 1964.
My opinion on Gentile Jew-worshipers is that it is a funny trick to watch humans perform, as I grew up in such a family, both of my parents being Judeophiles. So I was a Judeophile for most of my life, until about age 44, when I finally started to think about it for once and realized that no silly tribe deserves to be worshiped, Jews no more than Arapahos or Estonians or Toba Batak or Burusho.
It’s not as harmful as anti-Semitism, but Jew-worship has surely left the Palestinians reeling.
Then all these anarchist antifa batbrains come on and rant about how I’m a White Supremacist and I guess a Nazi, and further how I’m an anti-Semite and I insulted one of this Carson character’s “best and oldest Jewish friends”.
I’m not making this up.
Forget Proudhon, one of the most virulent anti-Semites that ever lived. Forget Bakunin, humane but Jewish-critical and surely an anti-Semite by Carson’s standards.
Anarchism has wimped out seriously and drank the multicultural punch. All cultures are equal, though Kropotkin vehemently disagreed. It’s all antifa all the time, Whitey is the enemy, we need to flood the White Planet with the Third World, and the Jew is off limits, cuz a guy with a bone in his nose equals Einstein, according to Cultural Marxist hooey.
From our blog here, a great comment by James Schipper, one of our finest commenters, who is probably even smarter than I am when sober, on why Jews hate ethnic nationalism, and the outrageous modern Jewish paradox of being a self-hating “White” and promoting anti-White stuff, while at the same time supporting one of the world’s most virulently ethnonationalist states.
Make sense? Course not. Ethnic nationalism is evil, especially when White guys do it, except when Jews do it, then it’s ok, or great, or understandable, or this or that, or whatever. Uh huh. I’m sure Carson and his bomb-throwing anarchist buddies thinks James’ comment is anti-Semitic, too. Wa wa boo hoo mommy mommy. Bite me, anarchists.

I’m not sure what is meant by ethnonationalism, but let us say that ethnonationalists define the nation as a group of people with shared ancestry, what the Germans call an Abstammungsgemeinschaft = community of descent, not a group that speaks the same language, shares the same basic culture, lives in the same territory and has group consciousness.
Then it is not surprising that Jews are fearful of ethnonationalism because Judaism is essentially ethnonationalism, of the most extreme kind, elevated into a religion.
Jews speak dozens of languages, belong to dozens of cultures and live in dozens of territories. How can they be a nation? They can only be a nation if the nation is conceived as an Abstammungsgemeinschaft, in the Jewish case the people that descend from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
If ancestry, not language or culture, becomes paramount, then Jews will be seen as having ancestry different from the people around them and be regarded as foreigners. There are very good reasons to oppose preoccupation with ancestry, but in that case the Jews should practice what they preach and either abandon Judaism altogether or else detribalize it.

Response to Zionist Apologist

Repost from the old site.
Always-excellent commenter James Schipper responds to Zionist Apologist from a previous post.
Pretty good stuff here. The notion that the problem with Jews is Judaism itself is similar to the arguments of Gilad Atzmon and Israel Shamir. However, Kevin MacDonald points out that Jewish ethnocentrism does not go away in the absence of Judaism. A good document that makes that clear is his book review of Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century.
I disagree with a lot in that review, but all you have to do is look around at a lot of Jewish radicals, and it’s clear that they have not yet, and never will, make a complete break with their Jewish identity. So pulling the Judaism out of the Jew does not solve the problem. As my physician noted when I told him that according to Jewish law, you never quit being a Jew, “So they get a piece of you, eh?”
In an unpublished interview with me, I asked Kevin MacDonald if the Jews would ever become less ethnocentric with time. He said emphatically, “No. The Jews will always be ethnocentric..”
Incidentally, I found MacDonald to be a warm, friendly, sane, intelligent and gracious man. I also did not think he was the slightest bit anti-Semitic, but maybe I am mistaken. He seemed to be a Judeophile in a sense; he was totally fascinated with Jews.
Jewish dual loyalty has been a problem everywhere there are Jews and is a direct consequence of their extreme ethnocentrism and nothing else, although James’ suggests that Judaism also plays a role.
James’ comments:
Giving Uganda to the Zionists would have been just as unjust as giving Palestine to them. Uganda wasn’t empty territory either. As to Argentina, it was a sovereign country and at the time of Herzl it had just learned to develop the pampas. Why on earth would they give some of their pampas to outsiders from Europe?
The best territory to cede to the Zionists would have been Western Australia. At the time it was sparsely populated — it still is — and unlike Palestine, it could easily have accommodated all the Jews of the world. Granted, Western Australia is mainly arid or semi-arid, but so is Palestine, with the difference that WA is huge. Unfortunately, the stinking British imperialists preferred to be generous with Arab land.
A diaspora is simply the result of emigration. Since 1880, there has been an Italian diaspora. Are these diaspora Italians sick? No, and their diaspora will soon disappear through assimilation because Italians do not have a tribal religion which tells them that Italians are God’s chosen people and that Italy is their sacred homeland, to which they should one day return.
The problem of Jews can be summed up in one word: Judaism. It is because of their religion that Jews can’t be fully assimilated and will always remain a foreign or semi-foreign body in Gentile societies. Judaism tells Jews that they are a people, not a religious community. Nobody refers to Lutherans. Orthodox, Sikhs, Mormons as a people because those religions are non-tribal.
Consider the difference between Presbyterians and Jews. Most Presbyterians in the world have at least some Scottish ancestry, but Presbyterianism is not at all about Scots or Scotland. Nearly all Sikhs are Punjabis or descend from Punjabis, but the Sikh religion is not in the least about Punjabis. By contrast, Judaism is all about Jews and their promised land.
If people sincerely believe in Judaism, one can have some sympathy for them, in the way that one can sympathize with a Jehovah’s Witness who sincerely believes that a blood transfusion is against God’s will.
It is much harder to have sympathy for atheists who remain proudly Jewish and become Zionists. To stop believing in Judaism while continuing to believe that Jews are a people and that Israel is their sacred soil is like stopping to believe in Catholicism but continue to obey the Pope.
In one way, Israel made life more difficult for Jews in Gentile countries because the existence of Israel makes Jews vulnerable to the charge of dual loyalty. This charge is more than a figment of anti-Semitic imagination.


MacDonald, Kevin. 2005. Stalin’s Willing Executioners: Jews as a Hostile Elite in the USSR – Review of Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century. The Occidental Quarterly: 5(3), 65-100.

No One Is In Charge

Repost from the old site.
I don’t like to discuss religion here since so many of my readers seem to be atheists or agnostics, and I don’t want to antagonize the highly militant atheist faction on the Internet.
Some of my friends and relatives are religious. A couple are Muslim, a few are Jewish, and some are Christians. I myself am a Christian, but I am a funny kind of Christian. The New Testament is fine, but let us limit it to only those words that the Jewish rabbi Jesus himself said. In that way, I can be a “Jesusist”, in the manner of the early Jewish Christian sects such as the Essenes.
We may pick and choose from the words of the apostles, who after all, were just fallible men. So some of the things they said are correct and others may not be.
We can toss the Old Testament, although it reportedly did contain a number of revelations that came true with Jesus’ coming. For the rest of the OT, let us call it myth or history. We can also posit a Replacement Theology, whereby the Jews and the Old Testament were replaced with the coming of Jesus and the NT. Jesus came and said that we were no longer required to live by the Law.
The new Law, and the new Israel, was the Church. The Jews were no longer the Chosen People – that baton passed to the Christians. Sure, the Jews hate Replacement Theology and call it anti-Semitic, but too many Jews have a tendency to hallucinate anti-Semitism where it does not exist.
For those who doubt the Resurrection, one can always just be a Christian by “following Jesus and his example”. There are many ways to be a Christian, and many Christians, especially Catholic males in Europe and Latin America, are rather lax in what they really believe deep down inside. What’s wrong with following the Christian doctrine of “walking in Jesus’ shoes?”
This is where practical Christianity collides with the fundamentalists. The fundamentalists actually believe that what you feel in your heart is most important. One’s deeds? Well, we are all sinners, you know, so men will sin and that is that. But the practical Christian believes in good works – that is, how one lives one’s life, not necessarily the depth of spiritual intensity in one’s heart, is the most important part of being a Christian.
Walking in Jesus’ shoes, living life the way Jesus would have lived his…who can argue that this is such a terrible thing? Do the atheists wish to argue that this is some sort of insanity? Why?
What of the Resurrection? Does it not invalidate science? Sure it does. But if one is in touch with God Himself, as Jesus may have been, perhaps that power can be used to transcend the laws of science? If anyone can transcend such things, cannot the Spirit do so?
At the same time, paradoxical as it may seem, we may posit a God that isn’t doing much of anything these days, since that is clear. Was he doing anything back in Jesus’ time? Possibly we may argue that Jesus had some sort of a line in with the spiritual world.
A famous Hindu yogi argues that men like Jesus, Buddha, etc, are messengers from the spiritual world who float down from the spiritual world somehow from time to time to stay here and give us lessons. That’s not completely beyond the realm of science -it’s simply unknowable one way or another.
Looking around the world today, the only rational conclusion regarding God is that no one is in charge. Otherwise, we must argue senselessly that God does bad things to punish us, or to test us, or for some obscure, unfathomable reason. Either that or we must take the irreligious view that God must be a wicked practical joker, or a bad person, or perhaps he suffers from Borderline Personality Disorder.
This needn’t be the Deism of our founding fathers – the God who created the universe, then sat back on his haunches and hasn’t done a damn thing since. In a conversation with linguist and anthropologist Sylvia Broadbent, the author of a grammar of Central Sierra Miwok (old pic here [on right], newer pic here [blond hair, wheelchair and cane], homepage here), we discussed the spiritual beliefs of the local California Indians.
Most are fundamentalist Christians of some type or another now, so they vociferously argue that they have always believed in some sort of an omnipotent God. But searching through early anthropological texts and the conversation with Broadbent revealed something different.
Broadbent felt that the Indians here believed in what she called the concept of Deus Obtusa, or a Lazy God. If you think about it, the Lazy God is a form of Deism. It’s not that He hasn’t done a thing since creation, it’s that He doesn’t do much of anything now.
And I think a Lazy God is perfectly in accord with a “Jesusist” or replacement theology version of Christianity, and a total belief in science, including of course evolution and modern biology.
So call me a hypocrite who wants it both ways – as independent free agents, we humans may fashion our heterodox spiritual beliefs the same way we style our lives and wardrobes. There are no rules here; we may make it up as we go along.

Aztlan and Zionism: Dueling Idiocies

Repost from the old site.
In this post, we will take a look at two nationalisms, Zionism, the movement to (re)create the ancient Jewish homeland in Palestine, and Aztlan, the Mexican and Chicano movement that says that part of the Western US is actually part of Mexico, and more importantly, was the homeland of the Aztec people.
As with most forms of ultra-nationalism, both movements are exercises in lying and nonsense. And both are similar in other ways, too.
Both propose that, because the area in question (Western US, Palestine) was the ancient homeland of the people some 2,000-5,000 years ago, that they have a right to move en mass into the region and even to annex it or possibly make their state there (the Aztlan movement is divided on whether Aztlan should be annexed to Mexico or whether it should be its own state).
Both are based on some highly questionable claims of ownership. There is serious question whether or not Aztlan (an area covering part of the Western US – map here) is actually the ancient homeland of the Aztecs, as this article claims, supposedly with authoritative sources.
Let us examine the article, by Patrisia Gonzales and Roberto Rodriguez, a writing team that somehow got UPI to syndicate their ultra-radical Chicano nationalist nonsense for many years.
The authors found a map in the National Archives in Washington from 1847 with a notation near the Four Corners Area in the US referring to The Ancient Homeland of the Aztecs.
This scribbling on a map somewhere by God knows who purportedly “proves incontrovertibly” that all Mexicans and all Central Americans have a right to move to the USA tomorrow, because the US Four Corners is their “ancient homeland”.
The authors also note a tradition of the US Pueblo, Hopi, and Lakota (!?) Indian tribes that Nahuatl speakers were their former relatives. There are major problems with this. How would these tribes describe these “Nahuatl” speaking people, since back then, there is no way that they called their language or themselves by that name?
Since they called themselves and their language something else, how did these tribes know that they were “Nahuatl”-speakers? And why the Lakota? They are located far from this fake homeland, way up in South Dakota.
Further, as one who worked with an Indian tribe on a government grant doing linguistic and anthropological field work, I assure you that Indian legends and oral history need to be taken with a gigantic grain of salt, to say the least!
The authors quote Cecelio Orozco, an education professor at my alma mater, California State University Fresno as saying this lines up with his research also putting the Aztec homeland in southern Utah. Professor Orozco has published two books of apparent pseudoarcheology on this subject.
Here is how Orozco discovered this homeland (try not to laugh when reading this):

Orozco said he came upon the site through a process called “archeo-astronomy.” He saw a photograph of four rivers in Utah in 1980, and based on previous research, recognized a mathematical formula in the photo that led him to believe that this was the place of origin of the Mexicas’ ancestors. Subsequent trips and research has confirmed his thesis… 

After reading this fascinating article on archaeoastronomy, I still do not see how that science relates to a photograph of four rivers in Utah. Does anyone have any idea how a photograph of four rivers anywhere on Earth contains some hidden mathematical formula?
He also found a painting on a wall in Utah from 500 BC that he says he claims corresponds to the the codec containing the Aztec calendar. Those of us familiar with the field realize that finds all over the world look like other finds, or resemble other peoples, or bear this or that passing resemblance to whatever. None of that usually proves anything; much more work needs to be done.
According to the article, because Aztecs have a homeland in Utah dating back 2500 BC, Mexicans and Central Americans are no longer foreigners or aliens or even immigrants in the US, but they are simply in their homeland.
By that lunatic thinking, all White Americans get emigrate back to Europe and live there, since that was our homeland at some point in the past. The Europeans have no right to stop us, and we can even call it Euroamland or whatever and carve out our own damn country out of several European countries, make English the official language and even sideline the several non-English European tongues spoken there.
Then we can demand to be united with the US across the sea or just up and make our own country, dissolving several European countries in the process.
It is this sort of nonsense that makes me wonder just how smart your average Mexican Reconquista type really is. On reflection, they are obviously bright people, it is just that ultranationalism, or even often just nationalism, damages people’s brains and makes them incapable of rational thought. It does this across the board to any ethnic group – there is no reason to single out Mexicans or Chicanos.
Let us examine some of the other insane suppositions of the Aztlan crowd. We have already delved into this a bit on this on an earlier post.
First of all, the Aztecs (Mexicas) had only taken over the Mexico City area about 200 years previous to the Spanish Conquest. The empire reached its peak only about 40 years before Cortes landed. Further, the Mexicas only lived in the area around Mexico City! That’s it. All of the rest of Mexico was not Mexica territory and the tribes (even those colonized by Mexicas) who lived there cannot be said to be Mexicas!
As an analogy, let us consider the Roman Empire. Its headquarters were in Rome. The rest of the empire were just colonies, conquered areas paying tribute to Rome. Can we say that everyone in the Roman Empire was a “Roman” or an “Italian”? By the same logic, do those residing in Rome today have a right to claim all of the former Roman Empire as their land?
This is what would happen if we applied “Aztlan”-logic to that situation. Do you see how stupid this Aztlan nonsense-lie is? The Aztecs did conquer quite a bit of land in the center of Mexico (map here), killing lots of folks and enslaving others.
As noted below, the homeland of the Nahua, according to prominent Mexican archaeologist Eduardo Matos Moctezuma was probably somewhere around Guanajuato, Jalisco, and Michoacán* . From this area, 2,000 years ago, various waves of Nahua speakers radiated out through Mexico and even Central America. This is why we have 28 living Aztec (or Nahuatl) languages today.
By the way, Wikipedia is wrong that these languages are almost dead. Most are quite vigorously used, and there are 1.5 million speakers of all Nahuatl languages.
27 of these 28 tribes are not, and were not, Mexicas, anymore than everyone speaking a Romance language today is a “Roman”. Follow?
A somewhat more rational take on the Aztlan lie can be found on the Reconquista site here. Apparently real anthropologists put the Aztec homeland somewhere around Nayarit on the west coast of Mexico. That’s a lot more reasonable, but it’s probably not true either. This comes from Mexican anthropologist Alfredo Chavero’s theory in 1887. Moctezuma’s locale is probably better.
The piece also argues that since Nahuatl is an Uto-Aztecan language and many Uto-Aztecans either lived in or traveled through “Aztlan”, that there is something to the Aztlan notion in that sense. Fair enough.
In fact, the homeland of the Uto-Aztecans in my opinion is in southern Arizona or northern Mexico. But all Native Americans traveled through Siberia on their way to the Americas. Does everyone with Indian blood in the Americas get to go back to Russia and take over the place because their ancestors strolled through it sometime in the past 20,000 years?
Looking at the linguistic contacts of pre-Nahuatl would be a good way of trying to find an Aztec homeland. We can see that they had contacts with languages spoken around Veracruz, on the east coast of Mexico. As you can see, the situation is complicated.
The authors in the first article make an even more ludicrous point. First, as usual, they conflate the “Aztecs” a single tribe called the Mexica, amongst Mexico’s over 200 tribes, that only lived around Mexico City, with all Mexicans.
According to idiot Chicano nationalists, all Mexicans with Indian blood are Mexica or part Mexica! That’s nuts. As noted, there were tribes all over the land, and the Mexica were only one of 200 or so. It’s as if one said that every Italian comes from Rome.
Next, they say that all of the tribes related to the Mexicas were “Mexicas” because they spoke Nahuatl languages. They certainly were not! It’s nonsense. Are all speakers of Indo-European languages the one and same group because they all came out the Indo-European homeland in Southern Ukraine 8,000 years ago?
Even worse, these fools claim that all Central Americans were Aztecs and get to go invade the USA because it’s home sweet home.
Ridiculous. There is only one tribe, the Pipil in El Salvador, that still speaks a Nahuatl language, and there are only 20 speakers left. There were a few other Nahuatl languages in Honduras, Panama and Guatemala, but these are long since extinct. They were not “Aztecs” anymore than English-speakers in the US are “Germans”.
However, the Pipil did come from the area around Mexico City around 1000 years ago; they were related to Olmecs, but also to the Nahuatl. In general, they were an Olmec grouping. Anyway, at that time, there were no such thing as Mexicas or Aztecs – that group came later. Another group of Pipil had come to Central America 5000 years ago and came under the influence of the Maya.
This is around the time when Proto-Uto-Aztecan itself was born in the southwest US. Both of these groups, by 1000 AD, became the Pipil, who came under even more Maya influence.
The Pipil are almost extinct culturally and linguistically today, an end result of the Matanza, when 10,000-30,000 Indians were slaughtered in only a few weeks in El Salvador in 1932, while US warships patrolled off the coast in case the victims of the genocide tried to fight back.
After that, most Salvadoran Indians took off their Indian clothes and quit speaking Indian languages, especially since Pipil was outlawed. They also intermarried heavily with non-Indians, so that to this day, only 1% of El Salvador’s population are Indians. The area of the Matanza became one of the most conservative, pro-government parts of El Salvador, little effected by the Civil War from 1980-1993.
The leader of the rebellion that set off the Matanza was Farabundo Marti, head of the Salvadoran Communist Party. The rebels that fought in the Civil War later on took their name, Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front, from him.
The cult surrounding Zionism is much the same as the Aztlan nonsense. True, Jews ruled the area long ago, but only for a brief time, similar to the Aztecs. Further, similar conflations are made about the Judean Empire and the Aztlan Empire, Judean language and religion and actual Jews and Jewish religion and the relevance of ancient Judean religion to the Jewish religion today.
Also similar is the outrageous notion that some group has a right to go back to its ancient homeland of 2000-5000 years ago, settle there at will, and even make a state there. Some of the radical Atzlanistas, similar to Zionists, also suggest throwing out the natives (in the case of the Aztlanistas the Whites, who came starting 400 years ago) since they are “invaders squatting on the true homeland”.
In this same nonsensical way, Zionists project their own invasion of Palestine and squatting on Palestinian land off onto the victim. The Arabs, who came 1450 years ago, are the “invaders”, who have been squatting on “Jewish land” since then. Never mind that the Jews left 2000 years ago. They owned Palestine in their hearts in the intervening 1900 years, and Zionism claims that that trumps a property deed!
Zionism’s proponents are Jews, the smartest folks on Earth, who ought to know better. But ultra-nationalism can easily make a fool of the finest man.
See Joachim Martillo’s site, Ethnic Ashkenazim Against Zionist Israel, for more. In particular, his superb Issues and Questions In the Historiography of Pre-State Zionism (90 pp.!), is a piece which deserves much wider reading. Martillo has some tendency towards fanaticism (but this also drives him to produce), can be an ideologue, and is sometimes guilty of trying to make facts fit theory as opposed to otherwise.
However, these (especially making the facts fit theory) are chronic problems with most all social scientists, as Kevin MacDonald has observed.
At the least, the brilliant Martillo should be more widely read, if only to subject his interesting theories to the critical light of peer review to separate wheat from chaff. And the 90 page link above is just sublime, in particular in the way that it takes apart the primordial nonsense of Zionism in the same way we attacked the similar primordialism of the Atzlanistas in this post.
*Eduardo Matos Moctezuma, The Great Temple of the Aztecs: Treasures of Tenochtitlan, New York: Thames and Hudson, 1988) 38.

Latin American Catholicism as a Good Religion for Leftwingers

White Christians are pretty much assholes, but it feels nice to have some sort of religion. In the Mediterranean or Hispanic Catholic world, most men will tell you that they are Catholic, then that they are not sure if the Bible is true, or even if God exists at all. But they are Catholic, dammit! I like this kind of religion. They just say they believe in it, leave it at that and don’t think much about it after that. It gives them some solace, but it doesn’t occupy their mind very much.
The Catholic Church I went to here in town was very “Jesusist” – all about the life of Jesus and the New Testament. The OT may as well not have existed. Also very pagan. The Mass is almost a a pagan ritual. The holy water and the idols that the Mexican pray to at the end are very pagan stuff. I like it! It’s good. Up with paganism!
I found the Hispanic Catholics to be among the most nondogmatic Christians I’ve ever met. Down in Latin America, everyone is Catholic. I think even most of the Shining Path was Catholic, including the leadership! They never renounced it either. Most of the FARC is Catholic too.
Catholicism is cool because there is a strong Catholic Commie (Liberation Theology) and social justice aspect to it. Probably the coolest form of Christianity out there. The Filipino branch is OK too. Most of the NPA are Catholics, and there are many active priests who work with the NPA. Up with Liberation Theology!
I don’t know about Polish Catholicism. The Irish are OK. Note how the Leftist IRA was all Catholic and Irish priests are in the forefront of social justice in the US. Polish Catholicism looks pretty bad. Mostly rank anti-Communism. German Catholicism is almost Nazism. French, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian Catholicism are OK, similar to the Latin American kind.
Of course Catholicism sort of ruins most Catholic countries. The Church can’t keep its nose out of politics, and most Catholic countries are insane on abortion, euthanasia and some other things. Still, I will take the Catholics against the wild free marketeer economic Libertarians of US fundamentalist Protestantism.
No way would Jesus be a follower of Milton Friedman. That’s why Friedman had to be a Jew. Milton expounded a theory that contradicted everything Jesus ever taught. But what has Judaism ever been but the religion that positioned itself as the antithesis of Christianity – the anti-Christian religion, the religion for those who found the humanist and moral demands of Christianity too much to hassle with?
It’s never been easy to be a Christian. That’s why so many give up on it, and say the Hell with it. But then it’s never easy to be a good person either, is it? It’s so much easier in a hyper-capitalist society to just be a caveman asshole and say the heck with it.
In the Middle East, most folks have a religion. Even the secular do. You just reach up from the sky, grab one, call it yours, and don’t think much about it again. Middle Eastern Christians are very similar to Catholics. They believe, but it’s no big deal in their lives.
Atheism feels totally miserable. I don’t care if it’s true. I want no part of this miserable philosophy.

Newsflash: Americans Are Idiots!

Even worse, religious fanatic idiots. Yikes. An idiot is one thing, but a dangerous idiot is something else all together. Religious fundamentalism throws gasoline of the smoldering embers of American retardation, igniting an angry conflagration of aggressive and menacing stupid so terrifying that the sane people feel they have 5 minutes to evacuate the idiots’ presence.

More than half of Protestants could not identify Martin Luther as the person who inspired the Protestant Reformation.

Ow! That’s so stupid it hurts! If you’re that dumb, you really need to be tossed out of Protestantism.
As if we didn’t know that already, a study adds to the tonnage of evidence pressing down on our chests, making us catch our breath once again at the idiocy of our land. There is nothing new here. Alexis de Torqueville noted 180 years ago that we were a land of willful retards who spat on the notion of learning and culture as that of “Old Europe.”
This moronitude continues to this day – “freedom fries,” “surrender monkeys,” on and on, any insult at our cultural and intellectual betters to rid us of the nagging notion that we are a nation of idiots flopped onto sofas, swilling Budweiser while we stretch to gaze at the Hypnotube over the looming mount of groaning and overstretched bellies.
It’s one thing to be stupid and humble. You find a lot of folks like this in 3rd World countries, and you have to admire them in a way. They’re dumb, but they wish they weren’t, and they wonder at an educated fellow in that he had the opportunity to obtain that grail that they never grasped.
Americans are worse, they are so much worse. Americans are defiantly ignorant! They take pride in being stupid. The stupider the better, they scream as they head for the Colorado River or Vegas on the weekend. They actually look down sneeringly on their betters who stopped dragging their knuckles long enough to pick up a book and actually read the thing. “Books are for losers!” the Moronicans scream.
The Republican Party plays to the typical American idiot, swoons at his stupidity and feeds more raw retard meat by radio, TV and paper every hour of the day. The well-trained American imbecile laps up the stupid food like caviar and the Republican Party roars it’s approval. The Republican Party is all about stupid. That’s the very reason for its existence. It’s actively hostile to science, as fascists and even conservatives have typically been.
An atheist would look at it this way:
It’s stupid enough to believe religious fairy tales, but if you’re going to believe children’s fables, you may as well get it straight exactly what nonsense you guide your life by. Americans are so much worse. They swear by fairy tales to lead them through the day and the voting booth, but they can’t even tell you what tall tales they actually believe in. All they know is they believe in some fantastical nonsense, but they can’t even describe the nonsense that they believe in. But they believe in it anyway! How pitiful!

Forty-five percent of Roman Catholics who participated in the study didn’t know that, according to church teaching, the bread and wine used in Holy Communion is not just a symbol, but becomes the body and blood of Christ.

Wince! Even Catholics are dunces. It’s called transubstantiation, morons. Granted, the concept is seriously stupid, but it is official Church doctrine, for what it’s worth.
Not surprisingly, White Southern Protestants were the dumbest Whites of all (LOL), but Black Protestants and Hispanic Catholics were both considerably dumber – 65% – than even the dumbest Whites. So race realism shines again, even in the pews, or in the empty skulls of those who fill them at the end of the week.

Less than half of Americans know that the Dalai Lama is Buddhist.

LOL, idiots. How could anyone not know that?Amazingly, even American Jews are retarded! But Jews are smart. Indeed they are, IQ-wise, but thrown into the wrecking yard of US culture, even Jewish brains start to wilt in the sun of stupid.

And about four in 10 Jews did not know that Maimonides, one of the greatest rabbis and intellectuals in history, was Jewish.

LOL, I thought Jews were smart or something. Guess I’ll have to go back and renew that theory. That Jewish quote is scary: it implies that merely living in America is bad for your brain. Ouch!

Birds of a Feather: Anti-Semites and Super-Jews

Repost from the old site.

I got the strangest reaction as I read this article on an extremely weird and crazy website. It was mingled in with a bunch of semi-anti-Semitic conspiratorial more-or-less bullshit, and I read bits and pieces of this article, assuming it was part of the whacked out anti-Semitic crap.

After a few minutes, I figured out that instead of being written by an anti-Semitic nutcase, it was actually written by an ultra-pro-Semitic frothing-at-the-mouth Zionazi Jew crazy from Israel.

So the craziest of the Jews actually sound like anti-Semitic kook Nazis when they talk.

Is that weird, or is that does make sense in some version of the universe?

Is that anti-Semites say that Jews are evil, crazy, bigoted and dangerous as Hell, and super-Jews do their best to play the role?

03/26/03, 3:19 AM
This War is for Us

by Ariel Natan Pasko

Of course this war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein is for us. … – i.e., the Jews and Israel. Chazal – our sages – throughout the ages have explained the Torah, telling us that everything that happens in the world is for the benefit of the Jewish People.

Simply put another way, if all the world is a stage, then the Jews – and especially those in the Land of Israel – are the lead actors on the stage of history, and the goyim – the nations, i.e. the gentiles – have supporting roles, while the evil-doers are props and background scenery.

As our tradition states, G-D – the great playwright – created the world for the sake of the Jewish People, and it is our responsibility to implement the Torah … in it.

Stop and think for a moment: the last Gulf War in 1991 ended erev – just before – Purim. This Gulf War began motzei – just after – Shushan Purim. Get the picture? In between, “The Jews had light, and gladness, and joy, and honor.” (Book of Esther 8:16)

Read the Purim story in Megilat Esther again, it is a rags to riches story on a national scale. Haman, the prototypical anti-Semite, plans mass murder of the Jews and in the end pays with his life, the life of his ten sons – all hanged – and the Jews kill 75,800 members of the anti-Semitic – i.e. Nazi – party of the time.

This is not so different from the Nuremberg Trials after World War II, when 23 Nazi war criminals were tried. Originally 11 were to have the death penalty imposed if found guilty. Everybody in those days thought that they would be shot – as is customary in military executions – or get the electric chair – as was common in the United States.

But when the judges announced the verdict of guilty, they also said that hanging would be the method of execution. Two hours before the execution, they found Hermann Goering dead in his cell. He had committed suicide. That left only 10 Nazis to execute.

There is more to this story than meets the eye. In Megilat Esther (9:7-9), when it describes the execution of Haman’s ten sons, their names are listed in a vertical column. If you look at the Hebrew closely, you’ll notice extra-small letters in three of the names. The first name, Parshandata, has a small tav.

The seventh name, Parmashta, has a small shin. The tenth name, Vayzata, has a small zayn. Hebrew letters are also used as numbers, as well as for dates in the Jewish calendar. Tav, shin, zayn numerically means 707, corresponding to the year 5707, which began with Rosh HaShanah – the Jewish New Year – on September 25, 1946.

On October 16, 1946, as foreshadowed in the names of Haman’s ten sons, ten Nazi leaders were hanged as war criminals. And if that doesn’t impress you, out of nowhere, with the rope around his neck, Julius Streicher – editor of Der Sturmer, the Nazi propaganda newspaper – shouted out with flaming hatred in his eyes, just as the trap door opened, “Purimfest 1946!” It was reported in the international press of the day.

As I said earlier, of course this war is for the Jews and Israel, and instead of hiding from the accusation, … we should gratefully acknowledge what the Master of the Universe is doing to our enemies for us. Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, Bashar Assad, Osama Bin Laden, and the other dictators, terrorists and mullahs of the region, are the modern day Hamans and Hitlers.

Great things are yet to come. …

Is the Palestinian Solidarity Movement Taking Over the White Christian West?

Olive is a Jewish commenter who is a pretty reasonable person. However, she tends to buy into neocon scare stories from the likes of the slimy Ultra Jew Daniel Pipes. One of Pipes’ theories is that the Palestinian solidarity movement is sweeping the White West, the result being Arabization and Islamicization of the West. This is actually a joke.


I don’t like Daniel Pipes either, and I never said the UK was becoming “Arabized.” Just that this supposed support for the Palestinians goes far beyond that. They now see the Palestinians through the same lens that Westerners supposedly saw the holocaust survivors. As victims they can do no wrong and their culture should be elevated to a different status and beyond criticism. Anything critical we might say about Islam or the Arab world is dismissed as “Zionist propaganda.”

Olive also spoke about how hordes of White Christian Westerners were going to Palestinian cultural festivals and even celebrating Muslim holidays.

I’ve never heard of a Palestinian cultural festival. But I might go to one, maybe for the food. Also your typical Western Pallie is a very nice, warm and friendly person, a typical Arab. Unlike most Western Whites. It’s nice to meet friendly people.

We have a few Palestinians around me. You can talk to the men, and they are very friendly. The woman are not very approachable, perhaps for cultural reasons. But the Arabs in this town act very good. They act better than the native Euro-White people, many of whom look like they are strung out on meth.

I’ve never heard of a White Western non-Muslim celebrating a Muslim holiday to show how much they love the Pallies.

There are not that many Whites in the US who think they way Olive described. On the Left either. Even in the UK, I do not think there are too many. Some Leftists are in on this, but there are not many of those folks. I would say that these types are far eclipsed by the Islam-haters in the BNP and it’s offshoots, many of which have British Jewish support.

This whole thing about pro-Pallie sentiment taking over the West is preposterous. Most even liberals don’t care about the Palestinians that much. We think Arabs are uncivilized, and we are dubious and wary at best about Islam, especially in our countries.

Liberals just don’t like the US supporting a big fat bully, Israel, that pushes the Palestinians around, that’s all. Liberals support the underdogs and the oppressed and fight the bullies and the oppressors. The oppressed don’t have to be good citizens. They need only be oppressed. Then we sign on.

So with US liberals it’s not so much support for Pallies (Tough sell!) as it is disgust with an openly fascist ethnic nationalist state in Israel. Openly fascist ethnic nationalists do go against almost everything we liberals stand for, you know.

As far as support for the Pallies, their religion, their culture, whatever, that’s just a fringe group called the Palestinian Solidarity Movement. Compared to the Jewish Lobby in the US and the world, it’s so tiny in the West that it’s almost a joke. In fact, I think it is a joke! Why isn’t Daniel Pipes laughing? He should be doubled over.

Yes, some of the PSM folks elevate Arab and Pallie culture and religion ridiculously, refuse to criticize them, call all critics Zionists, etc.

I was part of that movement for a while. The group I was with was run by Palestinian Communists (most of the top membership were apparently members of the PFLP political wing).

I was thrown out as a “Zionist spy or agent” (LOL) after a while. I suggested that Ashkenazi Jews had roots in the Middle East, and I criticized Arabs and their crap culture. I also slammed Islam. You can’t do that. You can be as anti-Semitic as all get out (the Pallie Solidarity movement is full of anti-Semitism) but don’t you criticize their pet Arabs and pet Muslims.

The movement is also full of Muslims, and they make sure you can’t attack their lousy religion. Also, the Whites are mostly Muslim sympathizers, and periodically one of these idiots “embraces Islam” (converts to Islam) to the cheers of the whole crowd. Even the Communists cheer! It makes you want to puke. There are a few Middle Eastern Christians in the group, but they are the minority. Even the Arab Communists are really pro-Islam. It’s sickening!

In terms of Western Whites, this PSM thing is a fringe movement of a bunch of crazies. It has little to no importance in the scheme of things. Pipes is a nut and a liar for blowing the movement out of proportion, but I suspect he knows he’s lying? You never know with Super Jews. They lie like rugs.

What is it with Jews and lying, anyway?

Does their religion give them permission to lie, maybe to save or help the Jews, or fight the enemies of the Jews? As so many things can be interpreted as protecting the Jews from their enemies, this gives Super Jews a lot of opportunities to lie religiously.

The Enemies of the Jews Lie Too

Sure, Jews lie like rugs, but so do their enemies! In fact, anti-Semites are in many ways like the mirror images of the Jews that they hate so much. Anti-Semites, like Jews, have gotten the lying thing down pat.

Anti-Semitism is a tough one. At base, many of the charges have a ring or bit of truth to them, but then the anti-Semites drag the charges out so ridiculously that most of the charges end up being baldfaced lies.

Jews poisoning wells? Lie. Jewish ritual murder? There were a few cases, but it’s not nearly the problem the anti-Semites say it was. Jewish religion? Mostly hyperbolic lies about the Synagogue of Satan. Protocols? Lies cooked up by the Czar.

Jews making matzo out of Christian children’s blood? Don’t think so. Jews controlling the banks? Not anymore. Nazi accusations against Jews? Mostly lies. The Jews stabbed us in the back? Don’t think so. Communism is a Jewish plot to take over Europe and the world? Nah. Capitalism is Jewish? Come on. Jews are behind feminism, gay rights, porn and promiscuity as plot to destroy White families? Give it up. Jews are behind the drug trade? Please. Jews manufactured the made-up story of the Holohoax, faking 6 million of their deaths in the greatest disappearing act since Houdini. You’re kidding.

Israel wants to conquer the Euphrates to the Nile? Not really. Neoconservatism, PC, and Critical Race Theory are all Jewish? Not anymore. Jews promoted civil rights to divide and conquer the Gentile Whites? Dubious. Jews ran the slave trade? Huh? Jews plot to destroy the White race? Get real. Jews are behind mass non-White immigration and illegal immigration? Get out. The USSR was a Jewish state? Tell us now. The Jews caused the financial collapse and are laughing all the way to the bank? Nope.

4,000 Jews stayed home from the World Trade Center that day? Yeah, that why 15% of the victims were Jewish, dipshits. Jews have horns on their heads? Now way do you believe that. Jews are buried standing up? You’re kidding, right? Jews killed Jesus? And you blame them, 2,000 years later? He had to be killed, remember, they were doing us a favor. Jews pimp out nice Christian girls but never touch their own kind? If only. Jewish pimps and traffickers have been trading Jewish flesh forever. Judaism says it’s ok to molest children? Nah.

Jews say the Kol Nidre once a year, which enables them to lie for a whole year and get off scot free? Come off it. Jews are an organized crime gang? Well, not most of them anyway. Zionism was a European plot to divide the Muslim and Arab World and thereby control it? Dubious. Jews ladled the ruinous reparations on Germany at Versailles. Doubtful. Jews are genetically evil? Yeah, that’s why their street crime rate is so low. Jewish women are sluts and whores? Uh huh, that’s why they are the latest to lose their virginity in the US.

Jews are hideously ugly? Nah, a lot of the women are hot. Jews control the media? Not all of it. Jews run Hollywood? Same thing. Jews run Wall Street? Don’t think so, I bet there are more Greeks and Italians than Jews anymore.

What’s hilarious is that one of their biggest accusations against Jews is that they lie like rugs. Maybe so, but you anti-Semites don’t. Look in the mirror, Judeophobes.

Belarus: Dictatorship or Democracy? A Review of Stewart Parker’s: “The Last Soviet Republic”

Belarus: Dictatorship or Democracy? A Review of Stewart Parker’s Book: The Last Soviet Republic. Originally Published on

by Gearóid Ó Colmáin

August 24, 2010

Since the pronouncement of former US Secretary of State Condolezza Rice in 2008 calling the democratically elected president of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko “Europe’s last dictator”, the image and reputation of this noble country has been fanatically tarnished by the mainstream media.

The irony here is that Belarus is indeed deeply familiar with the iniquities of dictatorship. They, more than any other country, suffered the worst of Nazi atrocities during World War 11.

Belarus has always been a multicultural country with Jews, Christians and Muslims living side by side for centuries. This deep tolerance for cultural and religious differences is still celebrated in Belarus today. Yet the European Union, Israel and the United States, never cease from spreading atrocious lies and disinformation concerning the Republic of Belarus.

Belarus has generally received scant coverage from alternative and left-wing media, which is rather surprising considering the fact that Fidel Castro has awarded Alexander Lukashenko with the order of Jose Marti, the highest honour bestowed upon friends of the Cuban people. In a recent visit to Belarus, the president of Venezuela Hugo Chavez praised Belarus as a model of socialist development, one which Venezuela should emulate.

Yet there is a paucity of books and articles about this country and its “controversial” leader. One notable exception to this hiatus comes from Stewart Parker who published a clear and revealing book on Belarus and the policies of Alexander Lukashenko in particular.

For readers seeking an insight into this fascinating country, Parker’s The Last Soviet Republic: Alexander Lukashenko’s Belarus (2007) is a brilliant exposé of the lies and distortions emanating from the European Union and the US concerning “human rights” violations in Belarus and the absence of “democracy.” What follows is an attempt to summarize and evaluate the findings of this valuable study.

Alexander Lukashenko came to power after a landslide victory in 1994. A former director in a collective farm during the USSR era, Lukashenko was one of the few Belarusian politicians to oppose the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1990. Although the Belarusian leader had always been an outspoken critic of the USSR’s corruption, he remained committed to Marxism-Leninism, and opposed the rampant privatization proposed by Boris Yeltsin and his followers.

In the final years of the Soviet regime, Lukashenko, then a deputy to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, formed a group called “Communists for Democracy.” Lukashenko argued that the real problem in the USSR was the decline in democratic participation and the parasitism and corruption of the ruling bureaucracy. He also advocated more autonomy for the USSR’s constituent Republics.

Belarus had always been the most advanced Soviet Republics, with high achievements in education and science. In spite of economic stagnation and increasing corruption in other republics of the USSR, Belarus’s state planning had continued to yield impressive results, with economic growth continuing throughout the Brezhnev era. In 1993 Lukashenko was appointed head of an “anti-corruption committee.”

One of the numerous myths repeatedly circulated since the fall of the USSR is that a majority of the Soviet people wanted free market capitalism. This was certainly not the case in Soviet Republic of Belarus. It was Alexander Lukashenko’s defence of Soviet values, together with his outspoken criticisms of the Communist Party of the USSR and the apparatchiks of the soviet regime that earned him the respect and confidence of the Belarusian people. In 1994 Lukashenko was elected President of Belarus with over 80 percent of the votes.

Finding a place for Belarus in the post-Soviet chaos was a difficult task for the young president. One of the first issues concerned the national flag. The BPF, a nationalist party, wanted to restore the white, red and white flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which had been the national flag under the puppet regime of the German empire in 1918. It was also used by the collaborators with the Nazi Wehrmacht during World War II. The people finally settled for maintaining the Soviet flag minus the hammer and sickle. Radio Free Europe later lamented the dropping of the Nazi collaboration flag as a “heavy blow to democratic forces.”

In the intervening years since the fall of the USSR and the rise of Lukashenko, over 15 billion dollars had been siphoned out of the country. Privatization and the lifting of price controls had caused inflation to soar, with prices rising 432 times. The Soviet economy was being replaced by mafia gangsters. Western “freedom” and “democracy” was taking its toll!

Through a series of referenda Lukashenko was able to set in motion a democratic social program which has made Belarus one of the most prosperous and least corrupt countries in Eastern Europe. Just like Venezuela, a clause in the constitution decided by a referendum permits the indefinite re-election of the president should the Belarusian people wish to do so.

Over 80 percent of industry in Belarus remains in public ownership. In 1996 the unemployment figure in the country amounted to 4 percent. Lukashenko’s administration has since reduced this figure to little over 1 percent, one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world. Industrial output rose by 9.7 percent in 2004. Wages have been increasing significantly every year since Lukashenko’s accession to power.

Economic growth in Socialist Belarus has been so impressive that even the World Bank and the IMF have had to acknowledge this incontrovertible fact. In June 2005, the World Bank published a report titled Belarus: Window of Opportunity, which admitted that the Belarusian economy was growing steadily, while the IMF admitted that Belarus had significant wage increases coupled with low government debt. Good news for Belarus, bad news for the World Bank and IMF, whom Lukashenko, speaking before the Russian Duma in 1999, had called “a pack of swindlers.”

In a world where the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer, Belarus offers real hope that economics does not have to function that way.

According to the system developed by the Italian statistician Corrado Gini, known as the Gini coefficient, Belarus ranks as the most equal country on earth. The Gini coefficient for Belarus in 2005 was 0.217, the lowest out of 113 countries. In Belarus, the lowest income is only five times lower than the highest income. This means that the notion of “corporate greed” one hears about in the United States and Europe is virtually nonexistent in the Republic of Belarus.

Belarus also comes out on top in education. Adult literacy in Belarus is the highest in the CIS nations at 99.7%. This is because Belarus spends more money on education than most other nations. Over 10% of the Belarusian state budget goes into education. This surpasses all other CIS countries, the USA and most European countries.

In contrast to Western “democracies” where social security is being systematically destroyed to sustain the financial oligarchies, male workers in Belarus retire at 60, while women retire at 55 with full pension entitlements.

Needless to say, the attitude of the EU and the United States nomenclatura, that is to say, the self-proclaimed “international community,” is that Belarus is not a “democracy.” Media disinformation has backed this hostility of European and US elites to Belarus by publishing an impressive quantity of lies. At the 60th session of the United Nations General Assembly in 2005, President Lukashenko put the US “human rights” obsession thus:

If there are no pretexts for intervention – imaginary ones are created. To this end a very convenient banner was chosen, democracy and human rights, and not in the original sense of the rule of people and personal dignity, but solely and exclusively in the interpretation of the US leadership.

In order to promote the US “interpretation” of human rights, President Clinton sent Michael Kozak to Belarus in 2000. Kozak distinguished himself during the 1970s in the Iran/contra scandal where he was instrumental in organising the sale of arms to the contra terrorists in Nicaragua in exchange for cocaine, which the CIA sold to poor Americans on the streets of Los Angeles, the same poor people who would subsequently be incarcerated for “possession of narcotics.”

While poor people were forced to make military uniforms in US prisons for their drug convictions, Kozak was one of Washington’s key handlers of Daniel Noriega, a CIA narcotrafficker and dictator of Panama. Clinton had deep confidence in Kozak’s democratic credentials, as he himself was governor of Arkansas, where the CIA operation was conducted from. The US-funded terrorist campaign in Nicaragua cost the lives of over 30,000 people, most of them civilians. Kozak had the perfect credentials for spreading “democracy” American style in socialist Belarus.

Upon his arrival in Minsk, US ambassador Micheal Kozak, Clinton’s former CIA gun-for-drugs terrorist handler, now US “pro-democracy” diplomat, was quick to make contact with his European counterparts. Representing the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe was Hans Georg Wieck. Wieck worked closely with Kozak to groom “opposition” candidates in Belarus suitable to Washington and Brussels.

When Lukashenko won another landslide victory in the presidential elections of 2001, the OSCE condemned the elections as unfair without producing a shred of evidence to corroborate their claims.

After the 9-11 attacks in New York, the US showed the real motives behind the “global war on terror” when Senator John McCain declared:

Alexander Lukashenko’s Belarus cannot long survive in a world where the United States and Russia enjoy a strategic partnership and the United States is serious about its commitment to end outlaw regimes whose conduct threatens us…September 11th opened our eyes to the status of Belarus as a national security threat.

McCain was referring to the sale of arms by Belarus to the CIA’s disobedient puppet dictator Saddam Hussein, a claim denied by President Lukashenko. Here we see the US accusing other countries of crimes which it itself committed for years when it sold arms to the Iraqi dictator. But the real crime committed by Lukashenko was his progressive social policies, which were setting a bad example for other countries strangled by the financial interests of the US global oligarchy; US “national security” meaning the security of the financial elite, and “global war on terror” meaning global war on freedom.

But the US was determined to launch its global terror campaign against any state that dared to resist casino capitalism. Belarus and Lukashenko himself would pay a heavy price for standing up to the IMF and the World Bank. In 2004 the United States proceeded to take action with the passing of the Belarus Democracy Act, calling for sanctions against Belarus and funding for “pro-democracy” groups.

Most opposition groups in Belarus today receive funding from the United States government, paid for by cash-strapped US tax payers. This funding almost culminated in the so-called “Denim Revolution” in 2006, a CIA-funded attempt to arouse popular opposition to the Lukashenko government in order to replace it with a pro-US regime. However, unlike their neighbours in other Eastern European countries, the Belarusians did not take the US bait, and Lukashenko stayed in power.

After the failure of the “Denim Revolution,” the EU imposed a travel ban on Lukashenko and 30 ministers, preventing them from traveling to any part of the EU. This shows the extent of the anxiety among the EU elite in the face of Belarus’s popular democracy.

Stewart Parker sites a number of poignant examples in his book which reveal the extent of systematic anti-democratic interference in Belarusian affairs by the United States and their vassal states in Europe. What is particularly “totalitarian” about socialist Belarus is not the Belarusian state, but rather the way in which that state is portrayed by the so-called democratic authorities of the EU and the US.

The absurdities promoted by the mainstream media come from all sides. Lukashenko has been accused of anti-Semitism, in spite of the fact that the thriving Jewish community in the country seem to be unaware of this fact. In fact, the chief Rabbi of Belarus has praised the Belarussian president for his support of the Jewish community, yet the EU, the US and Israel insist that Lukashenko is “anti-Semitic” and also opposes “free media.”

The Belarus government has been accused of internet censorship and media control. More lies! The Open Net Initiative carried out a study after the “disputed” elections of 2006 to see if the claims about Internet censorship were true. They “found no evidence of systematic and comprehensive interference with the Net. Any regime-directed tampering that may have taken place was fairly subtle, causing disruptions to access, but never turning off the alternative information tap.”

Another slander against the Belarusian president came from Russia’s “free media.” In 1995, Dr. Marcus Zeiner interviewed Lukashenko for the German newspaper Handelsblatt. The interview with Dr. Martin Zeiner was cleverly mistranslated to include positive references to Hitler. This was confirmed by the interviewer himself who subsequently said “a tape of the interview had been quoted out of context and with the sequence of comments altered.”

The BBC continues to propagate this lie about Lukashenko, which only serves to prove the desperation of the corporate media in the face of popular leaders whose policies threaten their empire of lies.

Stewart Parker’s book The Last Soviet Republic is an indispensable guide to a country and leader the bourgeois media does not want you to know about. It is, to my knowledge, the only comprehensive study of a country that only receives attention when vicious opportunities for anti-socialist propaganda present themselves.

We have much to learn from this brave little country that sacrificed so much to defeat the forces of fascism of Europe’s past and is now menaced by those same fascist forces which have resurfaced today in the name of “human rights,” “democracy” and “freedom.” In a world dominated by the ideology of the financial elite, those who stand for the common man and woman are beaten down ruthlessly. Alexander Lukashenko stands for democracy, human rights and freedom, which is why the corporate media call him a “dictator.”

Why Do Wealthy Jews Pursue Liberal/Radical Politics?

A commenter asks why anti-Semitism is never pro-worker.

How about take stuff from rich Jews and keep it for ourselves, rather than giving it to corrupt Gentiles?

Interesting theory, but it never works that way. Not once in history, I believe. The elites always grabbed the Jews’ stuff and money after theykilled them or expelled them. That’s anti-Semitism in a nutshell.

Kill/throw out the Jews and steal their stuff.

He also can’t believe that Jewish politics doesn’t exactly follow their class interests:

And what is Jewish politics based on then if not class interests

People’s politics don’t necessarily follow their class interests. Engels was a rich man. Carlos the Terrorist’s father was a millionaire Communist. People are funny that way.

When Jews who came here they were poor. And they were poor in the Pale too. So they supported the class politics of the poor. The Jews in the US never let go of their earlier liberalism/radicalism.

Then in the last century, a lot of them got behind Communism for some reason, contrary to their class interests.

One theory is the reality of Jewish life in the Diaspora.

Jews living in the Diaspora grow up being told that they are better than the Gentiles around them. And in some ways, they are better, especially those who live Jewish. Living according to Judaism is associated with lower outcomes on a lot of social pathologies.

They also grow up being told that the Gentiles around them hate them. This leads to a confrontational and often rebellious attitude of many Diaspora Jews towards a society they view as hostile and fucked up. Hence you get your Jewish radicals and revolutionaries of various types, out to make society a better place. You also get all the Jewish cultural radicals, from crazy artists to porn merchants. These secular Jews are basically rebels, and they’re giving the finger to hostile Gentile society in a sense.

For the last 150 years, conservatives in the West have tended to be anti-Semites. Even prior, Napoleon himself was a liberal, and he’s the father of all modern emancipated Jews. Jews see liberals as protecting minority rights.

And all the people who seriously attacked the Jews in the West for the past 150 years, including assholes who tried to exterminate them, were hard rightwingers.

The Czar was a rightwinger. So were the fascists. So are the radical right Islamists persecuting the Jews in the Muslim World.

Also in the West, conservatives tend to push Christian politics. That’s bad for the Jews. Liberals are more secular in the West and the Muslim World, so Jews trust them better.

In the past 150 years, Orthodox Judaism broke up into Conservative and Reform Judaism. Reform Judaism in particular has junked a lot of the horrible rightwing crap in the Talmud and Torah in favor of a liberal view of mankind. In particular, the proscription for the Jews to be “the light unto nations” has led many Reform and secular Jews to be revolutionaries and liberals of various types.

They’re called upon by their religion to make the world a better place.

Is There a Similarity Between Gypsies and Jews?

A commenter asks whether Gypsies and Jews are similar:

Rob, what do you make of my theory that Ashkenazis are simply smarter, more competent versions of Gypsies? You said they were criminals by cultural mandate? Sounds familiar…

Well, the similarity is to those parts of the Talmud that say it’s OK to steal from, abuse, kill, etc. Gentiles. An Us vs Them mindset.

Dual morality.

But I don’t think most Jews are into that. That’s more of an Orthodox thing. And it’s a SuperJew thing, for the Jews who are really, really Jewish, like the Orthodox or the ones in Israel.

I think your average secular Jew does not subscribe to dual morality. I described the concept to my Jewish girlfriend and she was horrified by those Talmud passages. She said they were sick and evil  and could not believe that they existed;  But she also had Yiddish speaking Jewish grandparents from Prussia who were so ghetto-Orthodox that they would not speak to non-Jews.

This is kind of a Super-Jew/Orthodox thing. For centuries, until the French Revolution, a European Jew would not drink tea with a Gentile. Nor would they eat with them. The Yemeni Jews still refuse to eat with Gentiles.

The solution to all this Jewish crap is the classical liberal project of the assimilation of the Jews. But the assimilation of the Jews leads to their auto-suicide. The “Assimilation Question” is discussed endlessly in Jewish circles and has been for 200 years. I knew an Israeli Super-Jew who told me that he liked anti-Semites because they prevent the assimilation of the Jews. This is also a classic ghetto mindset.