Repost: The Smallpox-infected Blankets

Repost from the old site. This is actually one of the most popular posts on this site and it has been linked to from all over, including Takimag. This is one of the best pieces on the Smallpox Blankets story that you will find on the Net. As an aside, there is a lot about an utterly brutal war called The Pontiac War that most have never even heard of. Bottom line is that the Smallpox Blankets story is pretty much bullshit, but it’s bullshit that gets repeated endlessly mostly because it shows how evil we Whites are and hence fits the current anti-White narrative very well.

Oh, how the American Indians love this story! I’ve heard it endlessly.
Did you know that the US gave these evil blankets to Indians all over the country, even here in California? Or Hudson Bay traders gave them to Indians in Canada? That those blankets wiped out “generations” of Indians? That the US gave them out to reservation Indians in the 1800’s? That Puritans gave out the blankets to Massachusetts Indians?
Neither did I.
Ward Churchill said the US Army gave Indians them diseased blankets. He lied, and he should have known better.
It’s always nice to track down a myth, or is it really a myth?
So let’s track it down.
Turns out, Americans never gave smallpox blankets to any Indians anywhere at anytime. Not the government, not the Army, not anyone. So we are absolved on that one. The incident in question occurred in 1763, before there even was a USA, before there even were Americans. And American colonists (pre-Americans) didn’t do it either. It was the British that done the deed, and the one man who is always accused of doing it never even did it.
Further, it was in the midst of a horrible and genocidal war (on both sides) called Pontiac’s Rebellion, which occurred around the Great Lakes area during this time.
This was really a followup to the French and Indian War, with which the rebellion is often incorrectly associated. In the aftermath of that war, the area which had been ruled by the French was now ruled by the British. And the Indians, far from reflexively hating every White man around, had previously adjusted well to French rule and were angry about now being ruled by the British.
The Indians hated the deal they were getting from the British, who were treating the Indians very poorly. There were only a few colonial settlers around at this time.
The Indian goal in the war was to get the French back so they could live under French rule rather than British rule. Towards the end of the war, they may have even wanted freedom.
But freedom for Indians was never going to work out, at least in the short term, because they were stupid. Stupid? Yes, which is why in the mid-1700’s, when the civilized world was starting to get themselves a country or something like a country (monarchical empires), no way could the American Indians have made one.
Why? Because they were so stupid that they had endless deadly blood feuds with most of the surrounding tribes such that they spent way more time fighting and killing each other than they did the White man. Any country they would have gotten would have fallen immediately into mad civil war, with no adults around to sort it out and send one to one room and another to the other.
If you ever find any of those old adolescent novels about the settling of the pre-US Upper Midwest and Appalachia (forget the name), they are a great read. I spent my early adolescence at the library reading those books.
It’s interesting that in the mid-1700’s, these Indians were well-supplied with firearms. They didn’t invent any firearms, but they were smart enough to figure out their great value as weapons quickly, and they even got to the point where they were expert gunsmiths – experts at stocks, barrels and even gunpowder and pellets.
The Whites were selling and giving the Indians good quantities of muskets, pellets and gunpowder in this part of the colonial US at this time, but the stupid Indians were mostly using the firearms to kill their Indian enemies rather than to fight the Whites. This situation went on for decades in the US and seriously hampered the Indians’ anti-colonial wars of national liberation against the White invaders.
In Pontiac’s War, they added firearms to knives, hatchets (not a bad weapon), bow and arrow, flaming bow and arrow and even rocks and clubs. They ingeniously sawed off their muskets into sawed-off shotgun-type muskets so they could hide them under their blankets.
The Indians were horrible and vicious in the course of this war, and the British were too. But it was the British who were really getting pounded. Whole forts were being overwhelmed by 300-strong Indian armies, and after the storming, the Indians would kill everyone in the place, soldiers, women, kids, anyone.
The Indians were raiding towns, settlements and schools and killing every White they could find. These were some of the most hard-ass Indians in the history of the Indian Wars. Further, the Indians actually made an alliance of many tribes living in the area during this war, which is incredible, since the Indians usually hated their neighbors so much they would not even ally with them to fight the Whites.
In the course of the Pontiac Rebellion, a famous British general named Lord Jeffrey Amherst wrote a letter to his subordinate among the besieged British troops in one of the forts suggesting that they give the Indians smallpox-infected blankets. Turns out that this had already been done by that very subordinate. Simeon Ecuyer, the Swiss-born British officer in command of Fort Pitt, was the man who did it.
Although we do not know how the plan worked out, modern medicine suggests that it could not possibly have succeeded. Smallpox dies in several minutes outside of the human body. So obviously if those blankets had smallpox germs in them, they were dead smallpox germs. Dead smallpox germs don’t transmit smallpox.
In addition to the apparent scientific impossibility of disease transmission, there is no evidence that any Indians got sick from the blankets, not that they could have anyway. The two Delaware chiefs who personally received the blankets were in good health later. The smallpox epidemic that was sweeping the attacking Indians during this war started before the incident. The Indians themselves said that they were getting smallpox by attacking settler villages infected with smallpox and then bringing it back to their villages.
So, it’s certain that one British commander (British – not even an American, mind you), and not even the one usually accused, did give Indians what he mistakenly thought were smallpox-infected blankets in the course of a war that was genocidal on both sides.
Keep in mind that the men who did this were in their forts, cut off from all supplies and reinforcements, facing an army of genocidal Indians who were more numerous and better armed than they were, Indians who were given to killing all defenders whether they surrendered or not.
If a fort was overwhelmed, all Whites would be immediately killed, except for a few who were taken prisoner by the Indians so they could take them back to the Indian villages to have some fun with them. The fun consisted of slowly torturing the men to death over a 1-2 day period while the women and children watched, laughed and mocked the helpless captives. So, these guys were facing, if not certain death, something pretty close to that.
And no one knows if any Indians at all died from the smallpox blankets (and modern science apparently says no one could have died anyway). I say the plan probably didn’t even work and almost certainly didn’t kill any of the targeted Indians, much less 50% of them. Yes, the myth says that Amherst’s germ warfare blankets killed 50% of the attacking Indians!
Another example of a big fat myth/legend/historical incident, that, once you cut it open – well, there’s nothing much there.
The tactics in this war were downright terrifying. At one point the city of Detroit itself was surrounded and besieged for weeks on end.
Pontiac was a master tactician, and the history of the war is full of all sorts of evil acts of deception. Fake peace treaties and fake peace delegations. Devious Indian women working as undercover spies for both sides. Indian mistresses tipping off their White lovers to Indian attacks. And the converse, Indian undercover female agents, disguised as workers in the forts, secretly letting the Indians in to massacre the Whites, and Indian mistresses deviously leading their White officer-lovers and the soldiers under them to their deaths.
It took forever for the British to resupply the forts, and many reinforcement missions were ambushed and annihilated by Pontiac’s men. It was not a good time to be White in the Great Lakes region, no sir.
At the end of the day, no one won the war, neither the Indians nor the British.
The Indians had foolishly allowed themselves to become dependent on the fickle Whites for gunpowder and pellets, which the Indians quickly ran out of when the Whites wisely quit supplying them during the hostilities.
Lesson: don’t buy your war supplies from the enemy. When war breaks out, he’ll cut you off.
A little-known aspect of US colonial history.
If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

This is a Gay Website

Repost from the old site.
I have a little secret. Lots of people think that I am gay. It’s actually a problem.
I get a girlfriend, and if she is not a total moron, she asks if I am bisexual. Or if used to be gay. WTF is this “used to gay” BS? Once a homo, always a homo, right gays I mean guys?
If she’s a moron, she asks if I still am.
This is supposed to be some sort of a horribly embarrassing and humiliating thing for me, as my enemies love to use it to attack me. I must suffer sexual confusion. I must indeed.
I never really understood precisely why people think this way, as I have never seen myself on videotape. I consider myself a fairly masculine acting guy, and that’s how I feel deep down inside and that is what I identify with, but hey, I grew up in the 1970’s when everyone was sort of androgynous, and this is how I sort of ended up.
I have a very soft voice and I like to walk in a fluid way. I’m still kind of skinny in a stupid and now 10 pounds overweight and can’t lose an ounce kind of way. I cross my legs sometimes. I call it relaxing, but others call it gay. Can’t a guy kick back and enjoy himself?
Maybe it’s gay relaxing, in which case, dude, I am all fagged out, but that is ok. One thing you can do if it seems like half of the sentient universe thinks you are a fag is to find a nonsentient partner, who are easy to acquire in our inner cities.
Or else you can get an Asian chick. Asian chicks never think you are gay, cuz compared to Asian guys you are probably like Sylvester Stallone. I was in bed with this Asian woman once, and we still had our clothes on but not for long, and she asked, “So, are you feeling lazy today?” It’s true I was, but actually I was totally exhausted and plus I was totally stoned out of my gourd, as what better to do an Asian chick, then to take a couple of massive bong hits and then go to town on her?
As I am one lazy-ass mofo, and anyway truth is we all are, even so-called workaholics (GMAB), but yet I was insulted, yet I should have agreed and bragged about how I was swindling welfare or something equally lumpen and parasitical.
So Asian chicks think I am lazy but they never think I’m queer, except this Vietnamese woman who pointedly told me, “You look like a gay!” Well, that was nice of her, blaming God and all that. Thanks bitch.
It’s true! My face is all fagged out and I have the queerest features around, and let me tell you man, there’s nothing better. You get girls and guys both after you in whole armies sometimes, and it’s good to be loved.
One consequence of the Dang is that dude fagged out or what? thing is HOCD, or homosexual OCD. This is easily the stupidest mental illness on Earth, except they are terrified they are queer even when they are not, and it totally ruins their life over absolutely no damned good reason whatsoever.
So in a way it is a nihilistic sort of mental illness, a mental illness that only Kafka could have invented, an absurd mental illness that has no right to exist at all, kind of like most of us, you know?
I have done therapy with some HOCD sufferers online. It’s an interesting experience, but it’s also terrifying in a stupid way. If you ever got caught up in the straight person worried they are queer illness (Man, this that the lamest mental disease on Earth or what?), I do have some therapies for you.
First of all, admit it. Admit you are queer, take pride
in it and advocate it in everyone around you. If you are really insane, you can even make sexual offers to the males around you. This is fun, because since you are straight (Yeah sure! LOL) you don’t really want to do it.
It’s the ultimate expression of macho to say you’re queer and shout it to the skies. You hope everyone knows it’s a lie, but if not, you were just gay for a day, and that’s always a blast.
If I were comfortable with this, it would be one thing, but really I am not. I don’t like effeminate behavior in men, and I try to stay as far away from gay and bisexual men as I can. I’ve had far too many experiences with regular guys, married guys, on and on, to not be wary. I can’t even count the number of guys who I felt were getting way too friendly with me.
At least 25% of males are bisexual or at least opportunistically gay, except in Afghanistan, where the figure is 50% or more. Male bisexuality is everywhere, especially with omnisexual men in their 20’s, who will do it with anything, even a hole in a melon, I guess (I understand that this is the best sexual experience of all, surpassing anything a man can do with a live male or female).
Second of all, advocate for gay rights, now that you are gay and all that. Imagine that you are driving down the street and there is a billboard that has your name and picture on it and says, “[YOUR NAME] IS GAY!” And it has your photo and everything.
And then the paper comes and your pic is on the front page with a headline about how you are REALLY GAY! And everyone is laughing at you and calling you a fag and all, but that right there is a great reason to party, so just make one. Now when someone asks you to sign your name, you want to lie and write “Gay fag McCoy” and just leave it at that, but for the sake of social peace, you resist the urge.
Anyway, it took me a long time to just figure out that I am what I am. Not only do I dislike effeminate behavior in males; I also dislike wimpy males. Deep down inside, there is a part of me that is as macho as any man that ever lived – a lumberjack, a trucker, a fisherman – you name it, I can play that role. Not only that but it’s really me, it really is, and if you disagree with that, will kill you will no regrets as my inner Viking dictates.
I guess there is another side to me, and that’s ok. I always idolized Mick Jagger, Steve Tyler, the New York Dolls, Mott the Hoople and all the androgynous rock stars of the 1970’s. We all grew up with that, and it’s just normal to be that way.
These dudes dressed up like chicks and even wrote totally fagged out songs, but really they were just a bunch of gangbangers, a White Crips and Bloods, and they never queered around, or not too much anyway, or at least I don’t even care who fagged off and sucked on knobs and who didn’t.
If I could just tell folks, no, I’m straight, thank you very much, and it would be over, that would be ok. But the questions never stop coming, and the doubts never end. I must say it is discouraging, but only because this is such an important question.
A certain type of woman gets asked if she likes women, says, “No, I’m strictly dickly”, and the questions end, but for us guys, the doubts just linger. Is that stupid or what? I mean, bitch, I mean woman, I said I’m straight and that means I’m straight! You either understand that or you get tied to the bed again, is that understood? And you will answer Sir!”
Society must find male homo- and bisexuality much more upsetting than the female kind.
Anyway, as there is nothing I can do about this, and this unfortunate issue with remain with me for life, I assume, I hereby anoint this website an officially gay website. We will just make macho fraternity jokes about fags and stuff, and guys who are bi-queerious, I mean bi-curious, but all the while we won’t even fag off, not even once, and if he’s real cute, we promise. Kind of like a great bachelor pad or frat house.
I must admit that there is a part of me that loves being called gay. It’s just so wrong. I’ve gotten to the point where the best way to deal with it is to laugh uproariously and say, “I LOVE it when people think I am gay!”
Then I dance around the room and do my best gay imitation while hopefully some dudes go, “Whoa! Is this guy really is a queer?”, in their friend’s ear, and that makes it even better, as long as they don’t try to kick your ass or anything.
Then I love to tell gay stories just to freak people out and keep them guessing. Like, “I’m not gay or anything, but I once went to a gay bar and drank 13 Penis Coladas, one after the other. Oh, man were they great!”
But hey, I was young and experimenting and lots of guys do crazy things once or twice, even Hugh Hefner fucked a guy once, and if you call me a queer one more time, I am going to have to seriously kick your ass or maybe even kill you, do I make myself understood?
So it’s time for an obligatory gay post. How about Heroic Homo Sex? I love to talk about this website, because every time I do, everyone starts freaking out and looking at me like, “Shut up you idiot! Are you a FAG or what?” All the more reason to talk about it more and more and not just piss off a few people, but piss off as many people as possible!
Anyway, even if you are not gay, this is a great site. This is a site that deals with homosexuality and masculinity, gay culture and effeminate men, AIDS and the contours of masculinity. The author is gay himself, and the site has quite a bit of gay erotica and pornography. If that freaks you out, you better not go there.
But it’s definitely worth the look. The purpose of the site is to attack several aspects of modern gay life: anal sex and promiscuity. These are gay men who are not into anal sex; they think it is painful, dangerous and degrading.
And they have a fascinating thesis.
The thesis goes like this: Before gay liberation, gay men met and had relationships and engaged in all sorts of sex behaviors. Anal sex was not even that popular, and gay men were not tremendously promiscuous. But with gay liberation, came the normalization of gay anal sex.
According to the various articles linked on the site: the obsession with anal sex has been linked to gay liberation – gay lib mandated anal sex as a substitute for heterosexual intercourse. But the site painstakingly points out that the two types of sex are not the same. A vagina is designed by evolution to take a heavy duty penis-pounding, after all, this is one of its purposes.
It’s hard to damage a vagina, as it has a lot of redundancy in its walls. Hence the vagina is relatively refractory to getting blood-borne diseases like AIDS and Hepatitis C and B. You pretty much need to bleed a bit to get a disease like this, and it’s not so easy to make a vagina bleed. It amazingly accommodates a full-grown baby easily, another of its purposes.
An anus is not like this at all. Evolution designed it for elimination, and it has a very thin wall that is easily damaged, if even slightly, during anal sex. Bottom line: bleeding, even microscopic, usually occurs during anal sex. HIV is transmitted easily this way, as is Hepatitis B.
Furthermore, no one ever talks about this, but the site points out that regular anal sex causes anal leakage and fissures (small tears in the anus). More heavy duty stuff like fisting (that a lot of gays are into) can cause anal incontinence, fistulas and all sorts of nasty stuff. Anal prolapse can occur with years of this sort of sex.
Yet the gay community relentlessly promotes anal sex in gay pornography and even gay medical sites. On the medical sites, gay docs tell you to go ahead and engage in anal sex and don’t seem to steer men away from it.
Heroic Homo Sex feels that anal intercourse is ultimately damaging, if only slightly, to the anuses of gay men. Plus they are repulsed by the whole act.
They also promote a fascinating theory: it is not possible to get fucked, anally or vaginally, without having to play a submissive role. Getting fucked makes a person submissive. So gay sex, or being on the receiving end of it anyway, makes gay men submissive and ultimately effeminate. This because getting fucked is feminizing. Fucking is masculinizing.
Andrea Dworkin tried to say much the same thing about the violence inherent in the normative heterosexual sex act, but she was raked over the coals.
It is rape, dammit! That’s why you need to encourage your female partners to engage their rape fantasies to the fullest, since tons of women love to think about getting raped. So rape and rape and rape away, and make a satisfactory adjustment to married life anyway, as the old Abnormal Psych textbooks used to say.
Women act feminine in part because they get fucked. Men act masculine in part because they fuck. Have you ever noticed that when a woman wants to get fucked, or if you are getting ready to fuck her, she tends to act more and feminine, to the point where she is some kind of a silly Barbie Doll Southern woman thing?
Then in the sex act itself of course, tons of women want and love pain (trust me), as (my theory) being a woman is so painful, so if you’re a woman, you either become a bit of a sub and enjoy life or you are screwed and miserable and all bitched out.
The sex act itself, and the role one plays in it, has carry-over effects into nonsexual life.
The guys at Heroic Homo Sex are some interesting gay men. Not only are they repulsed by anal sex, but they are also sickened by the effeminate behavior of gay men. They propose an alternative: that gay men should become more masculine. As, deep down inside, I love masculine behavior, I have to cheer this on. This is great: there is a positive value in masculinity for any male, even a gay one.
The site is full of images of masculine gay men acting masculine, and it promotes a masculine mindset among the gay men who go there. Hear hear!
What they promote is something called frottage, which is basically two guys more or less rubbing their dicks up against each other. This is often combined with masculine images like wrestling and various forms of martial arts.
I guess there are variations on this theme, but it’s quite safe in terms of VD (a horrific problem with gay men due to the wild homosexuality many of them pursue), and it enables gay men to have sex with each other and at the same time retain a masculine identity.
They take the theorizing a bit further. They suggest in some of their essays that anal sex is inherently degrading in and of itself, at least as it is practiced in the gay community. So not only does anal sex make gay men effeminate, it also degrades them and makes them into “sluts”. This has been a part of gay porn culture too – the promotion of anal sex and rampant promiscuity in gay men.
The two are connected, the website suggests. For a man to get fucked anally turns him effeminate and has the effect of “turning him into a slut”. Gay culture promotes the image of the gay man as slut, whore, pig, prostitute, etc. The use of degrading terms is encouraged. So getting fucked effeminizes men and degrades them, turning them into promiscuous “fuck pigs”.
There is ample support for this theory if one takes the time to peruse gay culture. Check out the gay personals of any gay website, if you dare, and you will see tons of insane and rampant promiscuity along with a lot of dangerous anally-focused sex and the continuous promotion of the gay slut-pig sort of fellow.
Not that I am against slut-pigs at all, but more of them should be female and disease-free. This is my only wish at age 50 where Viagra moments become normative events.
The site goes so far as to term this whole gay degradation and sluttification process as a death cult. With AIDS raging through the gay community, that’s not just idle talk.
Anyway, interesting website from some gay men who are looking to turn gay culture seriously on its head. In the meantime, they are promoting some fascinating theories to explain hard to explain phenomena – theories that at least look good on paper.
And they promote an alternative image of gay men as sexually responsible, disease free, and masculine in a warrior sense. As a straight man who values masculinity in myself and other men, I have to cheer it on.
There are links all through the site leading to variations of their main theoretical issues, and you need to click around to get a feel for their whole worldview.
I sort of still have a “terror of gay stuff” OCD thing, so it’s really therapeutic for me to click through all this totally fagged out stuff, just to flood myself some more.
You cannot run from your fears. They must be embraced, head on, like diving into a swimming pool from a high board with no worries. Then you climb out and do it again and again and soon it’s nothing.
The author of the site is a gay man who went through the whole hippie thing in the 1960’s like a lot of us. His partner and the love of his life had a similar developmental trajectory and later acquired AIDS and died of it. The whole site is sort of a tribute to this man who he obviously still deeply loves. I found this touching in an odd way, though normally gay romance doesn’t do much for me.
Warning! There is lots of gay male erotica and even gay male porn on that site. I don’t mind; I just kind of speed through that stuff as it isn’t very interesting to me and it bothers me on some level. So if you can’t handle that sort of thing, don’t even go there. If you have HOCD, you need to go there, stop everything, hold the horses, not now, yesterday!

This is a Psycho Blog

Repost from the old site.
That does it. Something has finally driven me to the edge. What was it? Nine-digit zip codes, what else? I swear to God if I ever have to deal with another of these otherworldly abominations, I will grab a shotgun and climb a tower. I’m so flaky I can barely even keep track of my cell phone, car keys and wallet. How they heck do they expect me to remember nine random numerals?

Caucasian Nationalism – A New Movement

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

I See Race-Denying Idiots

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

Supremacism Versus Chauvinism

Repost from the old site.
One of my finest commenters, James Schipper of Canada, has summed up the nature of the supremacism versus chauvinism debate. The issue in question has to do with whether or not White Nationalists are White Supremacists. James argues that most are not, because they have no desire to rule over what they see as lesser races.
He argues that we ought to junk the term White Supremacism in most cases and just substitute the term White Chauvinism. We can do this with all other ethnic nationalists too – Black Chauvinists, Arab Chauvinists, Chinese Chauvinists, etc. I think I will start doing just that.
James makes another interesting point that had never occurred to me. He points out that racial chauvinists are incapable of thinking in terms of gradations, continua and especially overlap. I see this constantly at American Renaissance.
There is an extreme reluctance there to regard any highly intelligent or high-achieving Black for what they are. Do they have a lot of nice degrees? Affirmative action! To they have a really nice, fancy, high-powered job that requires brains and fancy degrees? Affirmative action hire! Are they regarded as scholars? Intellectual lightweight!
As James notes, the mindset is that the best of yours is worse than the worst of ours.
James also hits on the head the mystery of what this ethnic chauvinism is all about. He points out that it is only a particularly ethnic form of the well-known phenomenon of human pride. This is why ethnic chauvinism looks similarly idiotic across the spectrum of ethnic groups and races.
You will notice this if you follow any of these movements. Greek and Turkish nationalists, Jewish and Arab nationalists, White and Black nationalists, all hate each other’s guts, but the truth is their basic personality styles and the nature of their discourse is strikingly similar.
James also solves the riddle of why ethnic chauvinists say such idiotic things: pride makes a man act like a complete fool and blinds him to reality, as the great sages have been telling us for millenia.

Robert, you are not exactly burdened with an inferiority complex. In fact, you consider yourself intellectually superior to the vast majority of other Americans. That doesn’t make you a supremacist because you do not claim the right to rule over your fellow Americans whom you consider your intellectual inferiors.

Similarly, White Nationalists (WN’s) who think that whites are intellectually superior to blacks are not necessarily White Supremacists, although some may be. Here I have to agree totally with Scott (see comments).
If I say that professors as a group are intellectually superior to dishwashers, then I’m by no means implying that professors should have more rights than dishwashers or that dishwashers should do the bidding of professors. Even if there were no races, then some people would still be superior to others.
No conclusion can be drawn from that without some ethical premises. Superiority of any kind is never a sufficient basis for domination. It all depends on one’s moral position. It is perfectly logical to believe at the same time that people are very unequal in ability and that they should be equal in rights.
Every supremacist may be a believer in the superiority of his group, but the converse is not true. Not every believer in the superiority of his own group is a supremacist. Instead of calling WN’s White Supremacists, you should call them White Chauvinists.
One vice of chauvinists is their frequent inability to think in terms of continua and overlap. They prefer dichotomies and intervals. Instead of saying that their group is only a few degrees superior to the next group and that many members of other groups are superior to members of their group, they prefer to see a vast interval between their own group and all other groups.
Their favorite motto is: The best of you is not as good as the worst of us.
We are dealing with the sin of pride here. Offensive though pride may be, it also has a ridiculous side because pride can blind a person and make him/her look foolish, which is what you often see at American Renaissance.

The Hmong IQ Revisited

Repost from the old site.
I made an error in a prior calculation of the Hmong IQ on this blog. It was pretty easy to do. If you look at this link, it seems to be a link describing a study on Hmong students that came up with an IQ of 96.44. But I just went back and looked at it again and the site actually references two separate studies both measuring the same thing – the correlation between the K-BIT and WISC intelligence tests.
One study used students in Florida and came up with the 96.44 IQ score. Another study with a similar title was referenced at the bottom and discussed Hmong students. I did not understand that two separate studies were being referred to here. Here is the link if you want to see how I made the error.
Anyway, I just chased down the real Hmong study and it found an IQ of 82.15 for Hmong 9-year old immigrants in the US. That strikes me as way too low, but that is all we have to go by now. There was an extreme divergence between Performance = 95 and Verbal =74 (!) IQ scores. The verbal score strikes me as far too low, and indicates that the students may have had a hard time with the English language.
I have spent quite a bit of time working with Hmong adults of various ages in Fresno, and my impression was that they are not stupid at all. In fact, I felt that they were some of the more intelligent of the SE Asians. A friend of the family in Davis, California has worked a lot with the Mien, a group that is probably very closely related to the Hmong. The children live amongst incredible deprivation there but are often star students.
I feel that as the Hmong stay in the US longer, their IQ scores are sure to rise.
A similar thing occurred with Italians in the US. Around 1920, Italians were scoring about 77-78 on IQ tests and exhibited considerable social pathology such as high crime rates, school failure, gang membership, etc. Much ink was expended on the genetic unfitness of Southern Europeans in general and Italians in particular. These popular attitudes were an impetus for the 1924 Immigration Act that limited immigration from Southern Europe.
Anyone who has spent a lot of time around Italian-Americans these days knows that none of these things are true anymore. Although studies are lacking, it appears that Italian-Americans score around the US White average of 100. In Europe, Italians are one of the highest-scoring groups on the continent.
The paper on the Hmong IQ (the only study of the Hmong IQ ever done, to my knowledge) is here. Prior posts referencing the incorrect score have been revised accordingly.

References

Smith, Douglas K., Wessels, Richard A., Riebel, Emily M. August 1997. Use of the WISC-III and K-BIT with Hmong Students. School Psychology Training Program University of Wisconsin-River Falls. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.

Oglers of the World Unite!

Repost from the old site.
First of all, we are obsessed with sex, as a nation. When I was growing up, sex was mandatory. If you were not doing it all the time, there was something wrong with you. Shoot, if you had not done it in two or three weeks, there was something horribly wrong with you.
I would submit that that is nuts right there. These were college aged young adults aged 18-24 that we are talking about here. Part of the reason it is unfair is that I am convinced that lots of people who do not have very active sex lives are not doing that out of choice. They really want to be having tons of sex, but they just not getting any, or not much anyway.
From a liberationist point of view, this person has their heart in the right place. Unless you have lots of money, are gay or very good looking with an excellent personality, sex is not necessarily the easiest thing in the world to get tons of if you are a male.
There are some other issues here. First of all, looks. I really do not believe that looks do much for a guy in the same way they do for a woman. You could be the best looking guy in town, but if you don’t have any money, or if you are strange or weird in a neurotic kind of way, or maybe if you are just shy, you could probably go years without so much as a date.
The most beautiful woman in town will have no such problems. If she is broke, no problem. Half the guys in town will gladly pay her way or even let her move in with them for free. She won’t even have to work for a living! Hell, she can work on her back!
She can have sex and make a living at it and not even be a prostitute. Just get yourself a sugar daddy or a rich guy, and a beautiful woman gets an excellent income and never has to do a day’s work for the rest of her life.
Suppose the most beautiful woman in town is shy? So what! Shyness is no obstacle for females, and women don’t really ask men out much anyway, despite all the liberationism. Women just have to sit back and wait for men to ask them out. Wow, that’s really hard!
So, the shy guy really has some problems. He needs to ask women out, but women often give out conflicting signals. The woman who seems like she really likes you one day becomes your worst enemy the next, especially after you ask her out.
With the insanity of sexual harassment laws and pseudo-laws, I have actually seen cases where men were called on the carpet on jobs for asking a woman out – it happened once at a workplace. The guy was kind of strange, but I thought he was harmless enough. I talked to him about it afterwards, and he said he had worked there for five months and that was the first woman he had asked out.
He said he thought about it very carefully and only asked her out when he thought she might say yes. He said he did not ask out the overwhelming majority of women he met because he did not get good enough feelings from them. He told me had not asked out a woman in almost two years. I saw him years later and he told me that after that incident, he had not asked out a woman for four years.
But the whole office was up in arms over this! This weird guy had asked out a woman! Horrors! Horrors! Such a terrible man. My God, I bet he was tying to get laid, that evil bastard creep. The office ran to the rescue of the fair maiden being pestered by the horny male. What were they looking to preserve? Her virginity?
Shy guys have it bad enough without everyone dog-piling on them after they ask someone out. I honestly think men ought to be free to ask women out. Really. That should not fall under sexual harassment charges.
Ok, now what if the best looking woman in town is kind of weird? Let’s say she’s kind of neurotic. She often looks distracted and worried, and looks like she is thinking about something else all the time.
Now, for a guy, this is absolutely deadly. First of all, it’s going to get seriously in the way of making money. Second of all, hardly any woman will touch a guy like that, even if he’s the best looking guy in town. He’s going to get pegged as a weirdo, or maybe dangerous, or a creep.
Now, a woman can be like that and no one is going to say she’s dangerous or a weirdo just for having a funny look in her eyes. Female creeps don’t even exist. Creeps can only be male!
Actually, this sort of woman will have even more guys after her than ever, I bet. She’s known as a spacer chick, or a space chick. No guy in town will care about this. She can have dates with rich guys every night of the week if she wants. Being spacy will probably attract even more guys to her, because guys think spacy women are just out of it enough for her to be easier to get into bed.
This is where I really part company with Western feminists and their “woman is so screwed” line. From where I’m coming from, Western women in the US have it made.
Women won’t even go out with us until they look at our bank account and our net worth. Yet a beautiful woman doesn’t even need to work. There’s a ferocious anti-sexual current in feminism, and it’s particularly aimed at males who are, um, trying to get laid.
Looking at women in public? Ogling! There is nothing, I mean, nothing, a feminist hates worse than ogling.
I know a 45 year old guy who just got thrown out of a local Starbucks for checking out the waitresses, aged about 17-20. He said he’s been looking at women his whole life, and all of a sudden it’s a problem. Fact is, he’s gotten too old, and he’s not rich. If he had lots of money, those same silly young women would have thrown their phone numbers at him instead of banning him.
The guy’s an acquaintance of mine. He said since they tried to ban him, he’s afraid to look at women period, because he’s afraid they are going to try to get him in trouble again.
As I said, the problem is the guy is aging. Young women really don’t want us old guys, despite our fantasies. They want guys their own age. At some point, if we keep looking at them, we become, “Ewwww!” creeps. Dirty old men. Society plays into this mad bullshit with the recent insanity over child molestation. A man over age 45 who looks at girls aged 16-20 is considered a child molester. No kidding!
Truth is, non-dead, non-homosexual males of all ages are attracted to teenage girls. Any man who says he isn’t is a hypocritical liar.
Young females are empowered and think they can throw men old enough to be their dads out of establishments for the crime of wandering eyes.
Another favorite rant of feminist rantings is “guys who ask women out” or maybe “ask them out too much”. Or something. Or this or that. Along the same lines, guys who make sexual innuendos are a major target.
Sexual innuendos are what’s called flirting. Since humans have sex, humans flirt. Flirting is what humans do when they want to have sex. It figures that feminists would make flirting all but illegal, and it almost seems that is what they have done.
Nothing offends a feminist more than a guy looking at her, talking about sex within earshot (damages those pretty little ears of hers), flirting with her, or asking her out. Except if he’s rich. Then she’s all ears.
I submit that this lunacy has gone way too far. We are for all intents and purposes living under a Feminazi Dictatorship here in America. Really, men of all ages ought to be reasonably free to look at women within reasonable bounds. It’s normal for any man to look at a teenage girl a bit, even if he can’t touch her. There’s a reason beauty contest feature 18 year olds. The female is at her most beautiful then.
Men really ought to be free to ask out women, provided they aren’t being completely clueless idiots about it. Any reasonable guy asking out a woman with no power differential involved is never a case of sexual harassment. Flirting is one of those things that humans do. They do it because they have sex. I guess if we want to get rid of flirting, we need to get rid of sex. As sex is not going anywhere, flirting is here to stay.
Once again, there’s a time and a place. Women flirt with men all the time. Men even flirt with men. I’ve been on the receiving end of all sorts of innuendo from both sexes. Some of it wasn’t exactly optimal, but I never thought of calling the PC Police. Men really ought to be free to engage in carefully thought out flirtation with judiciously chosen women.
If she doesn’t like it, just communicate that.
What makes all of this so much more complicated is my perception of the way women act. There’s a couple of women out there who really hate me right now. What’s weird is I swear a little while ago, they seemed like they really, really liked me. Hate is close to love, especially in the female. Ask a woman out, she says no, and she’ll probably hate you forever.
Ask a woman out, she says yes, you date for a bit, and she’ll probably hate you forever still. I’ve dated a couple of hundred women in 50 years, and I don’t look forward to meeting any of them. The few that I still come across act like they hate me. I suspect the rest all feel that way too. I just figure that’s normal.
But supplying these hot and cold burning and freezing objects called females with a weapons dump of ammo called Political Correctness is a bad idea. They’re going to abuse it, and they do.
Honey, listen up. This is Bob the Pig talking.
If a guy asks you out and you don’t want to go out with him, just say no, and say it not very nicely. If he’s ogling you too much, glare at him. If he’s flirting with you, and you don’t like it, act huffy, glare at him and storm out. If he’s talking about sex, and it hurts your dainty little ears, do the same.
Women have been doing this for centuries, and it’s worked just fine. All those centuries, women lived without any PC Police protection, and they didn’t even go extinct. Will miracles never cease?

Communist Shame

Repost from the old site.
As the White comedian Gallagher says, “Sometimes White People embarrass me!” I agree. Also, as a Commie, I must say, sometimes Communists embarrass me!
Communists are supposedly pro-working class.
This is a video of a rally in Los Angeles that was due to be held by Ted Hayes of Choose Black America. Hayes is a radical Black man in many ways, maybe even a pan-Africanist (see the ANC style knit cap).
Unfortunately, like so many anti-illegal immigrant activists, he is also a Republican. Voting Republican will never do a damn thing for the vast majority of Black Americans. There is a rational reason why Blacks vote Democratic – the party is more responsive to their needs than the Republicans. Hayes was a lifelong Leftist who just turned Republican the other day.
He is a tireless advocate for the homeless and for US Blacks. He supports Malcolm X (but then in some ways so do I) and he also supports reparations for US Blacks (but then I might too, depending on the proposal).
Yet he is dead set against illegal immigration, as are many Blacks. There was a counter-rally there against the Choose Black America rally of Communists and Anarchists and Raza types.
Notice the disgusting Communists in this video screaming at anti-illegal alien activists (50% of whom were African-Americans), “Racist! Racist! Racist! Nazi!” Jesus Christ! It’s only the goddamned norm in almost every nation on Earth to disallow illegal entry to the land. Nearly any country that catches you sneaking onto its land without permission will boot your ass right out, no questions asked.
Apparently these Communist morons think that 95% of the nations on Earth are racists for making it illegal to enter the country without permission? That’s nuts!
The poor sods being abused by these Leftist idiots are simply asking that the US act like almost every other normal country on Earth – that we penalize those who sneak onto our lands and boot them back where they came from. For this simple and strikingly rational request, they are being called RACIST by a bunch of fools.
Someone ask these Communist boneheads exactly how the US working class benefits from this illegal alien invasion. The invasion of America by illegal aliens has positively nuked the working class of America, especially in the West and Southwest. Look, I am not so stupid as to think that illegals have been the sole decline of the US working class.
A number of factors have been involved, many of them deliberate conspiracies on the part of the US elite and business sector. But to leave illegals out of the equation, as almost all liberal and Left analyses of the decline of the American worker do, is just crazy, like just about everything about this insane issue.
It’s not solely a problem of illegal immigration either. Unlimited legal immigration via H-1B visas has devastated the high-paying professional workers in the high tech industry. Why hire an American when you can hire an Indian for 1/2 as much? A US company now imports Indians on H-1B visas to drive big-rigs for 50% of what Americans do.
Every year, all of the the Democrats and liberals in the US Congress march off and vote for the wage- and job-wrecking H-1B visa program, amidst Bill Gates lunatic screeds that computer programming is a job that Americans just won’t do. WTF!
Illegal aliens have driven up the cost of housing via overcrowding and excessive demand on the housing market at the same time they have sent working class wages into the gutter, a deadly combo. Since the poverty and especially the illegal status of illegal aliens means they use far more in social services than they pay in taxes, they have overcrowded and degraded many public services such as hospitals, schools, etc.
Go into any school or hospital overrun by illegal immigrants and notice the falling-apart look everything has. There’s no money, no money, everyone says. A flood of users and a dearth of income equals a collapsing infrastructure.
Hence, illegal aliens have not only created a low-wage, high cost (housing) economy, but they have devastated social services such as schools and hospitals for working class and poor American citizens of all colors.
I’m not saying illegals should be denied medical care or their kids should be thrown out of the K-12 schools. I’m just saying that importing 12 million largely impoverished, uneducated and unskilled 3rd World peasants, is not a particularly rational move for many reasons, economic, cultural, and others.
It’s not even a progressive move either. The Communist USSR, China and Cuba worked in overdrive to bring their nations out of underdevelopment and Third-Worldization and towards at least the health and development figures of the First World. Tell me how turning a First World country into a Third World country should be part of any progressive, not to mention Communist, project anywhere on Earth?
In particular, the immigrants from Mexico are not a particularly selective class of immigrants.
Racial stuff aside, bear me out.
40% of Indian immigrants to the US have advanced degrees. 1% (!!!) of Mexican immigrants have advanced degrees. 20% of immigrants to the US from Africa, of all places (surely the most messed-up place on Earth) are working in high-paying jobs in medicine, engineering and science. 1% (!!!) of Mexican immigrants are working in these types of jobs.
Does this mean that Africans and Indians are smarter or even better educated than Mexicans? Surely they are not smarter. As far as education goes, I can’t answer that, but as a group, Indians and Africans are very poorly educated.
Let the Leftist mush-brains rant and call me racist. But hear me out.
It has nothing to do with race or IQ or even culture. We are simply being very selective about the Indians and Africans we are bringing in, and extremely unselective about the Mexicans we are bringing in. What are the Mexicans with advanced degrees doing? Staying put in Mexico and making lots of money.
I usually do not deal with IQ differences between nations, not to mention races on here, but let’s go to that forbidden land for a moment. Looking at IQ, Mexico probably has a higher IQ nationwide than India (about 92 to 81).
Although I have a hard time believing such figures, the quoted figures for Africa are around 70 IQ. So IQ-wise, Mexico is superior to both India and Africa. Yet the quality of Mexico’s immigrants, as we see above, is far lower, simply because we are not being selective at all about them.
Even culturally, Mexico may have it up on India, where there are almost 3 million excess deaths per year due only to infant mortality and another million excess deaths compared to China (considering that China and India were in the same place in 1949, Indian capitalism causes 4 million excess deaths per year as compared to “communist” China). This was India’s penalty for not following a Chinese economic model.

14 million children starve to death (or die of malnutrition) every year
on Earth – most of them in South Asia – in capitalist Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Africa is a slow-motion train wreck, with some of the lowest life expectancies on Earth.
We can make the case that Mexico has a higher collective IQ and is more developed culturally than India or Africa. Yet the quality of Indian and African immigrants to the US has been much higher, and neither race nor culture has anything to do with their higher quality.
If the vast majority of Mexican immigrants were legal, if 40% of them had advanced degrees and 20% of them were working in high-paying positions, does anyone think we would be having the nearly problems with them that we are?
The difference is in large part due to selective legal immigration, which is somewhat rational, and utterly unselective illegal immigration, which lacks any rational basis at all.

The Invasion of Oakhurst

Repost from the old site.
I lived in Oakhurst, California, off and on for 16 1/2 years. I moved there in December 1990, then moved down to Fresno, California for a few months, then back up to Oakhurst for the next 16 years.
About 2-3 years ago, illegal aliens invaded Oakhurst. Why it took them so long to come there, I have no idea. You tell me. During my time in Oakhurst, a friend, who is frankly a racist (he openly admits it) was telling me about the catastrophe called Southern California. My former town, Huntington Beach, is unrecognizable. There were “non-Whites” everywhere. I’m not sure that is a catastrophe.
One of the things he pointed out is that illegal aliens, almost all Mexicans, have exploded across Southern California.
I believe it. Growing up in Orange County, California, there were always a few Mexicans around. I started learning Spanish at age six, dated Hispanic girls at age 17, and had assimilated Mexican-American and Hispanic friends. In my youth, I worked as a janitor, in factories, in warehouses, as a forklift driver, in housekeeping, as a dishwasher, in landscaping, in construction, driving an ice cream truck, you name it.
Almost 100% of the people you met in these jobs were Americans, typically White Americans, often young White Americans. In construction, there were some older White guys. In dishwashing, they were all ages, including a Chicano citizen. Fast food was all Whites of all ages. So was forklifting and so was warehousing, except for some Mexican-Americans. Janitors were White and Black Americans of all ages.
Landscaping (Yes! We worked in the yards of the White middle class!) was all Whites, except for one illegal alien I met in 1979. Housekeeping was all middle-aged White women. Ice cream truck drivers were Americans and legal immigrants (mostly Iranians) of all ages.
In factories, it was mostly White Americans, except in 1979 when I discovered a factory full of illegal aliens. I went to the INS to turn them in and the idiot flat out told me that would not investigate the factory, and gave me some sob story about “trying to feed their families”.
There was no labor shortage in Orange County in the 1970’s. All of the jobs that “Americans won’t do” were being done by Americans, often White Americans, and not for much pay either. Hell, I did these damn jobs myself, with pride. This crap about “jobs Americans won’t do” still mystifies me.
There were few illegal aliens in Orange County in those days. The INS regularly conducted raids and was continuously deporting illegals. This policy was supported by super liberal Jerry Brown and by Californians across the spectrum. Strange, isn’t it?
Enter Ronald Reagan. With Reagan came the devaluation of the American workingman, especially the White worker, and apparently a total devastation of enforcement, raids and deportations of illegals. The illegal population seemed to grow and grow all through the 1980’s, with Reagan’s apparently tacit encouragement.
During this time it also became fashionable to try to get rich and to devalue the working class. The notion that American working class workers (especially White workers) were lazy, undependable, “losers” and just plain crappy workers was hoisted as a meme, while the White working class continued to march off and vote for their destroyer, Reagan, due to racial, religious and cultural conservative themes.
At the same time, Reagan was promoting a total invasion of Mexican cheap labor into the US, and with it the ruination of the US working class.
In the 1990’s, the invasion completely exploded, as first Bush Sr, for cheap labor reasons, and then Clinton, for idiot liberal reasons (Or maybe for elite class reasons?), refused to enforce the labor laws.
Whenever the Right and Left agree that something is a great idea, you know it is probably one of the worst ideas on Earth. The Amnesty of 1986, which has utterly failed, comes to mind. The deinstitutionalization of mental hospitals does too.
Under Bush in the 2000’s, enforcement and raids plummeted to almost zero, way down from even Clinton’s low level. And the invasion completely exploded and moved all across America. With it has come the rage of Middle America as they experienced the invaders for the first time.
Ensconced in Oakhurst, I scarcely saw this invasion. But I went to Orange County in 2004 and was stunned at what I saw. Parts of it were simply a Third World country (Garden Grove) with Hispanics – apparently almost all illegals – as far as the eye could see. In other parts of Garden Grove, it seemed to be all Asians, often Koreans, Vietnamese or Chinese, with a few Filipinos. Many or most of these immigrants seemed to barely speak English.
It was a site to see. I hate to say that it simply did not look like America. Not the America I was used to. Not the one I was brought up in.
Everywhere in Orange County a radical caste-like class system seemed to have taken hold. There seemed to be two classes, like in any Banana Republic – the rich and upper middle class (staying in my hotel and running it) and this vast, teeming, unwashed, underclass of proletarianized laborers. It could have been San Salvador, Lima, Bogota, Manila, Calcutta or Jakarta in that sense at least. The middle class was either nonexistent or very small.
Later, I went to a wedding in Irvine, California. On the way, I drove through Mexico. They told me it was America, but I knew better. I’ve been to Mexico. This was not America.
At the wedding, the underclass was nowhere to be seen. The people in the bar and at the restaurant, and to some extent at the wedding, were the nouveau riche, mostly Whites with a few Vietnamese. This elite plus servants with teeming slums on the hillside scene is not the America I grew up in. It looks like 3rd World semi-feudalism…Latin America, the Philippines.
Back to Oakhurst. 2 or the 3 years ago, it got invaded. Why? Who knows? I guess California is so flooded with illegals that they are finally worming their way into the mountains. Before, Oakhurst was mostly White with some Indians. The few others assimilated to the White mountain rural culture.
Jobs Americans won’t do!? For 14 years I lived in Oakhurst. In that time, there was never any labor shortage. Americans worked in fast food, as janitors, in construction, in landscaping, as handymen, waiters and dishwashers, housekeepers and maids, and roofers and painters, usually for low wages. There was no problem finding Americans to do this work. Got it? No problem!
Now, something has changed. My friends in construction tell me that Fresno is mostly illegal aliens in construction. Some illegals are now working construction in the mountains. My former landlord brazenly hired illegals to do construction and roofing work on my apartment. Everyone knew they were illegals, but no one could do a thing. It was audacious and in your face. Who could we call? We seethed.
My friend, working construction, clued me in. On more and more jobs, they saw illegals. The capitalist scum boss forced them to do all sorts of illegal work, violated every labor law on the book, forced unsafe work on his workers so some of them got seriously injured, and the whole time, threatened to fire them all and replace them with “Mexicans”. That means illegals.
If anyone complained, went to the labor board or was anything but submissive, he would bring in the illegals.
My friend also clued me in on more stuff.
Illegals in construction generally do not work as hard as Americans, especially White Americans (my brother was not disparaging non-White Americans – he just had not worked with many of them). Furthermore, they do not do better work, in fact, they usually do lousy work. He said it is well known in the construction industry that illegals do lousy work, but the crooked contractors could care less.
Landscaping work, formerly all American workers, was now beginning to be replaced by illegals. Fast food restaurants went pretty quickly mostly illegal. Janitorial went just like that, bam. They really flooded the restaurants. Most dishwashing now is all illegals. The housekeeping jobs were quickly gone, all illegals.
My friend told me that Class 2 trucking (non big rigs) in Southern California had long since gone all illegals. My American friends worked these jobs when I was younger. Now the bottom has fallen out of the wages, and the illegals are lousy drivers. They are not paid enough to fix their trucks or maintain them. Accidents and broken-down trucks are a major problem.
Homeland Security just decided that truck drivers out of the port of LA need to be US citizens, so the industry is going to fire 23,000 illegal aliens.
The illegals in Oakhurst kept their heads down for a couple of years, as they often do when they invade a new town. When I left Oakhurst, they were starting to get brazen, as they always do. Car thefts were being reported. Car thefts, in Oakhurst?! Almost unheard of. Now they are quite common.
Could it have been the illegals? I asked. Nope, it was the “speed freaks” – the Mexicans had nothing to do with it. Oh really? We’d had speed freaks in Oakhurst since I moved there, with little to no car thefts. The illegals show up, and now there’s car thefts. Hmmm.
Gang graffiti appeared for the first time. Where there are illegal Mexican invaders, there is gang graffiti. Despite all the nonsense you hear about “White gangs”, there were never any White gangs, nor any White gang graffiti, or any gang graffiti, in Oakhurst before the illegals invaded.
Spanish was now heard everywhere. The new illegals could barely speak a single word of English. Good thing I can speak the invader language – Spanish!
Excuse me? You don’t speak a word of English? How do you suppose you are going to support yourself in our society? How many countries let you invade them at will, take any job you want (Steal it from a citizen!), refuse to learn the language, and then defiantly demand citizenship? Almost none!
You can’t invade at all – few countries allow it. Very few countries allow most foreigners to work, certainly not those who invaded. If you refuse to learn the language, fine, but most countries won’t bend over backwards to help you, you may have a hard time getting along there unless you learn the language, and you certainly cannot become a citizen until you show some proficiency.
Except America, excuse me.
So many of the jobs in Oakhurst that were being done by Americans were now being done by the invaders. Gee, what happened to all the Americans who were doing those jobs? Who knows? But I started seeing an awful lot of unemployed and underemployed Whites around, especially young Whites. And I started seeing an awful lot of homeless young Americans, mostly White but a couple of Blacks. They never existed before.
Gee, do you think the young homeless and under- and unemployed Americans had anything to do with the invaders? Hmmmm.
A friend, who has a house painting business, told me his sad story. The competition is hiring illegals for junk wages and underbidding him. He knows many construction contractors who have been hiring illegal aliens. They openly brag about it at the gym.
Most of them are living in fancy houses on huge lots and driving Mercedes Benz’s and BMW’s. That’s the result of illegals in construction – wildly increased profits for corrupt contractors and a Latin American-like society. How much of the much-heralded recent wealth gap is due to invaders driving down wages?
My friend recently went out on a construction job in a development just outside Yosemite National Park. The guy who was going to hire him flat out told him that he was not going to hire my friend – that he was going to hire “Mexicans” instead. In California, that means illegals.
Forget Republicans and Democrats. This new immigration amnesty is a war of elites and their servants against American workers. The goal – cheap labor. You know, it really ticks off that $300 an hour attorney – Republican or Democrat – that he has to hire that American plumber for $50 an hour. You know he’d love to have an illegal invader do it for $10 an hour.
How many people on Ted Kennedy‘s street have lost jobs to illegal aliens? How many in his neighborhood? Zero.
The elites want to replace the entire US working class with immigrant, preferably illegal alien invader, labor.
After that they are going to go to work on professionals and skilled labor. Already illegals work in Class 1 trucking (big rigs), where they buy licenses from crooked licensors for $1,500 (don’t worry about passing the tests). The accident rate is starting to go up with big rigs and all these corrupt immigrant scammer-drivers.
A US company just announced that they are bringing in huge numbers of truckers from India to drive big rigs. Why? It’s a job Americans won’t do, that’s why, right?
I must admit a secretive glee when I found out that the jobs of schoolteachers are being replaced by immigrants from Mexico (!?) while others are being outsourced to “tutors” from India who “teach” classes to rooms full of students over the Internet.
Schoolteacher had always been one of those middle class home-owning occupations that was pretty much pro-illegal. Why? As long as your job is not being replaced by illegals, you tend to support them. Now the immigrants are replacing them. Haha! And all over America, perfectly qualified Americans say they can’t find a teaching job.
White collar workers better quit grinning. They’re being replaced by immigrants too. The California Republican Party recently hired two high ranking officials. Obviously, no one in the US was capable of doing these jobs, so they had to hire immigrants from Australia and Canada. Who were willing to work for less money, no doubt.
It is beyond me why the Left and the unions are supporting the invaders, seeing as how they have devastated the wage structure for working class Americans while taking their jobs. Now the elites and their immigrant buddies are going to work on professional Americans. Where will it end?
I thought the Left and the Democratic Party was pro-worker, pro-average guy? Most of the Democratic bigwigs in the party are wealthy elitists, let’s face it. I guess they want servants too? Or do they cynically want to legalize 11 million illegals just to grow the party?
Can someone clue me in? It’s pretty sad when the only voices supporting the working class against the invaders are on the Right. Where is the Left? Why is it siding with the invaders and against US workers?
What’s going on? Anyone?

Invasion of America

Repost from the old site.
Are we being invaded? Sure we are. Let’s look at some photos of the invasion. The sheer outrage of this situation is enough to make you throw up your hands.

Here is a photo of members of an American group that gives water to water stations in the desert for illegal aliens to use. I support this. Although invading America is a crime, it’s not one severe enough to put a person in jail, much less give them the death penalty.
Here is a group on the Mexican side doing the same thing – distributing water to water stations for illegal aliens to drink before they cross the border. That’s ok. They are going to cross anyway, and they don’t deserve to die for the crime of crossing the border, for Chrissake.
Charming illegal aliens displaying some of their vaunted social skills. “Day labor” sites are utterly outrageous! These are sites where illegal alien criminals gather in public to get hired illegally (a felony!) by anyone who wants to pick them up. To do what? To do anything. To do jobs that Americans should be doing and are perfectly capable of doing.
More charming day laborers at an illegal site set up by a New York town in order to facilitate the felonious hiring of illegal aliens. Day labor sites are arguably illegal and the cities who set them up are arguably guilty of breaking the law.
More wonderful folks at a day labor site. Illegal alien Mexicans at illegal (IMO) day labor sites cause many problems. They urinate in the bushes and in public, sleep in the area, and just cause a general nuisance and a lowering of property values. As a Black resident noted, “Would the cops let a group of Black men hang out on the corner in such numbers. Of course not. But illegal aliens as a source of exploited cheap labor are supported by business and the elite of both the Right and Left.
Illegal alien invaders outrageously rushing across our border in plain daylight. What’s stopping radical Islamic terrorists from sprinting across the border themselves. These guys just made it through a fence dubbed as “Israeli-strength”. Guess not.
More insanity. ICE agents actually raid a construction site in Sierra Vista, Arizona earlier this year. It is probably full of illegal aliens. In 1976, my friends were making $15 an hour hanging drywall (that is $40/hour plus in 2007 dollars). That profession is now 1/3 illegal alien (!) and the bottom has fallen out of the wages. Union construction jobs pay about $22-33 an hour. Illegal aliens in construction make about $10 an hour. Illegals have nuked American construction workers in the West. The Left supports this insanity!
More charming “family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande” folks engaging in illegal activities and soliciting for employers to commit crimes by hiring them.
The US border with Mexico. That idiotic fence there is actually broken, so it would not stop anyone who wanted to drive through. I’m laughing as I write this. How pitiful!
Another comical picture of the US “border” with Mexico with yet another ineffectual fence on the border. Those footprints in the sand are from the countless invaders invading our country illegally. In most any other land, they would be booted out right away. Here they are welcomed with open arms since they are being used as a brown-skilled nuclear weapon by capitalists to nuke the American working class.
This van was driven by a criminal alien smuggler who sneaked across the border and then led Border Patrol heroes on a chase across Southern Arizona. This maniac passed three school buses filled with kids. While he was doing that, he was apparently missing both front tires! Go figure. Patriotic Americans from Arizona report that this kind of insanity happens all the time down there and they are regular car crashes and police chases involving aliens and their smugglers. IOW, a situation that is so out of control it is almost Kafkaesque.
The fence ends here. What a joke. You call that a fence at the border? This is how we “secure” our border. I’m still laughing.

Anti-Immigrant Movement Faces Serious Obstacles

Repost from the old site.
The movement for immigration sanity (IS) in the US faces serious obstacles, one of which is many of the people in the movement are a bunch of idiots, as far as I can tell. I just spent some time on anti-immigrant blog, and I was flat out told that I was not welcome in their movement!
I suggested that they needed to extend their movement beyond its narrow rightwing base to include Centrists, liberals and even Leftists, and I was told in no uncertain terms to get lost. Incredible or what? Who is welcome? Hard rightwingers only, I guess.
As it stands, the IS movement looks like a terrifyingly rightwing movement to most politically reasonable people. Hatred for Centrists, liberals, Democrats, civil liberties types, secularists, not to mention the Left, is rife. Your average IS blog reads like a combination of the militia/patriot movement, the Christian Right the White Nationalist movement and the John Birch Society.
A few minutes on one of their sites is enough to send most any Centrist, liberal, Democrat or Leftist running away screaming. There is not enough effort at all being made to expand the movement beyond its narrow, ultra rightwing, hillbilly, ignoramus, Yahoo and racist base. Extremist Christian kookiness abounds.
The few Democrats who are involved are very rightwing Democrats, more or less like the Southern Democrats of old.
You’ve read the polls. 70% of Americans outrageously support some kind of amnesty for illegal aliens. The IS movement is a narrow movement drawing almost all of its support from the Right and Far Right. Little effort is being made to bring Centrists, liberals, Democrats or even Leftists into the movement. In fact, liberals, Centrists and Leftists are sometimes actively driven from the movement.
The movement also seems to be populated heavily by very ignorant White Americans, the sort of stereotypical American Yahoo who hasn’t read a book since high school, can’t spell, can’t use proper syntax, and can’t write a coherent sentence. Great! A movement full of bigoted, fundamentalist idiots! Wonderful!
There are many possibilities for this movement. Any sane progressive who advocates for the workers ought to get behind this IS movement.
I went to a California liberal Democrat website the other day and saw a forum on illegal immigration. I was astonished that about 80% of them were stark raving furious, to the point of sputtering, about illegal immigration. There are no blogs or forums for these folks to go to, as many in the rightwing anti-immigrant movement will make them feel unwelcome.
There are some logistical problems in growing this movement. How do we tone down the racist boneheads so they don’t scare off the non-rightwingers? How do we get sane non-rightwingers and non-racists into a movement that is shot through with anti-Hispanic racism and White Supremacism from top to bottom?
How do we talk about the racist Yahoos and still manage to get sane people to join a movement that is swimming with them like fish at a trout farm? How to deal with touchy questions of race, IQ, crime rates and the like? Say we get an IS forum going. Quickly the rightwing crazies will pile on there and start belting away at liberalism and everything it stands for.
If there are any liberals on the forum, they are either going to run bug-eyed for the hills, or they will stay and fight the rightwingers. Pretty soon a forum which should be focusing on the common enemy degenerates into idiotic infighting. Just what La Raza wants! So what do we do? Institute some rules about no liberal-bashing and no conservative-bashing?
Set up different fora for liberals and conservatives? The last may be the best plan. What about class? Though most IS folks are working class, some are upper middle class. How do we deal with the inevitable blue versus white collar tensions that arise when each group pursues its self-interests?
As it stands, this is a movement that in some respects deserves to be defeated.
What’s the solution? Grow the movement. Liberals, Centrists and even Leftists need to be made to feel that they can be part of this movement too.

Is the Anti-Illegal Immigrant Movement Racist?

Repost from the old site.
It’s actually a trick question. Some of members of the anti-immigration movement are racists. Racists always join any movement critical of immigration. So what? This entire argument rests on a fallacious assumption. That the presence of one group in a movement means that all of the other members of the movement share the feelings of that one group.
It’s a well-known logical fallacy called guilt by association. It’s very important to become aware of all of the logical fallacies out there, because people are always using these BS arguments to try to convince you of this or that. Fact is, if you change your mind due to a logical fallacy, you are being fooled. If you do so knowingly, you are a fool. If you use logical fallacies in your arguments, you are either ignorant or a knowing liar.
“Guilt by association” is widely used and manages to convince hundreds of millions of fools of this or that every year the world over.
Yet, just because I associate with someone, or anyone, does not mean that I share any, all or some of their views.
Some of the kids in my apartment complex I associate with claim to be Hispanic gang members. A Black guy I know here wears a stocking over his head, gangster-style. One of the Chicano guys I was drinking with at the bar the other night looked like he just got out of prison and had a shirt on with an apparent gang logo.
I’m also friends with a guy who is a White Supremacist racist, with the usual Nazi sympathies. He pretty much refuses to speak with anyone who is not White, especially Blacks and Browns. I don’t agree with him, but I’m not going to dissociate with him.
I have friends who are rightwing Republicans and others who are leftwing Democrats and a few who are Communists.
To say that I agree with all of these people would be impossible, as they all hold contradictory views.
Militant Jews are some of the world’s leading experts in devious argumentation, including logical fallacy, lawyerese, sophistry, prevarication and basically the art of verbal BS. I guess that is why there are so many Jewish lawyers? I learned this while doing combat with them in the Mideast groups on Usenet. One of the Jews’ favorite tactics was guilt by association.
If one voiced any sympathy for any Palestinian or Arab group, some obscure terroristic or anti-Semitic incident done by that group was dredged up and you were immediately associated with it and accused of homicidal anti-Semitism. There were also fascist White Supremacists in those groups, and a lot of us were cordial with them. Why not? The Jews were smashing us right and left, so why make more enemies?
The Jews deviously used our cordiality with these bad guys as prima facie evidence that we agreed with Nazism, and therefore were Nazis. As usual, no amount of our protestations of innocence were accepted. I wonder whether these Jews believed their fallacies or if they were deliberately lying about us.
The tactics that these Jews used were, of course, not particular to Jews, but Jews do seem to do this better than anyone else. That’s not necessarily a slam. There is an art to verbal sparring, even the blatantly dishonest kind. After all, sleazy politics makes the world go round, the sleaziest pol wins the cake, and “attorney” is the name of a well-paid profession.
I have seen other groups use these same tactics. Logical fallacies are favorites of other nationalists, not just Jewish nationalists. Turkish nationalists are getting pretty good at aping their Jewish cohorts. Arab nationalists, who mostly hate Jews, act a lot like them in these regards.
After a while, you realize that all nationalists and ultranationalists are speaking the same language, even though most of them hate each others’ guts.
Logical fallacies are also commonly used by conservatives, especially the more hardline types, and I have seen them used by some Marxists. If we call ultranationalism and the Far Left and Right species of fanaticism, we can start to see sleazy argumentation and reliance on logical fallacy as simply markers of general fanaticism and emotional argumentation, and, frankly, the argument of the man who lacks one.
Which leads us to the anti-illegal immigration movement. The fact is, a large majority of Americans are opposed to illegal immigration, often ferociously so. Surveys show that 75-80% of Americans are against illegal immigration, and they seem more and more angry about it.
In other words, opposing illegal immigration is normal, reasonable American politics. It’s not fanatical or racist or anything like that, unless one wants to make the crazy claim that 80% of Americans are raving racists.
This gives the lie to the open borders crazies’ notion that the anti-illegal immigration movement represents only a small “anti-immigrant” minority. According to them, the rest of us are supposedly open borders nuts like them.
The issue is complicated by polling questions and the actual views of Americans. Polls show that up to 65% or so of Americans support some sort of “path to citizenship” for the 12-20 million illegals already here.
On the other hand, Americans in these same polls think it is important to lock down the border.
The open borders loons want a completely open border, not just in the South but apparently everywhere. In their insane plan, every single “immigrant”, or now, “migrant” (the words keep changing as they become stigmatized) who strolls across the border gets automatic US citizenship, apparently without any background checks or anything unpleasant like that.
Surely only a small minority of Americans favor such an insane program. The open borders liars conflate Americans’ cynicism about the possibility of deporting 20 million illegals (hence some sort of “legalize them” solution) with implied support for illegal immigrants and open borders, ignoring the nation’s fervent desire to lock down the Southern border as much as possible.
Sure the movement has racists in it, but any rational person knows that the vast majority of those opposing illegal immigration are not profoundly racist people, and if one is opposed to illegal immigration, one is keeping company with 75-80% of the population, including, surely, sadly, but inevitably, some nasty racists.

A Good Host Assaults His Guests

Repost from the old site.
A few years ago, I used to be really nice, and for a long time, no one much came over. I’d socialize with the guy downstairs and with my roommate, but that was about it other than trips to the coffee shop. No one was coming over all that much. There was me, my roommate, and my computer. Long nights writing. It’s true I didn’t have much of a social life, but I rationalized it all away.
I had friends, but they usually didn’t come over, and I did not go over there. I was living a pretty normal introverted life that a lot of writer-types probably lead, but it was dissatisfying.
There is nothing wrong per se with people keeping to themselves, being introverts, having a few friends, or maybe even having no close friends outside of family. Thing is, I’m a bit of an extrovert in a way.
Introvert though I am, I do like to be around people. Visitors coming over every day is a great thing. And it’s a good day if I went and knocked on a friend’s door. It’s nice to hear the cell phone racket ringing with my friends at all hours of the day and night, and it’s nice to call a friend on the phone.
All of these things are values, that when lacking, make life seem to me somewhat impoverished and ridiculous. If you go out somewhere, it’s better to have at least a somewhat warm interaction even with a clerk or someone in a waiting room than a cold or unfriendly reaction. I even go out every day to a coffee shop just to get my human fix, and hopefully it’s not totally unpleasant and rejecting.
So here you have in me a peculiar mixture of introvert and extrovert, which is probably what most folks are. Loners are fine, but it’s unsatisfying to me. And extreme extroversion is exhausting to me. I like people around a good part of the time, and then I like to be alone. I’m reading and writing, but others are in my home. It’s paradise.
What is odd is that recently I have taken to assaulting my house guests, and now I have more folks coming over than ever. Plus I went and banned a bunch of people who used to come over, often on relatively minor grounds. Now you have to be 18 to walk in the door, and there is a good-sized ban list. You would think I would be a pariah, but everyone wants in the door, even the underage and the banned. Go figure.
I also made a really hardass, Nazi rule list that everyone knows about. Violations can get a harsh warning or even a temporary eviction. The rule list is not hard – it just asks people to act like humans and not wild animals – but a lot of folks can’t seem to manage that these days.
In addition to bans, age limits and rule lists, I have also started to assault guests when they violate the rules. It would be better if I would just assault them at random for no reason whatsoever, but I am not so good at being totally crazy at the moment.
So when guests violate the rules, I assault them with a squirt bottle. Unfortunately there are a couple of squirt bottles around, so the guests arm themselves and fight back. Throw in some intoxicants, and it’s good immature fun for kids of all ages. You have grown adults hiding behind chairs and leaping out to ambush other grownups. Sometimes nothing beats regression.
Lately I have decided to up the ante. I have a small writing table. In response to some rule bans by my slob house guests, I picked up the writing table, charged across the room and threatened to assault the violators with it. I didn’t actually hit them of course, but the threat alone was a barrel of monkeys. I was hoping they would call the cops but unfortunately they never did.
Funny thing is since I have been attacking my guests, I have more company than ever. One wonders if folks just need to get attacked every once in a while, either due to a psychological need or to just to keep them in line.
I do recommend that you assault or threaten to assault your guests on occasion. Even the best guests get out of line, and a good host runs a tight ship. Anyway, folks can’t seem to get enough of it.
Check out the article. It’s now a therapy, Mean Therapy. I love it; how do I become a counselor? Let’s hope it sweeps the nation. Uncover your inner jerk today!

Me Versus the Pigs

I think I committed a crime tonight, or was a conspirator to one.
Oh, no, that brings on the Cops Project. Last time I was in Cop Land, I got thrown against a wall and got my head banged into the car roof and got the cuffs twisted on my wrists in a failed attempt to cause wrist damage for a lifetime.
The cop stood over me, and threatened to grind my brains into the pavement. It was a pleasant moment, to be threatened with murder by a cop with your hands cuffed. If only he would try it, then I might have died and you would not be reading this.
Oh God, cops love to fight.
I’ve been arrested two whole times in my life and both times I was a Goddamn psycho. Once I screamed as I was being bailed out, “FUCK YOU!” with acrobatics, while the people who bailed me screamed at me to shut up. And I didn’t even get re-arrested. That shows we have an incredible amount of civil rights in this country.
In the one jail, it was entertaining. There were these guys, White guys, wasted out of their minds and in jail, of all possible places. It was at the beach, where I always lived and hung, of course.
“Whaooooooooo! Fuck you fuck you fuck you! Fuck you fuck you fuck you! Fuck you fuck you fuck you! Fuck you fuck you fuck you! Fuck you fuck you fuck you! Fuck you fuck you fuck you! Fuck you fuck you fuck you! Fuck you fuck you fuck you! Fuck you fuck you fuck you! Fuck you fuck you fuck you! Fuck you fuck you fuck you! Fuck you fuck you fuck you!”
It was a song, you had it admit. They sung it to a tune. The jailers would come by once in a while and order them to shut up, and then the band would start again.
No one sympathized with me. I told everyone I knew that I got arrested two times for starting fights with cops who bugged me, and everyone agreed that I deserved to get popped and that I was an insane and stupid scum of the Earth moron.
Actually, I thought it was a glorious act of defiance.
The cop knocked on the door of the car. I looked out the window and the cop was there. I knocked the cherry off the joint, made sure it was dead, and swallowed away, no problems. Most everyone to this day insists I was insane for doing that. It was smart, I swallowed the jay, and the evidence was gone, haha piggers good one huh?
There is another crime called destruction of evidence. I had never learned that, but it was pure theater anyway.
I spit at the shoes of the cops that towered above as I sat. I spat right between their shoes and missed and missed. I was informed that if the spit hit the shoes, I was going to die. That made it even more fun.
The Get Arrested Project worked, twice in a row, and now my whole world hated me. It was supposed to be a joke, but now I had a criminal record.

The War Project Versus the Nice Project

Repost from the old site.
The War Project is interfering with the Nice Project. Here I am, sitting and practicing being nice while no one is around in the middle of the night, and memories of war shake in my bones.
Upstairs, it’s the War Channel. It’s on most nights. Screaming and yelling bloody murder. Hate and rage, crashing and smashing, mad screams of insane people. This is normal. The War is normal.
There’s an Hispanic couple upstairs who are at war. There may be others at war too. I think people are on drugs. I hope no one is armed. I hear them screaming and yelling bloody murder at each other, crashing and burning across the room, like a herd of antelope on an African plain. The cops got called. A couple of times.
Inquiries are met with smiles. There are no blows exchanged, the woman is a fighter, everything is fine. Don’t believe it. When people scream like that, fists and objects fly. They are trying to kill each other. Nothing will happen until some day, someone may end up dead. This is how these things tend to end.
Next to them, upstairs, are Black people. A young Black woman and her huge Black boyfriend are trying to kill each other, or at least trying to beat each other up.
It was on earlier tonite, the Fights. You can turn on the Fights here just about any nite. Just open your ears.
The war went on on the sidewalk before, earlier in the night, but I looked outside and could not see. Only voices, I heard, disembodied voices. Fighting, fighting, yelling and fighting.
The war went on outside, earlier in the evening. The police pulled up outside my window, three cars, stayed there half and hour, talking to some young Hispanic men. I opened the window and watched the friendly people in blue.
The news just came in, two local kids locked up, the War goes on, two soldiers off the streets. You cheer for the blue men who take away 16 year old POW’s. Where? Anywhere but here. Anywhere.
The gangster rap pounds away a good part of the day, from computers and radios. It’s not exactly a message of peace and love. It’s a message of hate, rage and crime, sociopathy packaged as art. It gets into your bones if you’re not careful, your inner psychopath emerging in your tensing veins.
You shut all the windows and tell everyone not to look outside. The world out there and the world in here, and never the twain shall meet, or at least not tonight.
Dammit, I’m trying to be nice.
How can anyone be nice in a place like this?
Video killed the radio star, and the War Project is killing the Nice Project. What’s a guy to do? Pour another glass.

When White Nationalists Complain About Jews

Repost from the old site.
Problem is, they usually end up sounding like this guy.
German nationalism probably only dates to the 1880’s, and Italian, Russian and Pan-Slavic nationalism barely to the turn of the century.
Otherwise, nationalism in the modern sense really only arose in Europe with the French Revolution (though it was present first in England in the 1600’s with the defeat of the Spanish Armada), but it took the other nations mostly until the end of the century to adopt nationalism. Modern European nationalism is a relatively new phenomenon.
These modern nationalists pretty quickly took an interest in race along with the usual volkisch blood and soil bullshit. And most European nationalists agreed on one thing: the Jew was no good.
More recently, in the very early 20th Century, Nordicism began to evolve in Germany and in the US and the UK. I once had a copy of a proto-Nazi book by a German race scientist delineating all of the races in Europe and the surrounding area detailed down to the last detail. It was published in 1918.
This newer nationalism transcended the older nationalism of the one nation in an attempt to unite all Northwestern Europeans under some sort of a superior Nordic or White Race. At the same time, pan-Slavism and even Islamism developed (Yes, modern Islamism only dates to around 1900 or so).
Southern Europeans were quickly defined out of the equation by Nordicists, especially in the US where they were widely despised, but Hitler actually put Meds second only to Nordics. He hated Slavs, but this was mostly because he said they were a “slave race”.
They were a slave race apparently because they had allowed themselves to be enslaved by Jews in the form of Jewish Bolshevism or Communism. The fascists’ main beef with Communists was that the Communists tended to be anti-nationalist.
And it’s simple to see why Jews have been in the forefront of seeing that White ethnic consciousness or nationalism is dead and buried forever.
This is why the anti-racists (who, granted, do bash away at Whites) are so often Jewish.
This is why Noel Ignatiev (Jew) has founded an organization to make Whites go away forever. This is why Tim Wise (Jew) exists. This is why Jews so often decline to identify as White. This is why there are so many Jews on the board of the NAACP. This is why Jews pushed the 1965 Immigration Act and could well be why they pushed civil rights so hard.
Let’s face it: it’s hard to believe that US Jews really care about civil rights while they support their KKK-Jewish brethren in Israel so strongly.
KKK types are only bad when they are non-Jewish? KKK-Jews (Zionists) are ok, but KKK Whites are not?
Forget it. There must be another motive.
All of this Jewish behavior made the White Pride crowd dislike Jews more and more with every punch in the ring.
Anti-Semitism is not monolithic; some of it is pretty harmless stuff and unfortunately a lot of it is even true to one degree or another. But the Jews have never acknowledged that truth is a defense against anti-Semitism.
Yet when you start talking about your blond hair and blue eyes and your White race and White blood and then start slamming away at Jews, people, especially Jewish people, do tend to see historical parallels that are not necessarily present in other anti-Semitic brands. Face it, of all of the anti-Semites all down through time, these were the most efficiently deadly of them all. So while Jews will often shrug at other forms of “anti-Semitism” (especially anti-Judaism, which arguably is not necessarily even anti-Semitism at all but instead religious apologetic), the White Pride anti-Semites do tend to hit Jews in a particularly hard way.
And who could blame them?

Sovietologist Fakes and the Peasant Uprising That Never End

Repost from the old site.
I’m being attacked by a whole bunch of intellectuals on some list for supposedly defending Communism’s horrible death toll, specifically those of Mao and Stalin, though actually I was not doing anything of the kind, but you know how idiots are when it comes to evil Communism and all.
It all boils down to who was worse, Stalin-Mao Mass Murderer of All Time or Hitler Most Evil Killer and Maniac. Of course, rightwingers being the truly horrible people that they always are, they always try to defend Hitler!
As an Old Left type, these Nazis tried to kill everyone of my comrades on the planet. No way am I making alliances with people who want me dead.
The Left mostly refuses to defend Commies, but instead says that Hitler was way more evil.
It’s murder, murder, murder and more murder. All the murder, all the time. It’s the Murder Channel, and it’s who killed more, your guy or Not-ours?
Stalin killed only 2.3 million in peacetime, and the Holodomor is a Nazi lie spread by Nazi Randolph Hearst and the fascist (self-admitted) much loved by the West as their favorite Russian, Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
All the lies were helped to be spread by Robert Conquest, the British equivalent of a CIA agent, an agent for the MI-5, a man who made his career spying for the West.
All of his books are CIA lies, but no one knows it, and he’s revered as a Sovietologist by the entire West and Condy Rice and Campus Watch’s idiotic CIA Jew father, Richard Pipes and the whole orchestra of idiots and weirdos and academic liars and failures.
And the whole world stood back and applauded the Sovietologist idiots, and then later the Sovietologist idiots became cheerleaders for the US imperialism, or they became cheerleaders for Zionist settler-colonialism, which is imperialism plus invaders and super-thieves who actually throw you off your land and take it and settle it with their own invaders, as opposed to the usual US-type imperialists who just drain every penny of wealth out of your land and leave you to die at age 44.
And all in one sentence no less.
Peru created Sendero; Cambodia created Pol Pot; 17th century Poland created the Chmielniki Rebellion, and 1/3 of Poland was dead. In 1804, Desallines led an island of slaves in righteous rebellion, and every Frenchperson on the speck of land in the Sea was dead, even the kids, even the crazy woman ranting on the bridge set upon by the mob and lynched on the spot.
The peasant rebellions went on and on down through modern human history, and some people just never learned and kept getting massacred over and over again, and the dumb thing was, they pretty much deserved it every single time, except the kids and the crazies that is, and if you don’t want to be on the end of a peasants with torches mob out to kill you all, don’t treat people like shit in the first place!
A lot of the West, including its idiot best and brightest, actually accuses Stalin of killing 27 million of his own in WW2 by being a bad general and leader. Of all the outrageous pro-Nazi BS! Tell me when the West is going to stop rooting Nazi in World War Two, at least on the Eastern Front?
I spat out the bitter Commie truths, and the Westerners spit and cursed and called me killer.
I blew up their cartoon men, and their joke intellectuals spouted steam from their balding heads.

Review of Peter Fritzsche's Germans Into Nazis, by Robert John

Repost from the old site.
I am proud to present a book review by a new guest author, Robert John. His biography is at the end of the piece. In this piece, he reviews a book by Peter Fritzsche, Germans into Nazis. This book takes on, in part, a thesis by a best-selling book by Daniel Goldhagen, Hitler’s Willing Executioners.
Goldhagen’s book was wildly controversial, to say the least. His thesis was that Nazism was a normal evolution of the virulent anti-Semitism inherent in German society for decades, if not centuries. An anti-Semitism spanning all of society, from top to bottom, urban to rural.
Goldhagen gives examples of how ordinary Germans knew full well the nature of the Nazi Holocaust against Jews, but either did nothing about it, or cheered it on. He cites postcards sent back by German soldiers to family at home, telling gleefully about how the soldiers were massacring Jews on the Front.
The reaction to Goldhagen’s book was ferocious, much of it coming from conservative Catholics, anti-Semites and German nationalists but also from serious scholars.
To this day, Goldhagen is a favorite whipping boy of anti-Semites and Holocaust revisionists and deniers, except that their own behavior seems to prove Goldhagen correct. So those who hate Jews take exception to Goldhagen saying that Germany was a nation of Jew-haters. One would think they would cheer this assertion on?
Regarding this review, here are some facts for those lacking background in this matter:
After World War 1, Germany was hobbled at the Treaty of Versailles with horrible reparations that were essentially unpayable and ruined the economy. John points out correctly that Versailles led logically to the rise of Nazism.
Immediately afterwards, in the wake of the Bolshevik Revolution, German Communists attempted to overthrow the state. They were defeated. German anti-Communists, including most of the middle class, noted that many of the leaders of the Communist revolutions in Russia and Germany were Jewish.
History is not kind to losers. For better or worse, German Jews were blamed for a few of them having led the failed German revolution.
In the 1920’s, Germany had a series of very unstable governments known as the Weimar Republic. At the same time, there was widespread political violence in the streets, often between Communists and socialists on one side and nationalists and proto-fascists on the other. The economy was devastated and it took a wheelbarrow full of worthless money to buy a loaf of bread.
At the same time, a wealthy and decadent class lived it up in the nightclubs of Berlin. Many of this decadent artist class were Jewish and many were also homosexuals and bisexuals. The movie, Cabaret, starring Liza Minnelli, about the life of gay author Christopher Isherwood, was set in Weimar Berlin.
Comedians and artists, many of whom were Jewish, ridiculed German nationalism and the things that patriotic Germans held dear to their hearts. This nationalism, along with traditional German culture, was held by these artists as having led to the war and the disastrous defeat. Enraged German nationalists saw only decadent urbanites, many of them Jewish, attacking German culture and values.
Further, the decadent lifestyle in Berlin enraged traditional elements in Germany. The wild life of the rich in the cities aroused rage amongst the immiserated poor, workers and middle classes.
While German Gentiles were being economically ruined, many German Jews had avoided economic destruction by stashing their money outside the country early in the crisis. No doubt this led to charges that the Jews were failing to invest in Germany.
In the late 1920’s and early 1930’s, as German property values plummeted, German Jews were able to return bring their money back and buy up much of the country for 10 cents on the dollar. By 1932, German Jews, 1% of the country, owned 32% of the wealth of Germany.
After quotas on Jews in government jobs, the professions and universities were lifted in the 1920’s, the ranks of attorneys, doctors, judges and law professors were quickly filled by high-IQ Jews. 1/2 of German law professors and Berlin attorneys were Jewish. 1/3 to 1/2 of Berlin doctors were Jewish. 20% of German judges were Jewish. Berlin gained a Jewish police chief, the first in the history of the city.
Many Germans were outraged at the overnight Jewish success and implied humiliation of German Gentiles and insisted that the Jews must have cheated to get these positions.
Just before they seized power, Nazi propagandists made much use of these figures. They also claimed that most politicians and civil servants were Jews, which was not true. Only a few high-ranking civil servants were Jewish. There were few Jewish politicians – during the entire Weimar Period, there were only 8 Jewish members of the Reichstag from Berlin. After 1922, there were almost no Jewish Cabinet ministers.
Similar claims that most pickpockets were Jewish and that German prisoners were filled with Jews were also false. Looking at figures from 1925, only 1.05% of Prussian prisoners were Jewish. Likewise with claims that the German Communist Party leadership was mostly Jewish. In 1932, there were 100 Communist deputies in the Reichstag and not a single one was Jewish.
As you can see, the Nazis were engaging in some scapegoating and out and out lying about German Jews.
The Weimar Regimes (republican democracy) seemed to be powerless to remedy any of these problems. Democracy came to be seen as symbolic with ineffectual government that fiddled while the nation burned, with decadent intellectuals and artists who attacked beloved German culture and values, with an outrageous gap between rich and poor, and with a disastrous economy.
So the Nazis ran on a platform of “the Hell with democracy”.
At the same time, similar fascist movements were spreading across Europe, especially Central and Eastern Europe, where most nations had fascist governments during this period. Even Finland and the Baltics had fascist governments.
Fritzsche’s book points out that the Nazis succeeded due to good old politics, Karl Rove style. They appealed to workers, women and liberals, though their program was secretly hostile to all three. They attacked social conservatism and the rich while hiding the fact that support for these elements was an essential nature of their project.
Even the name “National Socialists” was chosen along the same lines, to co-opt the rising Socialist and Communist movements in Germany.
By playing such dishonest political games, they gained support of socialists, Communists, liberals and even some Jews. While the socialists and Communists seemed boring or dangerous, the Nazis were all about getting Germans to feel good about themselves and have fun at the same time. Instead of Reagan’s “Morning in America”, it was “Morning in Germany”.
After they seized power, no German socialist or Communist was fooled by the Nazi lies about being a socialist party. In fact, at its core, Nazism was hostile first and foremost to liberals, union members, socialists and Communists. Communists, socialists and union members were the first to go the concentration camps, Dachau being the most famous. The Jews were number four on the list, after these three!
After they seized power, at the Night of the Long Knives, the Left Nazis were all killed or driven out of the party. Through the 1930’s, most of the German Left went to ground, fled the country or took up arms against the government. The German Communist Party declared war on the Nazi regime during this period.
The name “National Socialists” has confused many people, including rightwing ideologues. There is much more to the refutation of the disgusting rightwing lie, “Nazis were a leftwing, socialist movement” but I will save it for another post.
I realize that a quick, ignorant, emotional read of this piece could lead one to the conclusion that it is some defense of Nazism. If you read it closely, intelligently and soberly, you should notice that it is nothing of the kind.
I hope you enjoy John’s piece.

Those Abnormal Germans?
Understanding Goldhagen
Robert John*

Germans into Nazis
Peter Fritzsche
Harvard University Press, 1998
269 pages. ISBN 0-674-35091-X

The history of this century has been dominated by the horrors that came from the inferno of World War I. The rise of Nazism in Germany is only comprehensible by taking into account the national hardships and frustration provoked by defeat and the harsh and punitive treaty of Versailles, in which President Wilson played the leading role.
Peter Fritzsche, professor of history, University of Illinois, and the author of Reading Berlin 1900 (Harvard), gives an account of what gave the German National Socialists their electoral victories in 1932 and why.
Why were 37.4 percent of German votes cast for the Nazis in the July 1932 legislative elections, when for the first time they became the largest party; the SPD was second with 21.6 percent?
Half a century after their destruction, new accounts of German National Socialism, and its leader, still contend for space on bookstore shelves.
Many seek to explain German support for a leader portrayed as the most dangerous archfiend of recorded history, or to analyze the dynamics of that leader himself. Daniel Goldhagen, in his best-selling book Hitler’s Willing Executioners, suggested that Hitler was little more than a midwife in a German war against the Jews.
Goldhagen blamed successful appeal to widespread German anti-Jewish prejudice for the Nazi victories. He alleged that by the time Hitler came to power in 1933, racial anti-Semitism had already made Germany “pregnant with murder.”
Fritzsche gives an account of some of the confusion of patriotism and social turbulence from 1918 to 1933. He quotes the Berliner Tageblatt of 10 November 1918:

Yesterday morning . . .everything was still there – the Kaiser, the chancellor, the police chief – yesterday afternoon nothing of all that existed any longer.

The March 1917 Menshevik Revolution in Russia was being re-enacted in Germany, with Friedrich Ebert playing the role that Kerensky had played in Russia the year before. With knowledge of the red terror the Bolsheviks were waging in Russia, and some awareness that the majority of their leaders were Jewish, gave grounds for the development of a counterrevolution with anti-Semitic elements.
Like most other historians of the Allied Powers, Fritzsche omits significant reference to Allied failure to honor President Wilson’s Fourteen Points for peace which were announced by him on 8th January 1918.
It was on their basis, and Wilson’s declaration a month later: that there were to be no annexations, no contributions, and no punitive damages, that General Ludendorff had recommended to Field-Marshall Hindenburg that Germany ask for an Armistice.
Diplomatic exchanges followed until 23rd of October. On that day, Wilson informed the German government that, were he compelled to negotiate with the military rulers and monarchist autocrats, he would demand not peace negotiations but a general surrender. The Kaiser abdicated.
In his haste to present the circumstances and appeal of National Socialist policies to the German people at the beginning of the 1930’s, Fritzsche also skips reference to the continued Allied food blockade of Germany for nearly six months after the war had ended. Even the German Baltic fishing fleet, which had augmented German food supplies during the war, was prevented from putting to sea.
(See The Politics of Hunger: The Allied blockade of Germany, 1915-1919, Vincent, C. Paul, Ohio Univ. Press, 1985, and the Kathë Kollwitz lithograph Deutschlands Kinder hungern – Germany’s Children are Starving.)
In the spring of 1919, both the putting down of Communist insurrections in Berlin, Bremen, and Munich and breaking of general strikes in Halle, Magdeberg and Braunschweig by a Freikorps of nationalist volunteers, temporarily suspended the threat of a repetition of the Bolsheviks’ October revolution in Russia.
When the Freikorps finally disbanded, they left behind a loose confederacy of secret organizations, veterans’ groups, and rifle clubs.
Organization by both the Left and the Right seems to have satisfied a popular need for feelings of solidarity and renewal. By 1924 there were signs that this social activity was taking a more coherent political form.
New organizations were also distinctive for being more open to women, who established their own auxiliaries, and attended patriotic celebrations. Activities for women, common in international socialist organizations, were included in nationalist events in community life. Brass bands and choral societies joined in what looked more like a family celebration than a wartime field service.
The wife of an engineer described a new look in her city streets: groups of young people passing by, singing patriotic songs. In midsummer her daughter Irmgard, living in Nordheim, looked forward to Sunday’s flag consecration and dance.

Everywhere there is great excitement . . . all the regimental associations are coming, even the riflery clubs. (p. 134)

Fritzsche chooses such illustrations of entertainment and excitement, rather than negative appeals, that drew many of the young and others away from the blandness of the Social Democrats, and the preaching of international revolution, “Workers of the world: Unite,” of the Communists. ‘For good reasons or bad, Germans turned indifferent to the Weimar Republic, but they did not remain inactive or apathetic.
The real consequence of the revolution was not so much the parliamentary government it secured as the organization and activism of thousands of constituents it made possible. The new Germany can best be found in the humdrum mobilization of interest groups, veterans’ associations, and party branches and in the self-authorization of a hundred voices, libelous, illiberal, and chauvinistic as they may have been.
It is a sad but compelling paradox that the hostile defamations of the president of the republic were as indicative of democratization as the presidency of good-willed Fritz Ebert himself’ (p.136).
In the hard economic times of 1930,when the social welfare programs of the state were being cut back, the Nazis erected a “rudimentary shadow welfare state” for their supporters, responding to the crisis in a concrete way.
They never made the mistake of Hugenberg’s German Nationalists of holding political meetings in the best hotel in town. During a metalworkers strike, striking party members were fed three times daily in Nazi pubs.
Womens’ groups associated with the party were particularly active. National Socialist speeches and propaganda repudiated the narrow politics on the “reactionary” bourgeois parliamentarians and the proliferating interest groups and splinter parties.
In speech after speech at mass rallies, Hitler and his followers tended to address voters as citizens, rather than as blocs or constituents, and repeated again and again the need to solve local problems by liberating the entire nation from republican misrule. (In Britain a National Government was set up in 1931 with slogans of unification, patriotism, insulation, planning, etc.)
The National Socialist message brought to the people in town after town was not the class consciousness of Hindenberg’s upper class, nor its representation in the primacy of ‘the class struggle’ of the Communists and Socialists; instead, national solidarity was the answer to Germany’s vexing problems: social reform, economic productivity, the shameful peace.
There was a deliberate attempt to enroll Germans in a collective destiny and to present Hitler as a national savior rather than a solicitous politician (Fritzsche, p. 195).
Nazi propaganda very effectively portrayed political choices in Utopian terms: here was a party that opposed the present “system” and, once in power, would rebuild the nation. It was not just the modern methods of political campaigning that the Nazis used that brought them success; it was their message.
With Hitler as Chancellor, workers who had watched the Social Democrats fight long and hard and always unsuccessfully to persuade the Reichstag to recognize 1 May as an official holiday, looked or listened to the Leader’s May Day speech to a disciplined mass at Tempelhof in 1933. All day the radio played the songs of “miners, farmers, and soldiers.”
A “symphony of work” composed by Hans-Jurgen Nierentz and Herbert Windt, featured interviews with a dock worker from Hamburg, an agricultural laborer from East Prussia, a steel worker from the Saar, a miner from the Ruhr, and a vintner from the Mosel Valley. The crowd drank beer, ate sausages, and, in the evening, marveled at the fireworks.
Should one wonder why many former Communist and international Socialists who joined the Nazis, came to be called “underdone beef:” —brown on the outside, still red on the inside?
The Nazis distanced themselves from liberal state administrators, social conservatives, and traditional authoritarians. They were as dismissive of the Kaiserreich as they were of the Weimar Republic. ‘In short, the Nazis were ideological innovators.’
They met popular demands for political sovereignty and social recognition and insisted that these could only be achieved through national union, which would provide Germans with an embracing sense of collective identity and a strong role in international politics.

It was this far-reaching program of renovation that made the Nazis stand out and made them attractive to a plurality of voters.
If Hitler and his followers had simply recirculated the anti-Semitism of Anton Drexler’s German Workers’ Party or blustered on about the shameless Treaty of Versailles or devoted all their energies to combating the Social Democrats and other treasonous “November criminals,” the movement would have stalled completely.
This is exactly what happened to Wolfgang Kappa and the Freikorpsmen of 1919-1920 and also explains the demise of Alfred Hugenberg and the German Nationalists in 1924-1930. Instead, attacks on conservatives as well as Marxists, denunciations of local power arrangements as well as the national parliament, and an affirmative vision of a prosperous, technologically advanced nation gave the Nazis a sharp ideological edge.
At a time when so much civic strife is defined in terms of cultural affinities it is all the more important, if sometimes difficult, to recall the force of ideology.
Long-standing ethnic hatreds, religious fundamentalisms, and transnational “civilizations” dominate contemporary discussions about instability and unrest, which are frequently understood in terms of the friction between basically essential cultural qualities that have come into contact with one another.
However, the Nazi phenomenon was not a hyperventilated expression of German values, even as it pronounced the allegedly superior quality of the German people.
Nor was it the pathological result of economic hard times, instead National Socialism comprised a program of cultural and social regeneration premised on the superordination of the nation and the Volk and modeled very much on the public spirit and collective militancy of the nation at war.

Fritzsche concludes:

even as the Nazis upheld an integral, almost redemptive nationalism, they created new categories of outsiders, enemies, and victims. That system was neither accidental nor unanimous’ (p.235).

Some Jewish historians have noted almost marginally that National Socialist election material did not directly appeal to anti-Jewish sentiment (for example, Avraham Barkai’s From Boycott to Annihilation, Brandeis Univ. Press, 1987, 11, Saul Friedländer’s Nazi Germany and the Jews, Harper-Collins, 1997, 4), or Finkelstein and Birns’ A Nation On Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis, Henry Holt 1998).
So why is the Goldhagen account and conclusion so different from that of Fritzsche? The parsimonious explanation is the ‘Zoom syndrome.’ This is a tendency to magnify items supporting the prejudices of the observer. Goldhagen focuses on German critics of Jews or practices associated with them, and projects these as anti-Semitism leading to a program of Jewish extermination.
His premise is—unchecked criticism of Jews leads to a ‘Holocaust.’ With this ‘tunnel vision,’ he is deprived of depth and width of perspective. Leading Jewish academics are stressing the importance of incorporating the Jewish ‘experience of the Holocaust’ into the perspective of Jewish studies programs. This would help Jewish scholars to regain or maintain historical perspective.
In his review of A Nation On Trial in the New York Times Book Review, Max Frankel, a former executive editor of the paper, recorded his mother’s experience in wartime Berlin in 1940 as an enemy alien Polish Jew. A commissioner of police gave her the name and location of the Gestapo chief who would give the family an exit permit.

As she thanked him and turned to leave, the commissioner suddenly asked,
“Where did you say you want to go?”
“To America.”
“If you get there, will you tell them we’ re not all bad?”
To her last day, she did.

The facts cited by both Fritzsche and Goldhagen, and other previous writers, are explained as never before, using evolutionary and social identity theory, by Professor Kevin MacDonald’s analyses of anti-Semitism published in the Praeger Human Evolution, Behavior, and Intelligence series, in 1998 “Separation and Its Discontents: Towards an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism and The Culture of Critique, and in his previously published A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Strategy, 1994.
*Dr. John is a diplomatic historian, policy analyst, and a former professor of psychiatric education. He is the author of The Palestine Diary: British, American and United Nations Intervention 1914-1948, 3rd. ed. 2006, 2 volumes, with a foreword by Arnold Toynbee, and Behind the Balfour Declaration: The Hidden Origins of Today’s Mideast Crisis, 1988.
He has been a U.S. correspondent for the monthly Middle East International and adviser on international affairs to the Council on American Affairs. He was presented with the 1997 Freedom Award by the International Institute for Advanced Studies in Systems Analysis in Baden-Baden “for his outstanding work and contributions towards the fight for human rights, justice and liberty.”

Countering Lies About Hezbollah

Repost from the old site.
Ever since the Lebanon War last summer between Hezbollah and Israel, much nonsense has been written about this organization, much of it from Zionists and US imperialists in the press. It is time for a rational overview.
Lie: Hezbollah is the puppet of Iran and Syria.
Not true! Is Israel the puppet of the US? Well, the US supports Israel, right? Despite the US support, Israel is not the puppet of the US. Israel does what it damned well wants. Well, yes, Hezbollah gets support from Syria and Iran, but they don’t take orders from them anymore than Israel takes orders from America.
In truth, Hezbollah does what it wants. Iran was probably informed before Hezbollah started this war, but that’s about it. And Hezbollah’s autonomy from Syria is well-documented. Syria uses Hezbollah to keep up the pressure on Israel, not because they want to kill all the Jews, like insane Zionists insist, but because they want the Golan Heights back.
Iran supports Hezbollah in order to support Shia power in the region, and because Hezbollah’s leadership supports the Iranian revolution and because Iran hates Israel.
Lie: The Lebanon War was started by Iran to take the heat off its nuclear program.
Not true! It looks like Hezbollah started the war on its own in order to try to win back some Lebanese that Israel has been holding captive for a long time.
But they had no idea that the war would go this way. They thought it would just be a few days of shelling back and forth and then they would get down to some hard bargaining. They were totally taken by surprise by Israel’s response.
Lie: Hezbollah “started the war”.
Well, yes, Hezbollah conducted a cross-border raid, killed and wounded some Israelis, then grabbed some captives and took them back to Lebanon.
But to place all of the responsibility for the resulting war in which Israel destroyed Lebanon is insane. Israel’s wild response was part of a war that they had been planning for over a year, in concert with the US, and the war was conducted by both the US and Israel.
In fact, Ehud Olmert has recently given testimony in Israel that he had been planning this war for months along with the neocons in the Bush Administration. The Israeli military already had advanced plans for this war that they had developed with Ariel Sharon.
The neocons were trying to use the war against Hezbollah as an excuse to attack Syria, but Israel would not take the bait. They wanted to go after Hezbollah’s main backer, Iran. Since Iran could not be hit itself, the second best option was to go after Syria. The apparent purpose was to weaken Iran’s allies Syria and Hezbollah prior to an attack on Iran itself.
This explains why both the US and Israel have been refusing to deal with Syria’s increasingly desperate efforts to negotiate a settlement on the Golan Heights (Syria is even willing to turn the Golan into a “peace park” and give Israelis free access to visit it.
Since this war, logically, Syria has been edgy, and has been building up its forces along the border with Israel. But in the crazy paranoid Israeli mindset, this is seen as Syria preparing for a (in my opinion, an obviously suicidal) war with Israel. Even the distinguished Martin Van Creveld, Israel’s top military historian, has bought into this nonsense.
What will stop the upcoming Syrian war? Let’s ask Van Creveld. Only a US attack on Iran. What will hasten it? A US withdrawal from Iraq and a US refusal to attack Iran. We can see the twisted Israeli thinking. If the US does what Israel wants, the nonexistent war can be prevented. If the US acts against Israel’s wishes in the region, the fake war can be prevented.
Lie: Hezbollah is an insane terrorist group that is dedicated to killing all the Jews.
Jews just love this one, since so many of them are afflicted with a paranoid-masochistic character that just eats this stuff up. It’s not true.
Hezbollah is not opposed to a Jewish state, they just don’t like that Jews stole Palestine, which they did. Lebanon is a Lebanese nationalist organization. They mobilized to fight Israel when Israel annexed South Lebanon. Ten years of guerrilla war won it back for Hezbollah and Lebanon and Hezbollah were the heroes of Lebanese nationalists.
Hezbollah is now fighting to get back the Shebaa Farms, Lebanese land that Israel occupies and refuses to give back to Lebanon on some very phony grounds. They have also made some noises about three or four Lebanese Shia villages that Israel conquered, ethnically cleansed and annexed in the 1948 War.
Many of the people in the South, where many Palestinians live in refugee camps, and people have lived through numerous conflicts with Israel, really hate Israel, and understandably so. So here for an overview of the people’s views of Israel.
Hezbollah has said that if the Palestinians accept Israel for a Palestinian state, Hezbollah will stand by that. Unfortunately, Hezbollah’s leaders have made some lamentable anti-Semitic remarks and it is disgusting that they call one of their missiles “Khaibar” in reference to the Khaibar tribe of Jews who had their men killed and their women enslaved by Mohammad.
Lie: Hezbollah are radical fundamentalist Muslims, like Al Qaeda.
Not so! At the beginning, Hezbollah laid down Islamic Law in south Lebanon but over time they found that it was not going over well, so since 1990 or so, they have lifted most of their restrictions.
At the time, Hezbollah banned alcohol and forced women to wear headcovers. Both of those bans have now been lifted by Nasrallah. However, Hezbollah still arrests homosexuals and turns them over the Lebanese police, since I believe that homosexuality is illegal in Lebanon. They may beat some of them too.
The Shia in particular seem to take a hard line against homosexuality, as the Iranian regime and the Iraq Shia have really persecuted gay men. The Iranians mostly beat them up, harass them and send them to jail for short stays. The Iraqi Shia have also been beating them, but apparently they have also killed quite a few gay men.
The Shia doing this include the Dawa and SCIRI parties that the US supports in Iraq. Hezbollah’s supporters include many liberated females, I saw a video on Youtube of Lebanese women without hijabs driving a car and smoking cigarettes, then doing a belly dance, all the while saying how they supported Hezbollah.
Hezbollah rallies have included quite a few beautiful young women without hijabs, and many have been dressed racily. Josh Landis tells of how during the Lebanese Civil War, when Hezbollah took over a district, they imposed Islamic Law, but it went over so poorly that they soon rescinded most of it.
Lie: Well, at least Iran is a radical fundamentalist state like Al Qaeda.
Nor is Iran. Women have many more rights in Iran than they do in the Gulf. The dress code is loosely adhered to and the religious police no longer bother mixed couples. Fredericks of Hollywood stores dot Tehran.
Middle class and upper middle class young people are engaging in lots of promiscuous sex and not much is being done to stop them. One of Iran’s top race car drivers is a woman. There are many women in Parliament and most or all professions are open to women. Compare to Saudi Arabia where only 5% or so of women are even employed.
Alcohol, marijuana and especially opium are widely consumed at parties and not much is done about that. Prostitution is widespread, especially in the religious city of Qom, where they serve the religious students. There, throngs of young women meet men and go before mullahs to get a temporary marriage in order to have sex.
The temporary marriage is merely a cover for prostitution. There is so much prostitution in Tehran that the religious leadership has suggested having official houses for them, all under the banner of temporary marriage. The religious leadership has also recognized transsexualism and one of the top mullahs is a transsexual.
Temporary marriage is widespread, and a famous Iranian female parliamentarian has had sexual relationships with many men, including top mullahs, under this rubric and has written about it. Also, Iran is much more democratic than most of the Sunni regimes, and this is one of the things that the Sunni regimes fear most about Iran.
Supporters of this theory can always come up with this or that atrocity to demonstrate how Iran is an Al Qaeda-like state, but the truth is more complicated than that.
Lie: Hezbollah has savagely persecuted the Israeli-backed South Lebanese Army.
After Israel’s withdrawal in 2000, most people expected that there would be widespread paybacks for the South Lebanese Army (most of whom were Shia, not Maronites as it is commonly thought.
In fact, after Israel withdrew, Hezbollah issued a directive forbidding any attacks on the South Lebanon Army members, many of whom just went home. Quite a few others defected over to Israel.
That’s pretty amazing, considering that the French Resistance executed 10,000 “traitors” during World War 2. It’s also highly untypical behavior for a “terrorist” group.
Lie: Hezbollah is a terrorist group.
Well, for the most part it is a Lebanese resistance organization, and the vast majority of its attacks are against Israeli military targets.
It’s true that during the war, they fired rockets at Israeli cities and killed some civilians, but many of those attacks were actually aimed at strategic targets like arms factories and military bases that Israel cynically put right in the middle of Arab towns, so that if they enemy attacked, they would kill a lot of Arabs by accident.
On the other hand, Israel killed far more civilians in this war, and somehow avoided the “terrorist” label. Isn’t that kind of unfair?
Lie: Hezbollah and Iran are out to kill or convert all the Sunnis and then attack and kill or convert all the infidels in a world war, after which everyone will be a Shia Muslim.
I could not believe that people actually believed that one, but I heard a number of (mostly) Zionists and US imperialists repeating this bit of Sunni paranoia.
On the Sunni conversion, see here. On the rest of it, forget it. Shia is the nigger of the (Muslim) World. The relationship between Sunni and Shia is similar to that between Whites and Blacks during the Jim Crow South, with the Sunnis being the Whites and Shia being the Blacks.
The notion of Shia takeover is similar to fantasies of poor downtrodden Blacks taking over the South, or America. In Lebanon, the Shia say that the Sunnis used to only let them work as garbage collectors. Shia youngsters were routinely taunted and attacked by Sunni gangs in Beirut in the 1970’s.
Lie: Hezbollah gets Iranian money for schools and hospitals to brainwash Lebanese into supporting the terrorists.
No! The reason they do this is because to this day, the bigoted Lebanese government that the US supports provides almost zero money whatsoever for any kind of development whatsoever in South Lebanon.
This is the reality of Lebanon, and its always been this way. Someone has to do it, the government won’t, so Hezbollah steps in. Good for them!
Lie: Hezbollah is trying to take over Lebanon to make a fundamentalist Islamic state there.
Well, that is their stated intention. In the early days, they may have believed it.
In recent statements, Nasrallah has said that an Islamic state is only possible in Lebanon if the “vast majority”, meaning over 80% or so, or people support it. That is not likely any time in the near future, so the project is all but written off. Hezbollah is reckoning itself to Lebanese reality.
Lie: Lebanese Christians are poor, downtrodden and horribly persecuted by Muslims.
Nonsense. In fact, they have always run the country! This lie is spread by some of the Maronite fascists. In the late 1950’s, Marines landed in Lebanon to help preserve an election that the Christians stole.
The real cause of the Civil War was the Muslims wanting a fairer share of the pie that the Christians had unfairly dominated for far too long. The Christians are being forced to concede some of their excess power in Lebanon (though they still have most of the money and much of the political power) and this is why some of the Maronites are wailing so much about “persecution”.
Lie: The Lebanon War last year was between Israel and a group of terrorists called Hezbollah. Most other Lebanese were not involved or opposed Hezbollah.
As you can see here, Israel was fighting much more than Hezbollah in South Lebanon.
In the Battle of Aita Al Shaab, most of the village fought against Israel, under the leadership of Hezbollah, true, but most fighters were just “local militia” who were not actually Hezbollah fighters. Further, there was quite a bit of fighting from members of the Lebanese Communist Party. The Amal militia fought against Israel too.
Truth is, Israel was essentially fighting a war against the people of South Lebanon. It’s true that a certain amount of that resistance was Hezbollah, but much of it was just local militia fighting for their homes and towns.
In the town of Marjayoun, during the Civil War the headquarters of the pro-Israeli South Lebanon Army, Israel came under attack soon after they entered the town by members of Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP). Most of the members of this party are Greek Orthodox.
In fact, it may be the most popular political party among Lebanese Greek Orthodox. In the Sunni villages, the local Muslim Brotherhood and another fundamentalist group organized an armed resistance.
Furthermore, 80-90% of Lebanese supported Hezbollah during the war, including 80% of Christians. The sickening US media deliberately lied about this, making much of the tiny minority of Lebanese who opposed Hezbollah, acting like they were the majority, and trying to portray the country as “divided”.
Lie: Hezbollah forces salute using “Nazi salutes”, so that means that Hezbollah idolizes and Nazis and wants to kill all the Jews just like Nazis did.
Much is made of this on Zionist and rightwing blogs and even in the mainstream press. See here and here for two examples. For more examples, see here, here and here.
In the last example, written by a militant Jewish Zionist named Lewis Loflin, although the photo on the right is of Hezbollah forces giving a “Nazi salute”, the photo on the right, which he states is of a Hamas fighter giving the Nazi salute, is actually of a PFLP fighter.
You can tell it is a PFLP fighter by the characteristic red headband and the poster and Ahmed Sa’adat, the present leader of the PFLP. Many people say that the PFLP is dead, but it is interesting how a dead organization could afford full uniforms, headbands, posters and automatic weapons.
This blog strongly supports the PFLP, and as leftists, I assure you that the mainstream PFLP does not like Nazis one bit.
The fact is that the “Nazi salutes used by Hezbollah fighters” is propaganda.
This is a type of salute which was originally known as the “Roman salute”. It has a fascinating history, and was widely used by many countries before World War II. Under the name “Bellamy salute” or “flag salute”, it used to be usual salute used when saying the US Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States. A photo of the Bellamy salute is here.
From Wikipedia:

Because of the similarity between the Bellamy salute and the Nazi salute, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt instituted the hand-over-the-heart gesture as the salute to be rendered by civilians during the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem in the United States, instead of the Bellamy salute.

The association with Nazism has been so strong that the salute has rarely been used by non-Nazi organizations since the end of World War II. There are several exceptions; one is the Republic of China (Taiwan), where the salute is still used during the swearing of oaths in inaugurations.
The salute is also still used by some Palestinian militant groups. It is also known to be used by the Tamil separatist organization, the LTTE, while saluting their leader Velupillai Prabhakaran.
Lie: Hezbollah does not support Israel’s right to exist and therefore they want to wipe it off and map and kill all 5.1 million Jews there in the process.
Embedded in this clever argument is the notion that any nation or regime has any kind of inherent right to exist.
Did colonies and empires and occupied territories have a right to exist too? The very notion that any nation-state on Earth has some kind of a rock-solid “right” to exist is strange and counter-intuitive.
Sure, humans have a right to get together and make nations out of mapped out geographical parcels, but why does that mean that that nation has some kind of a laid in tone specific right to exist?
The fact is that throughout history, nations, empires and colonies have come and gone. The ones that no longer exist had no greater or lesser right to exist than any existing state does.
*****
Meanwhile, the US has initiated a very controversial plan to counter Shia influence in the region. The plan is being coordinated with Saudi Arabia, specifically Prince Bandar, who has a longstanding relationship with US Administrations, and possibly the Jordanian government, especially Jordanian intelligence.
They are working to arm and build up the pro-US Siniora government and stoke sectarianism in Lebanon.
Part of this plan, outrageously, has involved money given by the US, via the Siniora regime, to three Sunni Salafist groups who are pro-Al Qaeda. These groups are being armed in order to fight Hezbollah (since they loathe Shiites). If push comes to shove between Hezbollah and the Lebanese government, these groups will be used to battle it out with Hezbollah.
Outrageously, the US is once again funding Al Qaeda, which shows that imperialism truly has no morals at all. See The Seymour Hersch’s The Redirection in the latest New Yorker magazine (video here).
The Saudis are racists who hate the Shia and want to keep them down. In fact, most of the Sunni Arab regimes are like this. They all look to the Ottoman Empire when the Sunnis ruled the roost and the Shia were kept down by force. This is the Sunni Jim Crow era that they long for.
It is outrageous that the US is supporting Sunni Jim Crow racism against the downtrodden Shia and it is particularly despicable that the Israeli Jews, considering the history of the Jews, are supporting the oppressor against the oppressed. Or maybe that is what Israel is all about?

From Jew to Jew: Why We Should Oppose the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza

Repost from the old site.
Here is a document I received from a progressive Jewish colleague who is associated with the group that published this document, A Jewish Voice For Peace. The group is located in the San Francisco Bay Area in California.
In this struggle, we need all the allies we can get. A real 2-state solution, described below, would, for all its deficiencies, be light years better than the hardline Zionist horrorshow that has America in a death grip. The single-state solution preferred by so many anti-Zionists lacks international support at this time and thus is little more than a pipe dream, whatever moral weight it may throw.
While Hamas was surely the democratic choice of the people, so was Hitler. So was George Bush. So was Ariel Sharon. So what? Many Hamas members are racist anti-Semitic bigots who have no interest in sharing Palestine with Jews.
They have helped spread backwards Islamic fundamentalism in Palestine, which has encouraged abuse and terrorization of secular Muslims and especially of Palestinian Christians. The emigration of Palestinian Christians is to a large degree due to the increasing fundamentalism in Palestine. But see here for some recent commendable positive moves by Hamas towards Palestinian Christians in Bethlehem.
This blog condemns fundamentalism in all forms and all religions everywhere on Earth, from Afghanistan to India to America to Palestine. While Hamas is not Al Qaeda at all, there is much to criticize there.
Furthermore, the activists described above would attack the essay below for “being directed only at Jews” and for being “Jewish-centric”. Yet politics is the art of the possible, and with the region in flames and the conflagration threatening to spread to new lands, the sane people need all the friends we can get at this point.
Those who know quite about the Middle East conflict will find this essay, which is somewhat dated, to be old hat and may wish to skip it.
Those who know little about the Middle East (only 15% of Americans realize that Bethlehem is a mixed Muslim-Christian city in the Occupied West Bank of Palestine) will find it an excellent primer to the conflict, with good, moderate, sensible advice that may be palatable to many politically moderate Americans.
Along similar lines as this article, see Christopher Hedges, Get Carter, in the January 7, 2007 issue of The Nation. Although the 2-state solution may seem like a shameless sellout to the fringe anti-Zionists described above, in the US right now, sentiments like we see both this and Hedges article are regarded by the Israeli Lobby as ultraradical and are attacked with animal-like ferocity.
Note: This publication is seriously dated, dating back possibly to 2002. Nevertheless, it is still quite relevant.

From Jew to Jew:

Why We Should Oppose the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza
Written by Jews for Fellow Jews

A Jewish Voice For Peace Publication

Download the PDF file here
Introduction
Based in the San Francisco Bay Area, A Jewish Voice For Peace is the oldest and largest of a growing number of Jewish groups that are convinced that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory must end. There are two compelling reasons for this.
First, we wish to preserve the best part of our Jewish heritage -a deeply-ingrained sense of morality – and pass it on to the next generation, unsullied by the mistreatment of another people. We were brought up to believe that, as Jews, we are obligated to always take the moral high road and we can’t imagine letting this proud ethical tradition die now.
Second, as we will show in this paper, we are convinced that the only way to ensure the security of the people of Israel is for their government to conclude a just peace with the Palestinians. Without some reasonable version of justice being done, there will never be peace, and so we oppose any Israeli government policy that denies the Palestinians their legitimate rights. What those are will be examined shortly.
Is this position “anti-Jewish”? No, it is not (any more than criticizing U.S. government policies is anti-American.) Even as we love all of humanity, we have a special love for the Jewish people and for the warm and compassionate side of Jewish culture. We share with all Jews the trauma of the genocide of our people by the Nazis and our long history of periodic persecution.
We understand the instinct to “circle the wagons” when our people face danger, and we long for the day when Jews in Israel, as everywhere, will be able to lead normal, secure, productive lives. The question is how will that happy day come about? By blindly supporting the Israeli government’s self-destructive path to war and more war? We don’t think so.
We feel that these crucial issues need more discussion within the American Jewish community, not less. They certainly are debated at length in Israel itself, as evidenced by a recent Ma’ariv poll showing that 52% of Israelis support the 2002 Saudi peace plan calling for full Israeli withdrawal from all occupied territories in exchange for peace with the Arab world—in total opposition to the Israeli government’s policy.
It’s time for us to join the debate as well, and help formulate a more reasonable solution to the conflict.
Unfortunately, the ongoing violence in Palestine and Israel has led too many people, on both sides, to adopt blanket stereotypes of one another, turning them into something “less-than-human”. This process of dehumanization then allows people to justify the violence committed by their own side, starting the cycle all over again. This is a classic “lose-lose” situation that can continue on forever.
Is there a way out of this mess? Yes, we think so, but only if we suspend our understandable reaction of automatically blaming the other side. Only then can we objectively assess the root causes of the conflict and the realistic choices there are for resolving it. So, in the interest of peace, and with an open heart and mind, please consider the following facts.
1. THE OCCUPATION
The international community, through the United Nations and other forums, has made it clear that virtually the entire world considers the Israeli occupation of territories it captured in the 1967 war to be wrong and contrary to basic principles of international law.
Every year since 1967 (up until the Oslo Process started), the UN General Assembly passed the same resolution (usually by lopsided votes like 150-2), stating that Israel is obligated to vacate the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, in exchange for security guaranteed by the international community, in accordance with UN Resolution 242.
While the circumstances were much different, the legal basis of these resolutions is the same principle used to force Iraq out of Kuwait—i.e., a country cannot annex or indefinitely occupy territory gained by force of arms.
The only reason that Israel is able to maintain its occupation of Palestinian land is that the US routinely vetoes every Security Council resolution that would insist that Israel live up to its obligations under international law.
One of the original goals of Zionism was to create a Jewish state that would be just another normal country. If that is what Israel wants (and that is a reasonable goal), then it must be held to the same standards as any other country, including the prohibition against annexing territory captured by force of arms.
2. THE SETTLEMENTS
Similarly, all Jewish settlements, every single one, in territories outside Israel’s 1967 boundaries, are a direct violation of the Geneva Conventions, which Israel has signed and is obligated to abide by, as well as UN Security Council Resolutions 446 and 465.
As John Quigley, a professor of international law at Ohio State has written,

The Geneva Convention requires an occupying power to change the existing order as little as possible during its tenure. One aspect of this obligation is that it must leave the territory to the people it finds there. It may not bring its own people to populate the country.

This prohibition is found in the Convention’s Article 49, which states:

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies

Here’s what former President Jimmy Carter wrote in the Washington Post at the beginning of the current intifada:

An underlying reason that years of US diplomacy have failed and violence in the Middle East persists is that some Israeli leaders continue to create facts by building settlements in occupied territory…it is unlikely that real progress can be made…as long as Israel insists on its settlement policy, illegal under international laws that are supported by the United States and all other nations.

In fact, on December 5, 2001, Switzerland convened a conference of 114 nations that have signed the Fourth Geneva Convention (a conference boycotted by the US and Israel).
The assembled nations decided unanimously that the Convention did indeed apply to the occupied territories, that Israel was in gross violation of their obligations under that Convention, that Jewish-only settlements in those territories were illegal under the rules of the Convention, and that it was the responsibility of the other contracting parties to stop these violations of international law.
To be in such flagrant violation of the norms of international behavior is bad for Israel’s standing in the world, bad for the Jewish people as a whole and, as we shall see, totally unnecessary.
3. ISRAEL’S SECURITY
It is sometimes argued that the settlements are necessary for Israel’s security, to protect Israel from terrorism and the threat of violence. But the reality is that the settlements are a major cause of Israel’s current security problems, not the cure for them.
New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis pointed out the aggressive nature of the settlements as follows:

It is false to see the settlements as ordinary villages or towns where Israelis only want to live in peace with their Palestinian neighbors. They are in fact imposed by force—superior Israeli military force—on Palestinian territory.

Many have been built precisely to assert Israeli power and ownership. They are not peaceful villages but militarized encampments. . .The settlement policy is not just a political but a moral danger to the character of the state.
“But wouldn’t the Palestinians use their own state as a base for even more attacks against Israel?”, it might be asked. For one, the Palestinians have long agreed that their future state would be non-militarized, no foreign forces hostile to Israel would be allowed in, and international monitors could be stationed on Palestinian land in order to verify these conditions.
As for individual acts of terrorism, there is an historical precedent that gives a realistic answer to this question. During the first years after the Oslo agreements were signed, Hamas tried to disrupt the peace process but, because of the prevailing optimism, their influence in Palestinian society diminished and their armed attacks fell off sharply.
What that means for the future is that if the Palestinian people feel that even a rough version of justice has been done, they will not support the more extreme elements in their political spectrum. This is not just guesswork; it already happened with just the hope of justice being done.
Another aspect of this is that if Israel had internationally recognized borders, then they could be defended much more easily than the current situation where every hill in Palestine is a potential bone of contention because of Jewish settlements encroaching on Palestinian land.
If the settlements and their settlers and the military apparatus they require were gone, and the Palestinians were given enough aid by the international community to create a viable economy in their own state, they would naturally be overjoyed and a positive turn of events would be the inevitable result.
4. “BUT DON’T THEY JUST WANT TO DRIVE THE JEWS INTO THE SEA?”
Officially since 1988, and unofficially for years before that, the Palestinian position has been that they recognize Israel’s right to exist in peace and security within their 1967 borders. Period. At the same time, they expect to be allowed to establish a truly independent, viable, contiguous, non-militarized state in all of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.
This is what UN Resolution 242 says: “Land for Peace” – and the Palestinian Authority has stated repeatedly that UN Resolution 242 has to be the basis for any long-lasting solution to the conflict.
It is true that some Palestinians advocate that all of historic Palestine should be under Arab control, but there is no support for this position, either in the international community, nor among most Palestinians. Statements to that effect are just hyperbole and do not represent the official Palestinian position.
Similarly, statements by some Palestinians inciting people to violence against Israelis can easily be matched by statements from Orthodox rabbis and fundamentalist settlers calling for death to the Arabs. There are meshuganahs aplenty on both sides.
But since the Palestinians’ official position is clear, why shouldn’t Israel take the Palestinians up on this offer and withdraw from the occupied territories?
Israel is far stronger militarily than all the Arab armies combined and would face no credible military threat from a Palestinian state. And the threat of individual terrorist acts would, of necessity, be much less once the Palestinians felt that they had received a modicum of justice.
What would Israel lose by this obvious solution of just ending the occupation, which they could do tomorrow if they wanted to (or if the US insisted that they do)? The only thing it would “lose” is the dream of some of its citizens for a “Greater Israel”, where Israel’s boundaries are expanded to its biblical borders.
The problem with that dream is that it totally ignores the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and the will of virtually the entire international community. As long as the right-wing settlers and their supporters in the Israeli government insist on pursuing this dream, there will be nothing but bloodshed forever.
The Palestinian people have lived in Palestine for thousands of years and they are not going away. Israel must conclude a just peace with them or innocent blood will continue to be shed indefinitely.
5. NEGOTIATIONS LEADING UP TO THE CURRENT INTIFADA
It has often been asked, “But didn’t Barak offer 95% of the Occupied Territories to Arafat at Camp David and doesn’t his rejection of that offer mean that they don’t want peace?” There are several crucial things to understand here. First, prisoners may occupy 95% of a prison’s space, but it is the other 5% that determines who is in control.
Similarly, the offer Barak made at Camp David II would have left the main settlement blocks and their Jewish-only bypass roads in place.
Along with the extensive areas Israel planned on retaining indefinitely for its military use, this would have dissected Palestinian territory into separate bantustans (“native reservations”), isolated from each other, each surrounded by Israeli-controlled territory and having no common borders with each other or other Arab nations.
The territories would have had no control over their own air space; their main water aquifers (underneath the settlement blocs) would have been taken by Israel; and the Israeli military would have able to surround and blockade each enclave at will.
See this map courtesy of the Foundation for Middle East Peace for a bird’s eye view of the problems of Barak’s plan.
Jerusalem would have been similarly dissected so that each Palestinian island would be surrounded by an Israeli sea. This wouldn’t be an acceptable “end of the conflict” if you were Palestinian, would it? (Israel actually presented no maps at Camp David itself, but this was their offer of two months previous, and only marginal additional territory was theoretically offered at Camp David.)
The other important question here is 95% of what? “Greater Jerusalem” was unilaterally annexed by Israel after the 1967 war, so it was not included as West Bank territory in Barak’s offer, even though it takes up a large chunk of the West Bank, most of it having no municipal connection with the actual city of Jerusalem.
The international community has never recognized Israeli sovereignty over “Greater Jerusalem” and has repeatedly declared that Israel should withdraw from this and all territories it conquered by force of arms in 1967. Barak’s offer also excluded large swaths of the Jordan Valley which the Israeli military would control indefinitely.
Thus the Foundation for Middle East Peace estimates that the actual percentage of occupied land offered to the Palestinians was more like 80%, not 95%.
After the Camp David talks ended without an agreement, did Arafat refuse to negotiate? In a word, no. At the end of Camp David, it was Barak who said that his offers there would not be the basis for further discussions, that they were now “null and void”, and that Camp David was an “all or nothing” summit.
The Palestinians were willing to continue serious negotiations, and did at Taba, even after the current intifada had started.
According to Ron Pundak, an Israeli diplomat who was a key architect of the Oslo Accords:

The negotiations in Taba, which took place moments before Barak’s government lost the elections, proved that a permanent status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians was within reach. (It) led to dramatic progress on all issues on the agenda.

But meanwhile, Sharon had gone to the Temple Mount with 1000 Israeli soldiers in tow, followed the next day by a demonstration of Palestinians (who had no firearms), which was met with totally unnecessary lethal force by the Israeli police, resulting in at least four Palestinians being shot and killed.
This demonstration, which could have been contained by nonlethal means if the Israeli government had wanted to, was the beginning of the current cycle of violence.
6. LOOKING AT CAUSE AND EFFECT
“What about Palestinian crimes? Why don’t you lay equal blame on them?” Certainly, Palestinians have committed grave crimes, and in any process of reconciliation, both sides will have much to answer for. But as Jews, we are responsible to look at Israel objectively, and not just when Israelis are victims of violence.
In order to understand why there is the level of violence we see today, it is necessary to understand how we got to this point.
a) Before the 1967 war. Before the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, there was little organized Palestinian resistance. The majority of the tension was between Israel and the neighboring states. For the most part, violence between Israel and the Palestinians was limited to isolated Palestinian “infiltrations”, as Israel generally referred to them.
The Israeli population may certainly have believed that they were in mortal danger from the armies of their Arab neighbors. But by the mid-1960s, Israeli leaders had a good deal of confidence that they could defeat a combination of Arab forces similar to what they accomplished in 1948, and with greater ease.
History, of course, proved them correct, which calls into question the myth that Israel was fighting a self-defensive war for its very existence in 1967.
b) The 1967 war itself. The myth that the 1967 war was a purely defensive one is further weakened by statements of Israeli leaders themselves.
For example, the New York Times published an article on May 11, 1997 quoting Moshe Dayan’s own diaries, in which he admits that the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights in 1967 did so less for security than for the farmland. Dayan wrote:

They didn’t even try to hide their greed for that land…The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.

Or again from Prof. John Quigley’s landmark book, Palestine And Israel:

Mordecai Bentov, a cabinet minister who attended the June 4 (1967) cabinet meeting and supported the decision to invade Egypt, said Israel’s ‘entire story’ about ‘the danger of extermination’ was ‘invented of whole cloth and exaggerated after the fact to justify the annexation of new Arab territories’.

Even Menachem Begin said:

The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.

In short, the argument of self-defense does not stand up to a close examination of the historical record.
c) Peace Proposals after the 1967 war. In 1969, Nixon’s Secretary of State, William Rogers, proposed a peace plan based on UN Resolution 242, which would have guaranteed Israel’s security within her pre-1967 borders. Israel rejected it out-of-hand. In 1971, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat offered Israel a similar proposal (which did not mention Palestinian rights at all). This was also rejected by Israel.
In 1976, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the PLO supported a resolution in the UN Security Council affirming Israel’s right to exist in peace and security, as in UN Resolution 242, but with a Palestinian state created alongside Israel. Israel opposed it and the US vetoed it.
Arafat personally reaffirmed his support of a two-state solution in statements made to Senator Adlai Stevenson in 1976, and Rep. Paul Findley and New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis in 1978. The Saudis made similar proposals in 1979 and 1981, which were reiterated in their 2002 peace proposal, adopted by the entire Arab League.
Yet Israel rejected all these peace proposals, and more, even though Israel’s security was guaranteed in each one of them. Why? The historical record is clear that Israel’s desire for additional land has been the single most important factor behind its expansionist policies.
As David Ben-Gurion said in 1938:

I favor partition of the country because when we become a strong power after the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition and spread throughout all of Palestine.

In sum, the 1967 war was not a purely defensive war on Israel’s part, as Begin told us.
The Israeli army met very little Palestinian resistance during the early years of the occupation. In the ‘60s and ‘70s, most Palestinian violence came from groups outside of the Occupied Territories. It is the Israeli desire to retain control over the West Bank, its expanding settlements and land appropriations that have sown the seeds of the situation we have today.
d) The Israeli occupation as the root cause of the violence. The main hallmark of the Israeli occupation has been the forcible expropriation of over half of the West Bank and Gaza for Jewish-only settlements, Jewish-only by-pass roads and Israeli closed military areas.
These expropriations are possible only because of overwhelming Israeli military might and are, in and of themselves, acts of violence—just as armed robbery is an act of violence, even if no one is hurt. Can we really expect that no violent reaction to it would have occurred?
Israel’s former Attorney General, Michael Ben-Yair stated point-blank in Ha’aretz (3/3/02):

We enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, engaging in theft and finding justification for all these activities. . . In effect, we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately following their capture. That oppressive regime exists to this day.

e) How did the current level of violence come about? Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians are well documented in our own media. And, while major Israeli incursions have gotten a good deal of attention, day-to-day excesses of the Israeli military have not been so widely reported. To get an accurate picture of the chain of events, let’s look at the reports issued by human rights groups near the beginning of the current intifada.
Human Rights Watch, for example, stated:

Israeli security forces have committed by far the most serious and systematic violations. We documented excessive and indiscriminate use of lethal force, arbitrary killings, and collective punishment, including willful destruction of property and severe restrictions on movement that far exceed any possible military necessity.

B’Tselem is Israel’s leading human rights group and their detailed analyses of the current intifada can be found at their website.
They concluded early on:

In spite of claims to the contrary, Israel has not adopted a policy of restraint in its response to events in the Occupied Territories…Israel uses excessive and disproportionate force in dispersing demonstrations of unarmed Palestinians…Collective punishment, in the form of Israel’s severe restrictions on Palestinians’ movement in the Occupied Territories, makes life unbearable for hundreds of thousands with no justification.

Collective punishment is illegal under international law.
The United Nations Commission on Human Rights reported the following:

There is considerable evidence of indiscriminate firing at civilians in the proximity of demonstrations and elsewhere (by Israeli troops)…The live ammunition employed includes high-velocity bullets which splinter on impact and cause the maximum harm.

Equally disturbing is the evidence that many of the deaths and injuries inflicted were the result of head wounds and wounds to the upper body, which suggests an intention to cause serious bodily injury rather than restrain demonstrations…The measures of closure, curfew or destruction of property constitute violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention and human rights obligations binding upon Israel.
Amnesty International has also made numerous statements on the current intifada, including the following:

Amnesty International reiterated its long-standing calls to Israel to end its policy of liquidations and other arbitrary killings and urged the international community to send international observers…In these state assassinations the Israeli authorities offer no proof of guilt, no right to defense. Extrajudicial executions are absolutely prohibited by international law.

This attitude of the disposability of Palestinian life has now filtered down to the ordinary soldier. An IDF reservist interviewed on prime-time First Channel Israeli TV (12/14/01) stated:

Nowadays, there is much less of a dilemma. We more or less got a clearance from both the military and the political echelons. Nowadays, we shoot them in the head and no questions asked.

Is this what we want our Jewish legacy to be?
The overwhelming consensus of these reports means that Israeli demands for the Palestinians to “stop the violence” turn reality on its head. The Palestinians have suffered almost four times the fatalities that Israel has in the current fighting, as well as tens of thousands of serious injuries.
Furthermore, answering stone throwing with M-16 military weapons designed for battlefield use, or responding to ineffective Molotov cocktails with very effective armored tanks and attack helicopters is simply not morally justifiable.
It is also important to keep in mind that many of Israel’s current actions have been going on, in various degrees, for the last 35 years – systematic torture of Palestinians in Israeli jails, the forcible and illegal appropriation of over half the West Bank and Gaza by Israel for Jewish-only uses, daily humiliations and abuse at Israeli military checkpoints all over Palestinian land—these have combined to bring Palestinian anger to a boiling point.
In sum, we have seen that Israeli actions have served to seriously escalate the violence, and that Israel’s stubborn refusal to end its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, even to the extent of just stopping its settlement activity, has been a major obstacle to any progress towards peace.
To be sure, Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians have also been major obstacles towards such progress. Occupation and repression can never justify terrorism against civilians, but neither do terrorist acts by a few negate the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.
The best way to address these crimes is to end the occupation which inspires the Palestinians to commit them. Recent history has demonstrated clearly that support for such crimes, and the number of Palestinians willing to commit them, drops precipitously when the Palestinians have had hope for independence, and risen sharply in response to the intensifying occupation and expansion of settlements.
We must also bear in mind that we are not morally responsible for Palestinian crimes, although we must work to prevent them. But we are morally responsible for Israeli actions taken in our name and with our tax dollars.
7. THE JEWISH PEACE MOVEMENT
One’s opinion on the Israel/Palestine conflict need not be a black or white question; you can support the Israeli people but still criticize their government’s illegal and ultimately self-destructive policies.
We believe that the Jewish peace movement, both in Israel and around the world, has a far better plan to ensure Israel’s security. That plan is to create real peace as a consequence of real justice being done, not a “peace” of victor and vanquished. We recommend that you go to Gush Shalom, Btselem, and Batshalom and read for yourself what thinking Israelis demand of their own government.
Thousands of Israelis, including hundreds of Israel’s top university professors, are convinced their government is committing unpardonable acts and have taken public stands against them.
For example, over 400 reserve combat officers and soldiers in the IDF have publicly stated their moral opposition to Sharon’s increasingly brutal use of force during the current intifada. These “refuseniks” have the sympathy of a growing portion of the Israeli public, now up to 26% of those surveyed in a February 2002 poll. Their statement reads, in part:

We, who sensed how the commands issued to us in the Territories destroy all the values we had absorbed while growing up in this country… hereby declare that we shall not continue to fight in this War of the Settlements.

We shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people. We hereby declare that we shall continue serving in the Israel Defense Forces in any mission that serves Israel’s defense. The missions of occupation and oppression do not serve this purpose—and we shall take no part in them.
Even Ami Ayalon, the former head of the Shin Bet (Israel’s equivalent to the FBI), recently stated in Le Monde:

I favor unconditional withdrawal from the Territories, preferably in the context of an agreement, but not necessarily. What needs to be done, urgently, is to withdraw from the Territories, a true withdrawal which gives the Palestinians territorial continuity.

So if disagreement with the Israeli government is kosher in Israel, shouldn’t it also be a topic of discussion among American Jews? For just one example, a recent survey of American Jewish attitudes showed that 35% of us think that sharing Jerusalem would be an acceptable outcome of peace talks, in total contradiction to the views expressed by the major American Jewish organizations that claim to speak in our name.
Our community does not, and should not, have just one opinion on these questions. What is needed is more discussion, not less, on these crucial matters.
The intifada is not primarily the result of the religious fanaticism, the blind anti-Semitism or the “inherent violent tendencies” of the Arabs. Rather, in our view, it is the inevitable result of the most basic human emotions – their need to be free and to live with dignity in the land of their ancestors.
A Palestinian child who is awakened at dawn by Israeli soldiers demolishing his home and uprooting the family’s olive grove does not need anyone to tell him to hate.
The Israeli Occupation has seriously eroded the Jewish people’s proud moral heritage, developed over the centuries; and, in any case, we are convinced it will never work, even in the most pragmatic terms.
The Palestinians will always resist being under military occupation, and have the right, under international law, to do so. As a result, there will never be real security for Israel until there is a reasonable version of justice for the Palestinians. How could it be otherwise?
8. ISRAEL’S SECURITY – Continued
“But doesn’t Israel have to do something to stop the suicide bombers?” A reasonable question, and here is a most reasonable answer from Gush Shalom’s founder, Uri Avnery:

When tanks run amok in the center of a town, crushing cars and destroying walls, tearing up roads, shooting indiscriminately in all directions, causing panic to a whole population —it induces helpless rage.

When soldiers crush through a wall into the living room of a family, causing shock to children and adults, ransacking their belongings, destroying the fruits of a life of hard work, and then break the wall to the next apartment to wreck havoc there—it induces helpless rage.
When officers order to shoot at ambulances, killing doctors and paramedics engaged in saving the lives of the wounded, bleeding to death—it induces helpless rage. And then it appears that the rage is not helpless after all. The suicide bombers go forward to avenge…
Anyone who believes that Arafat can push a button and stop this is living in a dream world…At best, the pressure cooker can cool off slowly, if the majority of the people are persuaded that their honor has been restored and their liberation guaranteed. Then public support for the ‘terrorists’ will diminish, they will be isolated and wither away. That was what happened in the past.
9. SOURCES OF INFORMATION
A major cause of misunderstanding between the Jewish peace movement and other American Jews is that we rely on different sources of information. If what you know about Israel and Palestine comes from the US corporate press, TV news and/or the mainstream US Jewish press, then your perception of events will be determined by their worldview.
As Jewish media critic Norman Solomon wrote in 2001:

Searching the Nexis database of U.S. media coverage during the first 100 days of this year, I found several dozen stories using the phrase ‘Israeli retaliation’ or ‘Israel retaliated.’

During the same period, how many stories used the phrase ‘Palestinian retaliation’ or ‘Palestinians retaliated’? One. Both sides of the conflict, of course, describe their violence as retaliatory. But only one side routinely benefits from having its violent moves depicted that way by major American media.
If, however, you supplement your information by reading the Israeli press, progressive magazines like Tikkun or The Nation, internet sites like Common Dreams and radio stations of the Pacifica network, then a very different picture of what is going on emerges.
In particular, we suggest that you sign up for our free email news service, the Jewish Peace News , which gives you the latest news and most cogent analyses of Middle East events, much of it from the Israeli press. You can subscribe by sending an e-mail to: jewishpeacenews-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.
10. SHARON’S CURRENT POLICIES
Ariel Sharon has always opposed real negotiations with the Palestinians, preferring instead to try to defeat them militarily. He has vehemently opposed all Palestinian/Israel agreements and has repeatedly stated that he has no intention of returning a single settlement to Palestinian rule.
Even the editors of the Washington Post (2/22/02) wrote:

During lulls in the conflict, Mr. Sharon frequently has been the first to renew the fight; during three weeks in December (2001) and early January (2002) when the Palestinians responded to a call from Mr. Arafat and stopped almost all attacks, Israeli forces killed a dozen Palestinians.

The obvious conclusion to draw is that Sharon does not want peace or real negotiations, just a vanquishing of his sworn enemies.
Indeed, if Sharon really wanted Arafat to arrest Palestinian militants, then why has he systematically destroyed the Palestinian Authority’s ability to do so? According to the Israeli peace group Gush Shalom:

The Palestinian police and security services have hardly any premises or prisons left in which to put terrorists, even if the decision was taken to arrest them; the bombardments were all too thorough.

Most crucially, in the spring of 2002, Israel commenced its most severe armed attacks yet in the West Bank, involving the following “grave breaches” of the Geneva Conventions— some of them rising to the level of war crimes, according to Human Rights Watch and other monitoring groups.

  • Israeli snipers on the tops of buildings, shooting anything that moves.
  • Ambulances shot at, medical personnel unable to evacuate the wounded, who have then died needlessly from their wounds.
  • Civilian neighborhoods bombed by U.S.-supplied helicopter gunships, F-16 fighter jets and Israeli tanks, causing widespread devastation and, inevitably, many civilian casualties.
  • Palestinian homes crushed by military bulldozers—sometimes, as in Jenin, with the occupants still inside.
  • Wanton destruction of the infrastructure of Palestinian civil society—water pipes and pumping stations, electrical power poles and plants, medical facilities, schools, hospitals, mosques and churches, public buildings, etc., in addition to massive looting and gratuitous vandalization of homes, businesses and governmental offices.
  • The use of “human shields” for Israeli military actions.
  • Journalists shot at who try to document the above gross violations of international law.

And Israel is now constructing a “buffer zone” that will de facto annex about 15% of the West Bank to Israel and break it up into eight separate bantustans, each surrounded by concrete barricades, hi-tech barbed-wire and electric fences, canals, guard towers, etc.
In other words, eight big open-air prisons, which Palestinians cannot get out of, except at the whim of the Israeli authorities. Again, this kind of collective punishment is specifically outlawed by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
A joint statement by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Commission of Jurists (4/07/02) stated:

We strongly deplore actions by the state of Israel that harm persons protected by international humanitarian law. . . Such actions violate international standards and transcend any justification of military necessity.

Even in practical terms, these Israeli actions are counterproductive. As Gush Shalom writes:

The retaliatory and punitive raids by the army do manage to intercept some potential suicide bombers—but the very same raids and incursions, by demonstrating the brutality of the Occupation, also increase on the Palestinian side, the motivation for retribution, and help the recruitment of new suicide bombers.

Only an end to the Occupation by political means, allowing a fair expression of the basic Palestinian aspirations, can dry up the suicide bombing phenomenon at its source, and provide new hope to the desperate young Palestinians from whose ranks the bombers are recruited.
The recent upsurge in anti-Semitism worldwide is clearly connected with escalated Israeli aggression. As Israel has succeeded in convincing many people that it represents World Jewry, many supporters of Palestinians have directed their anger at Israeli actions against Jewish institutions in their own countries.
Right-wing white supremacist forces have also seized this opportunity to give their anti-Semitic venom legitimacy. Thus all Jews have a stake in seeing the sorts of human rights violations we have just described stopped.
CONCLUSION
Any country has the right and the responsibility to protect its citizens, and Israel is no exception. But its policies for the last 35 years, and especially during the current intifada, have been based on the old adage, “The best defense is a good offense”.
While that’s OK in football, in Israel that has translated into systematic torture or ill-treatment of literally hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Israeli prisons, according to B’Tselem and other reputable groups. It means wanton cruelty being inflicted every day at military checkpoints, wanton destruction of Palestinian homes, and illegal strangling of Palestinian economic life, leading to extreme deprivation.
And there is no other phrase than “war crimes” to accurately describe many of the actions of the IDF during the attacks against the Palestinian civilian population in the spring of 2002. In short, the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory is simply wrong—brutal, illegal and unnecessary.
We do agree that both sides have done poorly in advancing the cause of peace. As Jews, however, it is incumbent upon us to put our own house in order, above all else. As Americans, our responsibility is doubled.
Our government has, through unprecedented financial and political support, allowed Israel to maintain its occupation and commit human rights violations with complete impunity. Thus, we are both responsible for the escalation and in a unique position to do something about it.
In the long-run, the only hope for a normal, peaceful life for the people of Israel is for their government to end their occupation of Palestinian land, allow the creation of a viable Palestinian state, and live and let live. The only other alternative is the current situation of endless bloodshed, which our silence, among other things, makes possible.
HOW TO DO YOUR PART FOR PEACE
If you have found this paper enlightening, please join A Jewish Voice For Peace and help us in our work. We have been organizing and educating people about the real causes of the unrest in Israel and Palestine since 1996.
Among our many useful projects, we make available to people, free of charge, an e-news service that delivers daily to its readers the best articles on the current conflict, largely from the Israeli press. To sign up for the Jewish Peace News, simply send an e-mail to jewishpeacenewssubscribe@yahoogroups.com.
A Jewish Voice For Peace has made great strides in the past year. In order for us to continue to grow and expand our services and our reach, we need your help. Your donations will make it possible for us to hire new staff members, increase our educational services and vastly expand our media reach. All contributions are tax-deductible.
To get in touch with us, write us at P.O. Box 13286, Berkeley, CA.

The Man Who Thought He Was a Cat

Repost from the old site.
While I was at the university getting my Master’s Degree, I used to read a lot of journals. I really liked this one journal called the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. In one issue I found a case study of a man who suffered from the delusion that he was a cat! As a cat lover, I kind of enjoyed this case. I don’t think I’m a cat or anything like that, but sometimes I wonder if my two female cats make better companions than the women in my life.
He was a 40 year old man who worked as a technician in a laboratory. Considering his delusion, one of the most peculiar things about him was that he actually looked like a cat! He was kind of thick and heavyset and had a big full beard. All of this contributed to a rather strange appearance somewhat like the Lion Man in the Wizard of Oz.
The man stated flat out that he was actually a cat and not a human being. All attempts to disabuse him of this notion were met with airy dismissals. He had believed that he was a cat for a long time, possibly since childhood. He said that as as child and young man, he had spent a lot of time playing with cats, especially in open fields. He got down on all fours and walked around in fields and spent hours socializing with the cats out there. He continued to engage in this behavior to this day.
He said that cats had a special affinity for him, because they realized that he was actually a cat and not a human. Hence, he said that cats accepted him as a fellow cat and treated him as such. He said that cats are actually very intelligent – much more intelligent than people think they are.
Over the years rolling around in fields with cats, he learned that cats actually had a spoken language in their meows. He had finally learned this language over time and could now communicate with cats in their language. He also said that he had had sex with cats on many occasions out in the fields (How does one do this?).
Over time, he had learned that most people did not want to hear about the fact that he was a cat, so he had learned to stop talking about it. He was diagnosed with Delusional Disorder and it was recommended that he take an anti-psychotic. I am not sure of how the case resolved. I believe that he did not see any problem in being a cat and refused treatment.

Democratic Underground's Censorship Rules on Debating Israel

Repost from the old site.
I’ve had a lot of requests for the 149-page directory of hate sites that was referenced in my previous post.
The 149-page site is called The Hate Directory, and it is linked below. In general, it lists Holocaust Denial, anti-Semitic, White Supremacist and neo-Nazi sites (A lot of overlap there! Are there any anti-Semites on this Earth who are not also Holocaust Deniers?!)
I didn’t go over The Hate Directory with a fine tooth comb, but there were a few problematic sites on there. One of them is The Jewish Tribal Review.
The JTR is a very problematic site, but their fantastic critique of the Jews, running to 3,000 pages, When Victims Rule, is often well-worth the read and is not really anti-Semitic at all.
In other places, JTR is anti-Semitic. They criticize Jews for various things, but often don’t offer suggestions on what Jews should do instead of the critiqued behaviors. And in the news section, they just seem to go through the news listing any Jew who ever did anything bad and reprinting the article about him. What’s the point of that? Other than sheer bigotry.
Alabaster’s Archive is also linked as a hate site. This is an excellent site and 90% of it is not anti-Semitic at all. The articles are mostly about Jewish fundamentalism and the Israeli Rightwing, and most of them are written by Jews, often Israelis!
The Hamas webpage is also listed. Other than the Hamas charter, what exactly on the Hamas webpage (mostly just a collection of news stories from Palestine about Israeli transgressions and Palestinian resistance actions) is hate propaganda?
Here is a mail I received from the original poster describing the rules in DU about Jews and Israel:
Here’s an excerpted sample of Democratic Underground Israel/Palestine forum rules:
“If you feel great affinity to groups who are promoting hate in the Middle East such as Kahane, or Hamas; feel there is a Jewish conspiracy governing US foreign policy or control of the media; or believe supporters of Islam or Palestinian Nationalism are terrorists, then you are probably likely to be banned.
Do not discuss the truthfulness and/or stupidity of various religions. Do not assume you know what someone believes simply because they practice a certain religion. Do not make over-sweeping or stereotypical generalizations of any group or individual. This includes making statements, either overtly or subtly, which are Anti-Semitic or Anti-Muslim.
Please avoid posting “information” from overtly racist websites. A good, but not exhaustive, guide is Franklin’s Hate Directory. Posting from Whatreallyhappened, Chronwatch or Debka is specifically not allowed.
Please exercise extreme caution and sensitivity when using the words “anti-Semitism” or “Zionism.” There is a wide range of opinion on the meaning of these words. If you must use them, please make sure your intended meaning is clear. Do not use the term “Zionist” to mean “Jew” or “Israeli.”
[RL: This is despicable. I remember this from the Internet forums. Whenever we said anything about Jews, Zionist or Israel the disgusting, belligerent militant Jews on there would jump all over the post and demand that we put qualifiers in front of the nouns.
Jews? How about “some Jews”? Israelis? How about “some Israelis”? Israel? Do you think that Israelis are monolithic? They are not! So you may not “generalize” about them.
At that point, once all “stereotyping” and “generalization” has been banned, all debate on this subject becomes impossible. There’s more crap. Complaining about Israel or Jews? You must be “obsessed” with the Jews or Israel.
Well, Hell, we can focus on whatever we want! Anyway, most Jews are “obsessed” with their tribe and their state, so why can’t others be that way too?
Complaining about Israel but not about all other myriad shitty little countries (and shitty big countries) all over the world? Bigot! What nonsense. We can talk about whatever we want.
We don’t need to juxtapose every anti-Israel comment with a comment slamming Peru, Indonesia, Thailand, Pakistan, Turkey, Morocco or Colombia. Yeah! The world is full of shitty countries! And Israel is one of them!]
Do not use the term “Jew” to mean “Israeli”. Do not call Palestinians “terrorists” unless you are actually talking about people who blow up cafes or buses filled with civilians. Do not compare Middle East regional leaders and parties to Hitler or the Nazis. Use of these terms is considered inflammatory and should be avoided.
Do not call other members of this message board “terror apologist,” “Palestinian apologist,” “Israeli apologist,” “Nazi,” “Fascist,” “Sharonist,” “Likudnik”, etc.”
______________________________
The DU reporter notes: It’s notable that pro-Israel poster accusations of antisemitism, both overt and thinly-veiled, routinely go untouched. That’s of course fine, but any accusations of pro-Israel bias, blind support for Israel, hyper-sensitivity, or twisting facts to put Israel in the best light, are deleted, and often the author is never heard from again.
No announcements that a poster has been banned are offered. They just disappear. Often the “disappeared” are mentioned on Prosemite Undercover, where they boast of their successful efforts in a behind-the-scenes swarm attack to “tombstone” the Israel-critic. They even have a standard tombstone graphic with the legend “Here lies “insert name”.
[RL: I have spent some time over at Prosemite Undercover getting nauseous while reading about the nasty militant Jews and their deplorable behaviors. That is really a horrible site.]
A sample of the moderator’s (Lithos) views:
“Why these two distinctions are important is that there is a form of anti-Semitism where bigots use a stereotypical form of the term Zionist as a way to attack Jews. Zionism carries at some level a notion of struggle in much the same way as the real definition of jihad which is a word which also is abused and often serving as part of a code word for bigots.”
———————————–
“The reason why I will disagree with you about equivalencing post 9/11’s bigotry with the multi-millenia of anti-Semitism has to do with the complicated nature of bigotry against Jews versus the highly simplistic one in the mainstream against Muslims.
In contrast, Jews have had several thousand years of officially sponsored bigotry aimed at them.
[RL: Down with the Jewish Pogrom and Persecution Masochism-Fest!]
First there were many official pogroms against the Jewish religion by the Romans, Persians and the Muslims where they were blamed and accused of fomenting rebellion
[RL: The Romans “blamed” the Jews for fomenting rebellion because that is exactly what the Jews were doing – fomenting rebellion!]
and Deicide.
Later with the rise of nation states along ethnic lines, Jews being ubiquitous and for the most part culturally distinct from the host population were accused first of being unpatriotic and seditious to ultimately masterminds of a great cabal a la The International Jew and The Protocols.”
————————————
“I totally agree that 9/11 fueled the spread of many tailored answers designed to provide simple easily to digest answers to an extremely complicated reality and that this included a rise in anti-Muslim fear, but I also think that there are many examples out now where it fueled a rise in anti-Semitism.”
————————————-
“One problem that Israel has always had is a lack of resources, this includes political resources to affect policy and opinion. Given that their limited tool set includes a very strong and efficient military, it is not surprising they tend to rely on it when perhaps they shouldn’t.”
————————————
Poster writes:
“If Jews, Zionism, and Israel are coming up in 911 over and over it’s sure not the conspiracy theorists that are looking to make connections where there are not.”
Lithos responds:
“So, if a lie is repeated enough, it becomes true? Isn’t that the issue behind Bush’s claims of WMD? Isn’t this the primary complaint by the 9/11 truth side the government and media are repeating a lie? Your comment is absurd given your basis of assumption.”
————————————
“The focus on AIPAC and Israel has always been interesting in that people place such singular focus on AIPAC as being an influential lobbying group, but make no mention of other groups with far more influence on US foreign policy, namely the energy and defense concerns?
Why the focus when the ties, corruption and conspiracies to Iraq, Afghanistan, Dubai, Saudi Arabia and Bin Ladin have far more to do with these groups than with Israel or AIPAC?
[RL: Chomskian, Western Leftist bullshit. See Jeff Blankfort’s articles on Chomsky and the Israeli Lobby for more. Blankfort is Jewish.]
About all Israel seems to be guaranteed by US policy is existence which results not from Jewish influence, but rather that of the Millennial Dispensationalist crowd.
[RL: This is a typical lie of those who are trying very hard to avoid the anti-Semite label. There is no Jewish Lobby! The Israeli Lobby is…just a bunch of…Christians! Jeff Blankfort has done a good job of tearing apart this nonsense. The Christian Zionists do very little lobbying for Israel, and that is what really counts, not their inner political views.
However, I recently received a mail noting that whenever the US criticizes Israel in the slightest, the White House gets bombarded with mails from the Christian Right telling them to knock it off.
So the Christian Zionists do have some influence, but observation shows that the influence of the Jewish aspect of the Israeli Lobby is greater, in particular the Lobby’s power in the US media, which strikes terror into the hearts of US politicians.]
Also, you find no issue that the original sources claiming Israeli involvement came from sites and operation well known and heavily associated with holocaust denial activities and the proponents of it?”
[RL: Logical fallacy! Holocaust Denier idiots of course blamed Israel for 9-11, therefore…what? Anyone who suggests Israeli 9-11 involvement is a Holocaust Denier? It can’t possibly be true, because the initial purveyors of the theory were a bunch of virulently anti-Semitic White Supremacist morons?]
————————————-
“As for sources, most of what is not allowed here for these types of biased thinking such as anti-Semitism sites are usually Paleo-Libertarian and generally Far Right in bent.
Of the Libertarian (where most of the anti-Semitic sites seem to be associated), the main reason they’ve garnered any coin among the left is that they are jealous/in competition with the Neocons for control of the Right and leftists are sometimes over-eager to believe “an enemy of my enemy is my ally” without realizing this other group is also an enemy.”
Update: I would like to point out that it is not only the Democratic Underground and the Liberal Underground sites that censor the Israel – Palestine issue. The same sort of pro-Israeli thuggery can be seen at the , or at least in the Arizona section anyway.
It’s actually often an overt conspiracy:
From an old webpage of the disgusting and foul brownshirts at the Jewish Internet Association:

Shut down offensive websites: If you spot an offensive web site — antisemitic, terrorist supporting, anti-Israel, or just hateful — you may be able to shut it down. By following simple procedures, you can determine who owns the site and what web hosting company is giving them access to the Internet.

Often the offensive site is not actually known to the web hosting company and is probably in violation of their rules of conduct. A simple letter of complaint can force the site to move, a considerable inconvenience and possibly the end of them. Haganah B’Internet, an online self-defense force, has prepared a site research How-to/Checklist along with other tools, advice and news on their website.

Blacks Beat Whites – Film at 11

Repost from the old site.
I see idiots.
I see White Supremacists.
I see White Supremacist idiots (there is no other kind).
It’s fun to stroll over to American Renaissance once in a while. While there is a good understanding of race there and folks are not afraid to broach the subject, there is also a staggering amount of stupidity, mostly in the comments. What is hilarious about all this Dumbness is that this Dumbness is being scribbled by folks who are dedicated to the premise that they are members of the most intelligent race on the planet.
Ho ho ho!
I see this problem with nationalists, especially ethnic nationalists, and ethnic supremacists (of all varieties) all the time, although I confess that Chinese Supremacists are the least stupid of all, and sometimes I think there is no one dumber than an Afrocentrist. Gosh, is there something to the IQ thing after all?
The problem is that once you become an ethnic supremacist, you have to construct a particularly insane and insipid worldview whereby your group did all the great things in the whole history of the world, is superior to all the other groups, and the competing groups all did nothing and are inferiors.
Even if your group was not running around secretly doing all the great stuff, you need to put down all the achievements of the other groups (“The Aztecs and Maya were too stupid to invent wheels!”), while elevating the often meager achievements of your own group. Talk to a Nordicist sometime about the Germanic tribes running around with bearskins and spears and he will convince you that they were far beyond the Egyptians.
This leads to some rather breathtaking displays of brain rot. Only in White Supremacist fora will you still find intelligent humans debating whether or not humans came out of Africa. It’s just so insulting! That the White Man came from niggers! How dare you say that?
But really now, if you recognize that before that we came from frogs, it’s not so insulting.
Only on these fora do you find folks insisting that Whites were the original settlers of the Americas (!) and that Amerindians are interlopers who need to be sent back home (!). Only here do you find serious discussion of whether or not Africans still retain an “ape gene” (!) that all the rest of us have lost, at least when we are not drunk.
Only here do “White Historians” regale rapt listeners with tales of how stealth-Whites (probably disguised as other races) roamed around the world for 1000’s of years, secreting building all of the great civilizations on Earth (!) for only a consultant’s fee, and then slipping silently back to Europe or wherever while the Egyptians, Indians, Khmer, Maya, Inca, Chinese and all the rest of the inferiors got all the credit (!).
Yes, White Nationalism is a fountain of stupidity that never dries up.
Let us look at my latest finding from American Renaissance. It is from an article about fossils. The post has now been deleted by the editors (see here), probably because it makes White people look too stupid.
About the article – I think it had something to with Neandertal. One of these WN guys’ favorite obsessions is with Neandertal. Every sensible human on Earth knows that Neadandertal lived and died in Europe, going extinct 29,000 years. Everyone except…White nationalists!
ROTF.
These slobbering morons still insist, against all scientific evidence, that Neandertal gave rise to Homo Europeanansis Superioris. Now why anyone would want to claim ancestry to this big-browed hulk is beyond me, but WN’s just love it. I suspect it is because they get to claim that they are not descended from niggers!
Anyway, the comments section took off and all the usual WN droolers strolled in from their group homes waving their arms in weird ways and making animal noises. Soon the conversation degenerated as usual.
These guys’ contempt for Blacks knows no bottom floor. In the comments, they insisted, against all evidence, that Blacks had never accomplished anything in Africa before Whites showed up and taught them how to eat with forks and walk standing up.
First of all, let us note that African Blacks discovered iron (went through the Iron Age) before European Whites did. This fact is common knowledge in any anthropology department, but not one massive-brained WN European Supermen has either heard of it or will have anything of it.
I certainly am not arguing that Africa was some cultural pacesetter.
But the facts on the Iron Age are clear. Africa skipped over the Bronze Age (and the Copper Age for that matter) altogether and went straight to the Iron Age. That’s right, straight from Neolithic to Iron, how ’bout that? I dare WN’s can put a “Black ignoramus” spin on that one!
It is true that two groups did beat the Africans to the punch. Iron was developed in Anatolia in the year 2000 BC. It was then independently developed by the Ganges civilization in India in the year 1800 BC. In third place, in the year 1500 BC, are the quite-Black Africans of Nigeria. And Cleotis done it all without Massa’s help!
Iron Age Timeline:
1. Anatolia (Turks, WN’s insist that Turks are not even White) 2000 BC
2. India, Ganges Valley (Indian Caucasians, WN’s say they are not White) 1800 BC
3. Africa, Tok, Nigeria, and Termit, Niger 1500 BC (Dumb niggers!)
4. China 1300 BC
5. Middle East 1100 BC
6. Greeks (WN’s concede these folks are White?) 1100 BC
7, etc. Everyone else (Northern European “superiors”)
The Iron Age in Black Africa, straight from Wikipedia. From the text:

Inhabitants at Termit, in eastern Niger became the first iron smelting people in West Africa and among the first in the world around 1500 BC.

Other sources put the onset of the Iron Age in central Nigeria at the same time, in Tok, Nigeria. The Africans at Tok and Termit could not possibly have learned iron smelting from Arabs, as Arabs did not get it until 1100. No way did Hittites or South Indians teach it to them either. They just figured it out on their own, those big Black dummies.
The painful truth is that Blacks crushed Euro Whites in terms of beating them to the Iron Age. Whites were left pitifully in the dust by Africans. Oh God, how embarrassing.
Along with all Black innovations, WN geniuses insist that this Iron Age thingie must have come by way of Arabs. Now, WN’s always insist that Arabs are non-Whites, but in a race between niggers and A-rabs, the Arabs automagically turn White for a day, if only to beat the Blacks and claim the gold for Whitey.
Another common folly on almost all WN sites is so dumb it’s embarrassing.
Did you know that African Blacks had no agriculture until Whites showed up and taught them how to grow stuff? Neither did I! Neither does anyone in any anthropology department on Earth! But this crap is Gospel on WN sites, where it is common dogma that niggers are so dumb, they can’t even figure out how to grow food!
The truth is that agriculture in Africa goes all the way back to 5000 BC in the Sahel. That’s 7000 years ago, and it’s way before ag came to Europe. Once again, Euro Whites were completely creamed by African Blacks who beat them to agriculture. Agriculture occurred independently in West Africa, Egypt and the Sahel at around the same time. INDEPENDENTLY.
Anthropologists do not agree that West African agriculture was a diffusion from North Africa. It is considered to be an independent development.
Contrary to popular rumor, African Black folks (or niggers, as WN’s refer to these humans) are not too stupid to grow food. They were growing lots of food just fine before White folks even showed up.
Growing food is called agriculture. That’s the word grownups use when they discuss growing food, WN kiddies. Agriculture. Say it slowly and repeat it until you can say it well.
Sahelians today are racially the same as they were 7000 years ago when they independently developed agriculture. They have hardly changed one bit.
The civilizational attributes of the Sahelians came from their own culture. There is no evidence at all that all of their achievements came from some mystery Arabs cruising on through.
North Africa was all Black until 15-18,000 years ago, when some non-European looking Caucasians (minus that lovely White skin) moved down from Europe and pushed the Blacks south. No one knows what these proto-Europeans looked like, but they may have resembled Berbers. The resulting mix of mostly White, part Black in North Africa is the leftovers of this invasion.

References

UNESCO. 2002. Iron in Africa: Revisiting the History.

Muslim Polygamy = Woman Shortage?

Repost from the old site.
A rightwing lie about Muslims. Polygamy is not even common in most of the Muslim World anymore, and it’s mostly found in either the Gulf or places like Afghanistan. Even there, I think it is not that common. In the rest of the Muslim World, it is rare to absent. A number of secular Muslim countries have even banned the practice with progressive laws.
This nonsense is part of theory designed to explain why so many young Muslims are blowing themselves up. It’s because of all the polygamy, which means there is a woman shortage, so they can’t get married or laid. The resulting frustration turns them into auto-exploding human devices.
Show me the evidence that there is any woman shortage at all in the Muslim World, much less one due to polygamy.
The only places in the world that have woman shortages are in India and China, and in both places, it is due to abortion of females. No one is blowing themselves up because they can’t get a wife in those places.
Riddle me that.

Update on National Bolshevism

Repost from the old site.
There is something downright nasty about these guys, and I can’t even put my finger on it. National Bolshevism is some type of Third Positionism.
Third Positionism is one strange beast all right, and I can’t figure out what to make of it. Their Celtic cross symbol gives me the creeps; it reminds me of the Zodiac killer, and it looks fascistic.
It’s supposedly some species of fascism that combines unspecified elements of the Left and Right, in particular, Leftist and socialist economics. As they have never held power anywhere, no one really knows how this plays out IRL.
I’m not necessarily going to oppose anyone that gets lumped into some Third Positionist “fascist” grab bag by political scientists, but so far, I don’t like what I see.
The National Bolshevik Party is Russia is one strange beast. They support the Russian minorities in all of the former SSR’s, which is theoretically a valid cause, but in many cases probably reeks of national chauvinism. But there’s a lot of national chauvinist crap going on in those new states anyway, this time victimizing Russians.
They supported, and apparently still support, the War on the Chechen People in Chechnya and now generalized across much of the Caucasus to Dagestan, Ingushetia, Southern Russia, North Ossetia-Alania (When did they change their name?! Ok, 1994. The history of the Alans, especially as relates to the peopling of Japan and NE Asia, is an interesting one, if you like strange theories), Karachay-Cherkessia and Kabardino-Balkaria.
Originally, their project was the usual fascist imperialist expansionist crap, envisioning a vast state encompassing all of the former USSR (which would have to be reconquered in some way) and all of Europe (I guess this would have to conquered too), to be ruled by Russians. That’s actually kind of humorous. Well, since then, they have dropped that.
They are also anti-Semites, accusing ultranationalist Zhirinovsky of being a Jew, as if that is a bad thing (he has a bit of Jewish heritage, but I don’t enough to go to Israel). They hate Putin and accuse him of being a fascist.
That’s strange, but if you study fascists for a while, you realize that one of their fascist games is that fascists are always going around calling others fascists as a term of abuse. It doesn’t make sense until you are around them a long time.
Lenin hated the precursors of the National Bolsheviks and said they were a class enemy, but he’s not a God to me.
At the end of the day, I’m sorry, but I just can’t get behind these guys. Ultranationalism pretty much sucks just about everywhere, without many exceptions.
National Bolshevik principles.
Update: R.M. Schultz of the Soviet Overseas Trading Company News blog, author of the principles above, stopped by the comments section and made some interesting points.

Question

Repost from the old site.
How many White Nationalists are not racists, at least against Black people? 5%? 10%? It can’t possibly be any more than that.
One thing that is weird about WN’s is that their real obsession is with Blacks. It’s Blacks that they hate more than anything else in the whole country. They don’t much care about Hispanics or Muslims all that much.
As commenters on Amren say, “Blacks are our enemy.” I told this to some smart Blacks and they said, “Oh, we know.” They knew it all along.
I guess I am some kind of an idiot. I am dubious, to say the least, about the Hispanicization of the US and I hate illegal immigration. I’d prefer not to live around lots of Hispanics. Here in California, we do not have to deal with Blacks all that much. You can always choose not to live around them.
As such, Blacks have not done a whole lot to me in my life and they just don’t effect me. Hence, arguments about Black evil and perfidy, Black crime and Black crime against Whites just leave me cold. It doesn’t effect me at all.
Further, Blacks are not going anywhere. They are not leaving and they have even more right to be here than most Whites. It’s understandable that they are a bit pissed off. This blog is even officially Black-friendly, just to encourage them to come around.
The Hispanics can take off, at least the illegal ones. Then we can put up some sensible barriers to try to make sure that Hispanic immigrants who come here are likely to be beneficial and not drains or detriments to society.
There is nothing to do with Blacks. They don’t immigrate here and can’t be sent packing. The future shows no significant increase in the Black percentage of the US. They are not a looming problem for the future.
The fact that the WN movement is basically just a Hate Movement against Black people is something that needs to be publicized in a rational, non-name-calling manner. These guys mostly hate Blacks and we can prove it. Let them try to justify their racist bullshit rather than hiding behind fake rationales and subterfuges. Just come out and admit it, White nationalists! You don’t like Blacks!

Evil Jews Bleed Gentile to Death for Matzos

Repost from the old site.
Take a look at this sordid spectacle here. A pack of vicious, feral, Asiatic Zionist Jews surround a poor Gentile, Lance Thruster, (actually a stand-in for Jesus) in the woods somewhere in the Pale of Russia, torture him to death by crucifixion, and are in the process of draining all of the blood out of his body with thousands of pricks with tiny knives.
The blood is being collected as I write this, and Lance is still alive and typing somehow despite being nailed to the holy cross like our Savior. The blood will be collected and used to prepare matzo balls. The Blood Libel is no libel – it’s actual truth, and you can see it right here on the Internets.
Seriously folks, I happen to know Lance, and I don’t really think he is an anti-Semite at all. I think he’s a college student at USC, my alma mater. He just hates Israel, that’s all. These Zionist Jews are torturing him and roasting him over their fire, calling him racist, fascist, anti-Semite, Nazi, KKK, Jew-hater, bigot, skinhead, on and on.
They are also accusing him of being paranoid. Whenever you shine the light on any aspect of Jewish Power, you get accused by entire football fields of snarling Jews of suffering from a paranoid psychosis. Yeah, a paranoid psychosis called reality.
Jewlicious, I believe, is a liberal to progressive Jewish site who take a relatively soft line, as Jews go, on Zionism. Mostly young, hip, leftwing funny Jewish guys on there with a few of their female counterparts.
This just goes to show you that as far as Zionism goes, US Jewish society is just flat-out morally bankrupt these days.
It’s also an object lesson in how to create anti-Semites. If poor Lance makes it through this session with hating Jews too much, he deserves a medal. Lots of folks are just plain human and don’t have such powers, so anti-Semitism grows while Israel cheers and urges the Diaspora to high-tail to Eretz Israel pronto. It’s not quite conspiracy, but it’s pretty squalid.

What's Up With National Bolshevism?

Repost from the old site.
National Bolshevism?
I sort of don’t like the looks of it automatically, but what is it really all about? Anyone? Is it racist? I’m looking at it and getting worried. A Commie friend of mine from Germany said they were ok, but I am not sure yet. Not sure if I like the flag either. Their supporters are on fascist fora looking for looking for more support.
I can’t really figure this out. I’m not sure if it’s ok or not. Anyone wants to look into it, be my guest.

Andy Kaufman Died For the Lulz

Repost from the old site.
On May 16, 1984, one of the finest comedians and performance artists of our time, Andy Kaufman, reportedly died at Cedars Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles.
Or did he? A blog, Andy Kaufman Returns, appeared right around the time of the 20th anniversary of his death. The blog was reportedly written by Kaufman himself. He describes how he faked his death, faked his supposedly having cancer, and arranged for another dying man to placed in his hospital bed in his place.
He then described what he has been doing since he faked his own death and has been living in hiding. The blog is actually pretty hilarious, and after the most recent post, there have been over 900 comments.
Soon afterward, a new blog, The Real Andy Kaufman, appeared accusing the previous one of being a lying, cheating fake. The new blog claimed to be from the real Andy Kaufman. Tony Clifton, the abusive Vegas lounge singer who was one of Andy’s comedic personas, also has two new blogs up. It appears that he did not die either.
There is an entire elaborate website up called Andy Kaufman Lives. It has quotes from many of Andy’s friends saying that Andy told them how he planning to fake his death and how exactly he would go about doing it if he did.
Some of them then describe how he did indeed fake his own illness and death as they watched. He shaved his head and went on a starvation diet to look like a cancer patient. Then he got some dying guy to fill in for him at the last moment to take his place on the deathbed.
There are reports from witnesses who spotted Kaufman soon after the faked death in Jamaica, a report from someone in Taos, New Mexico, who says that Andy is actually living there quietly incognito, a report from someone else saying that Andy was pretending to be a Venice Beach bum in the late 1980’s, quotes from his nurse, who confesses that Andy was not really ill at all, quotes from friends who were at his bedside admitting that his death was a fake, on and on it goes.
The site claims that searches of Kaufman’s death certificate online reveal a blank record and that Kaufman’s Social Security number has continued to be used in the 20 years since his death in a variety of places in the US. The site is also looking for witnesses to testify that Kaufman is still alive for reasons of some insane lawsuit that I could not figure out.
Apparently, all of this is just a gigantic put-on by some of Andy’s old friends on the 20th anniversary of his death. It’s apparently true that Andy did discuss faking his own death with some of his friends as the ultimate prank. He realized that if he did it, he could not tell anyone, as faking your death is apparently a crime.
The Snopes site reveals that Andy Kaufman actually did die on 5-16-84 in Los Angeles and offers persuasive evidence that this is in fact what really happened.
Andy Kaufman would have been quite at home in the Internet Age. He was a great troll, and he just about invented trolling IRL. In fact, that was his signature style. And everything he did, he did it for the lulz.