Neighborhoods of LA, Gay and Otherwise

The gayest place by far in California is LA! They might as well change the name to LA Gay.

West Hollywood is insanely gay of course, but it’s also a fantastic place to pick up women. You can practically pick them up right off the street if you know what you are doing. The reason is because there are lots of single women there, and they are pretty desperate. Most of the guys are queers, and most of the rest are married. Any remainder are weird Orthodox Jewish guys from Russia with long beards and funny hats.

The areas surrounding West Hollywood like Hollywood proper and Beverly Hills are also quite gay, though most folks in Beverly Hills are straight. Hollywood proper also has many straights along with every type of human known to mankind.

A Hollywood district called Silverlake is incredibly gay. I knew a couple who lived there, and I used to hang out over there. Silverlake is practically gayer than West Hollywood.

Echo Park next door is full of Mexicans.

Los Feliz right next door is also full of gays, but there are lots of other types there. It’s a very wealthy area.

That whole general area is full of desperate single women, mostly young ones. There are plenty of women there, and most are not lesbians. And most of the single guys are queers. The rest are typically married or whatever. So there are way more available single women than single guys, so those neighborhoods are paradise for a single straight man if you don’t mind queers chasing your ass night and day.

The parts of the Valley bordering LA proper are fairly gay. I always thought Studio City was a fairly gay place.

Santa Monica is also pretty gay, but there are lots of other folks living there too.

Venice has some gays, but just about every other kind of freak lives there too.

East LA is full of Mexicans and Hispanics, not queers.

South LA is full of Black people, and it is rapidly filling up with Hispanics.

Koreatown is full of Koreans.

The MacArthur Park District is full of Salvadorans and other Hispanic types. It’s an extremely run-down, degraded and overcrowded area.

There is a large Filipino neighborhood just northwest of downtown. The name escapes me.

There are many Armenians in a town called Glendale northeast of LA near Pasadena.

LA is full of Jews! An area called the Fairfax District is the center, but Hollywood, the Hollywood Hills, West Hollywood, Beverlywood, Beverly Hills, West LA and to a lesser extent Encino and Studio City are insanely Jewish.

Malibu is where the movie and entertainment industry types live, but they also live all throughout the region.

Hollywood writers typically live in West LA, but also live throughout the area. A very large proportion of Hollywood script writers are Jewish.

The movie scene is not particularly gay, nor is the music industry, though looks are deceiving. Many actors are reportedly closeted. I used to go to movie industry parties for the behind the scenes folks (gaffers, storyboard artists, light crew, etc). They throw a great party, and I never saw any gays there. Both the movie and music industry are stacked to the rafters with Jews.

There is a very large theater scene in LA. There are little theatres all throughout Hollywood. I never knew anyone from that scene, but my impression was that the theater crowd was insanely gay. Now why the theater crowd (actors) would be so gay but the movie scene not does not make a lot of sense, except that maybe a lot of movie and TV actors are closeted.

There is also a huge local band scene in Hollywood, mostly heavy metal and punk, etc. This scene is overwhelmingly straight. Some of the big clubs were the Starwood, the Roxy, the Lingerie Club, the Anti-Club and the Whisky.

There is also a pretty big lit/poetry scene in LA. It’s not very gay at all. Just typical neurotic, boozing writer types and nerdy writer chicks.

There is a big art scene in LA. The artists generally live in or hang out in lofts in downtown LA. I was part of that scene for a long time. There were few if any gays in the scene that I was a part of. An artist party is like 300 introverts in a room, everyone scared to talk to each other. It’s pretty easy to get artist girls. Most of them are shy, nerdy types who don’t get laid enough, so they are a bit desperate. Plus once you get one, they’re often horny as Hell to make up for lost time.

Dance Scene

There is also a dance scene in LA. I used to know a woman named Mary Jane Eisenberg who was a big choreographer in town. Smart, cute, skinny, Jewish. She had her hair cut really short, and you know what that means, but I got the impression that she liked men. She was a cool chick; I would love to meet her again. Apparently she is still alive and still working as a choreographer.

I met her at a some wild, rowdy Dennis Cooper poetry reading (Cooper is gay) at some weird club in downtown LA the name of which escapes me.

She was with a couple of her dancers, two guys who were probably some of the best looking young men (about age 30) I have ever seen in my life. They were both apparently gay or bisexual.

They were so good looking and sexy that one almost wanted to turn gay because of them, if only for a while. I thought, “Man, I can see why guys are queer. You get to fuck the best looking people on the planet, just like that. I mean, they’re all guys, but hey! Minor point, no? How many straight guys get to screw the hottest chicks around? If you’re into screwing good looking people and don’t care much about gender, maybe gay is the way to go, eh?”

You could also see how just about any woman on Earth would want these guys. They were that sexy and hot.

Mary Jane asked one of the guys, who looked like Jamie Gillis, “So, what you guys been up to?”

The guy said flamboyantly, waving his hands in the air, “Ohhhhhh you knowwww. Just going to gay baaaars!”

Mary Jane shook her head like, “You’re nuts!”

The other guy heard his friend talking about going to gay bars and kept saying under his breath, “Nooo. Noooo. Nooooo. Noooooo.” Apparently he was denying his queery ways.

Later the same guy leaned over to me and purred, “Soooo, can I buy you a beer?” I told him no thanks and started shaking like a leaf. I was having a nightmare, and I was wide awake. I finished my beer and turned around and threw it into the trashcan, hard, like a punk, and it shattered. Then I sneered. The queer shuddered a bit when the bottle shattered, and then he left me alone.

It was a very weird night!

More Out of India Madness

We continue to have crazies coming here proposing the OIT (Out of India Theory) of Indo-European. The theory is a pitiful joke and has virtually no support among any mainstream academics. In fact, it is so ludicrous that the mainstream does not even bother to respond to the respond to the arguments, because they are deemed not worthy of response.

What is sad, and frightening, is that almost every intelligent or intellectual Indian I have ever met is a fervent supporter of the OIT. They have all the arguments down pat, and they roll them right out for you. Supporting the OIT goes along with opposition to the Aryan Migration Theory (AMT) which the Indians hate. The idea is that “our history came from the White man.”

Indians hate Whites, mostly due to British colonialism, so the idea that the White man came to India and gave them quite a bit of their civilization and their religion is resisted ferociously.

What’s pitiful is that the smartest Indians believe the most insane and stupid things. There is something deeply sick and wrong with Indians, and Indian nationalism and Hindu nationalism are exemplary of that sickness. As with all fanatic nationalisms, Indian nationalism stems from deep-seated feelings of inferiority. This sense of inferiority was magnified by colonialism.

In recent years, the rejection has spread to all things Western. I know an Indian man who almost refuses to patronize Western medicine, I suppose because it is the medicine of the White man. Instead, he believes in some weirdness called Ayurvedic medicine. His fury and hatred towards Western medicine is shocking to behold.

Nevertheless, their ridiculous arguments must be refuted, because they have so much support inside India, along with some support outside of India.

That they have support outside India can be seen in the comments of Sojournertroof in the comments section. This fellow is an anti-White White man. He supports the OIT simply because it is anti-White, that is, the OIT is in opposition to the AMT which is seen as a pro-White theory.

Hydrology. Much of the OIT is based, believe it or not, on hydrology. It is true that rivers in the north of India all have Indo-Aryan names, not Dravidian or Munda names. Dravidian and Munda were the language families spoken in India before the arrival of the Indo-Aryans. The idea is that since the Indo-Aryans were migrants, some of the earlier names should have been retained. Since they were not, obviously, the Aryans must have been indigenous to India.

What must have occurred was total replacement of the earlier names with new names for the rivers. As language replacement in North India was total (all North Indians speak Indo-Aryan languages) apparently they changed the old names of the rivers to new Indo-Aryan names.

The Sarasvati River. This is one of their favorite arguments. The argument goes something along the lines that this river existed 6000 YBP, and therefore the OIT is correct.

No one quite knows what river we are referring to here. The Sarasvati appears to be two rivers. The earliest Rigveda references are probably to the Helmand River in Afghanistan. Later references are to the Ghaggar River. But the Sarasvati is always this sort of mystical unseen river in the Rigveda. It became fuzzy and mystical early on. So all arguments about the Sarasvati are null and void anyway.

The OIT is counterintuitive. Exactly what evidence is there that IE speakers left India, moving north towards the steppes 6500 YBP, then moved to Persia 5000 YBP, then moved to Arabia and Anatolia 4000 YBP? Yet somehow it took them a full 2,500 years to even cross the Ural River. The theory is insane.

After much debate, in the 1990′s, the Journal of Indo-European Studies (JIES) granted the OIT folks a chance to show their stuff. The issue was so contentious that JIES had to void peer review in order to publish the issue, which was authored by an OIT proponent named Kazanas. Kazanas is a crank operating out of Greece who has picked up on the OIT. In the next two issues of JIES, Kazanas was utterly demolished, and the matter has not come up again.

Lack of memories of an Urheimat. An Urheimat is a homeland. The homeland of the Indo-Aryans is in the north, on the steppes of Russia. Yet there is a lack of legends of memories of this homeland or any migration, so this is said to be evidence that there was no AMT. However, most peoples lack memories of their migrations from wherever they came from to wherever they ended up. This is true even in Europe. The Greeks had no memories of any immigration to their lands, though they clearly came from somewhere.

Nevertheless, Harvard professor and Sanskrit expert Michael Witzel notes:

It has frequently been denied that the Rig Veda contains any memory or information about the former homeland(s) of the Indo-Aryans. [...] However, in the RV there are quite a few vague reminiscences of former habitats, that is, of the Bactria-Margiana area, situated to the north of Iran and Afghanistan, and even from further afield.

Such a connection can be detected in the retention by the Iranians of Indo-Aryan river names and in the many references in the RV to mountains and mountain passes.

Also, there are some sources in the Vedas or in the Gathas that point toward a migration of the Indo-Iranians from Central Asia, including the Zend Avesta – Vendidad: Fargard 1:

“…There (Airyanem Vaejah – “Land of the Aryans”) are ten winter months there, two summer months; and those are cold for the waters, cold for the earth, cold for the trees…”

That is a description of the cold steppes of Central Asia. There are also descriptions of warfare being waged by the semi-nomadic Vedic and Avestan populations against urbanized people who were not “Arya.”

The sequence of the AMT was as follows: The speakers of the linguistically slightly later, though still pre-Iron Age Indo-Aryan language, then moved into Arachosia (*Sarasvatī > Avestan Hara aitī), Swat (Suvåstu) and Punjab (Sapta Sindhu), before 3200-3000 YBP – depending on the local date of the introduction of iron.

We can trace the movements of the AMT by the introduction of iron, that is, they brought metals with them, in particular iron smelting technology. They also brought stone forts, chariots and horses. We can trace all of these things in the archeological record and they are powerful evidence for the AMT.

Recently, Armenians have come out with an Armenian Theory of Indo-European which states that Armenia was the homeland of Indo-European. It is almost universally rejected, yet pitifully it has much more support for it than there is for the OIT.

Genetic evidence. One of the major R1 clades, R1a1, associated with Indo-European, has indeed been traced back to India. However, this is not evidence for the OIT, since this clade goes back to 18,000 YBP, long before IE existed into far pre-IE times. Long after the clade was birthed, some members of the clade left India to go towards Europe and the steppes, where they became the IE peoples. There is a lot of debate going on now about R1a1, but none of the points being debated detract from the theory of Bronze Age Indo-Aryans moving into India.

There are also reports that there are little to no Central Asian genes in Indians, that is, there are few if any genetic markers of Aryan migration. Yet many invasions leave no genetic trace later on, and genetics generally gives little to no support for or against prehistoric migrations. It’s quite common. For instance, there is no trace of Italian genes in the British, but does this prove that there was no Roman invasion? Clearly, there was a Roman invasion.

There are also few to no Central Asian genes in Europeans either, but Europeans speak IE languages, and these languages came out of the steppes. By the way, there are also no South Asian genes in Europeans. We should expect some of those if OIT is correct, no?

Anthropomorphic evidence. What do IE speakers look like? They look like Europeans. Even the IE speakers in Central and South Asia look quite European. Afghans, Pakistanis, Iranians and North Indians look strikingly European. This is because of their IE roots. The IE people were an European/Caucasoid appearing people. Notice the striking difference in appearance between North Indians and South Indians or Dravidians.

If IE speakers all came out of India and moved to Europe, everyone should look like people from India. But this is not the case. Even Iranians don’t look like people from India. No one does. Only people from India look like Indians.

There is indeed a Dravidian substrate in Indo-Aryan, which is what would be expected if Dravidian speakers gave up speaking Dravidian and started speaking Indo-Aryan. It’s true that there are few Dravidian loans, and the substrate cannot be seen in hydrology. But the substrate is nevertheless clear, as is influence on Indo-Aryan from Munda languages.

Thomason and Kaufman note that the substrate looks like what we would expect in the case of language shift, and language shift is what occurred as Dravidian speakers shifted to Indo-Aryan. The Dravidian speakers appear to have shifted to Indo-Aryan yet retained their Dravidian accent.

Among IE tongues, only Indo-Aryan has a full set of phonemic contrasting retroflex consonants. Dravidian also has a full set of phonemic contrasting retroflex consonants dating all the way back to proto-Dravidian. Obviously, this set was borrowed from Dravidian into Indo-Aryan.

In terms of Dravidian loans, there are in fact some:

Parpola writes:

…numerous loanwords and even structural borrowings from Dravidian have been identified in Sanskrit texts composed in northwestern India at the end of the second and first half of the first millennium BCE, before any intensive contact between North and South India. External evidence thus suggests that the Harappans most probably spoke a Dravidian language.

Mallory:

The most obvious explanation of this situation is that the Dravidian languages once occupied nearly all of the Indian subcontinent, and it is the intrusion of Indo-Aryans that engulfed them in north India leaving but a few isolated enclaves.

Zero evidence of Munda and Dravidian influence in the rest of IE. If IE came out of India, all IE languages should show influence of Munda and Dravidian. Instead, only Indo-Aryan does. Therefore, Indo-Aryan moved into India and came in contact with Munda and Dravidian, and IE could not possibly have come out of India.

No accounting for IE once out of India. The OIT is great at talking about the Indian origin of IE, but is terrible at anything outside of that. There is no account of models of language development of IE after leaving India, or how IE is supposed to have spread elsewhere. Once IE is out of India, the OIT folks forget about their theory. It’s crazy.

Timeframes in the Rigveda. There is no reliable historical dating of anything in India prior to the 1500′s. So all Indian texts prior to that time must be treated very dubiously in terms of dating. There is no way to date anything in the Rigveda reliably, since the Rigveda uses no reliable method for dating.

Hindu culture is strongly ahistoric. It is not interested in dates and events. The fact that Hindu culture is so hostile to history itself and so lacking any sense of history is what opens up this whole field for debate. Hindus simply lack the ability to imagine that there is such a thing as historical change.

Archeoastronomy. This is a very dubious field. B. B. Lal uses archeoastronomy in an effort to buttress his OIT. However, the use of this method is treacherous. The model attempts to date astronomical events on the basis of astronomical calculations and is rife with error and speculation. Nevertheless, there are archeoastonomical journals. Lal’s theory has never been submitted to or discussed in any of these journals, therefore the validity of his claims is dubious. Even Lal notes that his theory is widely discredited.

The Bangani language. This language is referred to nowadays as Garhwali. Claus Peter Zoller claimed to have found Centum elements in Garhwali, which if true, would boost the OIT. Centum is part of the Satem-Centum split in IE that occurred about 4000 YBP with the splitoff of Indo-Aryan from the rest of IE. The split occurred on the steppes of Central Asia. Zoller made his claim eight years ago. No one believed him at the time, and that’s where the debate stands.

It appears that what he found instead dates from the Indo-Greek or Kushan periods of Indian history and has somehow persisted for about 2,000 years. That’s remarkable if true, but in no way does it support OIT. At any rate, most scholars don’t even believe that there is any Centum left in Garhwali, and most who do are fringe cases. Bangani-Centum is discredited and lies in ruins.

Occam’s Razor. OIT is so complex. India is a marginal area of IE distribution, not a central area. The main area of IE languages, with the greatest variety, is in Europe, especially southeastern Europe. This is obviously the linguistic center of gravity for IE. If OIT was true, we would not expect India to be such a marginal territory for IE languages.

OIT requires more and longer migrations than the standard theory in order for all of the branches to leave India. It requires a much more complex chronology in terms of isoglosses and archeology. The archaic shared isoglosses such as Satem/Centum are in Central Asia. Further, it requires the re-invention of the chariot by Indians, since they could not have acquired the Aryan chariot from Aryan migrants.

It requires all sorts of complex arguments of internal Indo-Aryan development to explain what appears to be substrate influence from Dravidian. In addition, all of this internal mess must have occurred in a short period of time – from the time between when the last Indic group left India to the beginning of the writing of the Rigveda. In contrast, the Dravidian substrate theory is much simpler.

The Kurgan theory is better. The Kurgan people fit the accepted time frame, expand their territory archeologically with time and have the basic cultural patterns of an IE people close to the center of linguistic diversity. Therefore, the Kurgan theory fits the IE model much better than OIT.

OIT requires an early dating of the Rigveda. The Rigveda is the ultimate book of Hindu literature. OIT proponents take the Rigveda back as far as 6000 years, but this is not possible, as the split between Indic and the rest of Indo-Aryan happened no earlier than 4000 years ago, even according to OIT. Furthermore, such an ancient date for the Vedas would have to reflect a Stone Age society, and the Vedas do not reflect that. The Rigveda cannot possibly be dated further back than 3,500-4000 YBP.

OIT seems to require a 7000 YBP date for the Rigveda. This is beyond the realm of possibility. Chariots? Horses? Stone forts? Metals? The culture of the early Rigveda is 2nd millennium BCE – 3,000-4,000 YBP. The Bronze Age. It’s as clear as air.

Vedic is much older than Hittite. This is a central claim of OIT folks and is necessary for their argument. It’s patently ridiculous.

Sanskrit is archaic. So what? So are Greek and Hittite, and none date back but a few thousand years. Ancient traits in IE are most commonly observed in Baltic and Hittite. Do IE reconstructions appear Vedic? Not at all. PIE look nothing like Vedic.

Horses. Horses are not indigenous to India. Horses are often seen on Vedic Aryan seals dating back 2,500-3,000 YBP. Obviously, horses, along with iron, came with the Aryan migrants.

PIE culture. The reconstructed PIE language does not fit with India. It fits with a much colder place, probably to the north of India on the steppes. India had a highly civilized culture before the arrival of the Aryans – these were the Dravidians. The PIE people did not have a highly civilized culture – instead, they were nomads, pastoralists and horse-riding warriors.

For OIT to be correct, the highly civilized Indians would have had to have lost the civilization and degenerated into a less civilized nomadic culture without writing or architecture (they lost their writing and architecture with the move to the steppes) after they left India, which then went to Europe.

This does not follow according to history. Less civilized cultures develop into more civilized ones and not the other way around. According the standard theory, less civilized Aryans contacted more civilized Dravidians and the result was Indian high culture – the Aryans went from a less civilized stage to a more civilized one, as we expect.

Early dates for Indo-Aryan don’t prove OIT. Early dates for Indo-Aryan are compatible with standard theories of IE development. The Anatolian homeland theory, which I subscribe to, pushes Indo-Aryan back to 4,600 YBP, which seems a stretch. Renfrew pushes Proto-Indo-Aryan all the way back to 5,000 YBP.

Red herrings. OIT proponents have all sorts of red herrings about the AMT. One of them is “there was no Aryan invasion.” But AMT proponents have abandoned the invasion theory a long time ago. Another is that there is no way that inferior horse-riding nomads of the steppes could have create the wonderfully complex language of Sanskrit, the Vedas, complex Indian culture, etc.

First of all, cultural complexity and linguistic complexity are not the same thing. Uncivilized peoples can speak very complex languages. Anyway, nomads did not bring fully-formed Sanskrit to India. Sanskrit, the Vedas, Hinduism, etc. were created in India by the confluence between Aryans and Dravidians.

This is a frankly racist argument anyway – that Central Asians were too stupid to create the great Indian culture – only wonderful Indians could do that. There is also a racist assumption that Sanskrit is better than other languages – or that it is the greatest language of all.

Physical anthropology. Skeletons look similar all over India for many thousands of years, so there is no evidence of an Aryan migration. Skeletons look similar all over Europe for thousands of years too. Continuity is typical in anthropology.

Northern Dravidian. There are isolated pockets of Dravidian speakers in the northern part of South Asia. These are obviously the remnants of a large area in northern South Asia that was entirely Dravidian speaking. Indo-Aryan speakers moved in, and there was mass language shift except for a few pockets here and there, the lingering pockets being just as we would expect in the case of mass language shift.

Horses. Horses have long been associated with IE societies, even in the Vedas. However, there were no horses in India at the time of the supposed migration out of India.

Impression of validity. Most of the arguments for the OIT are misleading, gratuitous, irrelevant or biased. They are pushed by kooks, nuts, chauvinists and fringe types. Mainstream academics usually don’t consider them worthy of a reply, contradiction or debunking, so the OIT arguments remain unanswered. This gives the impression that the theory carries some kind of weight. This is the case with a lot of fringe science, and OIT is very much fringe science.

Linguistic center of gravity. The linguistic center of gravity for IE is in Europe, specifically somewhere around the Balkans. Most branches are in Europe – Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Albanian, Greek and various extinct branches. The Balkans seems to be the center of gravity for IE, clearly not where IE originated, but possibly a secondary spread inside of Europe. Central and South Asia appear to be ruled out.

Confusion of arguments. Typically, OIT arguments take the form of, “There was no Aryan migration into India.” That is, they argue against the AMT and not for the OIT. They waste all their breath on the AMT, attempting to disprove it, but then when evidence comes for migration out of India as required by the OIT, they are silent. OIT and AMT are separate arguments. You do not prove OIT by “disproving” AMT.

References

Mallory, JP. 1998. “A European Perspective on Indo-Europeans in Asia.” In: The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern and Central Asia. Ed. Mair. Washington DC: Institute for the Study of Man. 

Parpola, Asko. 1998. “Aryan Languages, Archaeological Cultures, and Sinkiang: Where Did Proto-Iranian Come into Being and How Did It Spread?”, in Mair, The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern and Central Asia. Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man.

Witzel, Michael. May 2001. Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts. Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 7(3): 1-11.

“Joys of Muslim Women,” by Nonie Darwish

Some of this stuff is a bit over to the top, and I edited out about 15% of the text that I thought was complete crap. Nevertheless, most of what remains seems to be true.

Some of the stuff I removed: that Muslims are preparing a jihad against the West, apparently to convert us to Islam? I don’t agree with that. They think some of us are attacking Islam, so they are counterattacking. Another line said that in 20 years, there will be enough Muslims in North America to elect the President and Prime Minister of the US and Canada. No way is that true. It isn’t really true that non-Muslims are supposed to be killed or subjugated by Muslims, though there is a bit of truth to that.

Under Muslim rule, non-Muslims are clearly subordinate. But where Muslims are the minority, that is not the case. Muslims are supposed to try to convert and increase their numbers so they can be a majority.

Apparently conquest in the name of Islam – aggressive jihad – we have not seen that much in recent years. One exception is Southern Sudan. There have been some genocides of non-Muslims too – Greeks, Assyrians and Armenians in Anatolia, Catholics in East Timor.

In areas with a Muslim majority trying to secede from the state, it’s typically “kill the non-Muslims.” This is the case in the Southern Philippines, Thailand, the Moluccas, Chechnya and Kashmir. There have been localized massacres of non-Muslims in India, Iraq, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Bangladesh and Pakistan.

Muslim jihad is a complicated subject, and saying they want to kill us or convert us is a bit ridiculous, though that was more or less what was going on South Sudan, and there have been some cases of that in Iraq and Pakistan recently.

Joys of Muslim Women

by Nonie Darwish

In the Muslim faith a Muslim man can marry a child as young as 7 year old, consummating the marriage by 9. The dowry is given to the family in exchange for the woman (who becomes his slave) and for the purchase of the private parts of the woman, to use her as a toy.

To prove rape, the woman must have (4) male witnesses. Often after a woman has been raped, the family has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family. Husbands can beat their wives ‘at will, and the man does not have to say why he has beaten her.

The husband is permitted to have 4 wives and a temporary wife for an hour (prostitute) at his discretion.

The Shariah Muslim law controls the private as well as the public life of the woman.

In the Western World (America), Muslim men are starting to demand Shariah Law so the wife can not obtain a divorce and he can have full and complete control of her. It is amazing and alarming how many of our sisters and daughters attending US and Canadian Universities are now marrying Muslim men and submitting themselves and their children unsuspectingly to Shariah law.

Ripping the West in Two. Author and lecturer Nonie Darwish says the goal of radical Islamists is to impose Shariah law on the world, ripping Western law and liberty in two.

Ripping the West in Two

Nonie Darwish recently authored the book, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law.

Darwish was born in Cairo and spent her childhood in Egypt and Gaza before immigrating to the US in 1978, when she was eight years old. Her father died while leading covert attacks on Israel. He was a high-ranking Egyptian military officer stationed with his family in Gaza.

When he died, he was considered a “shahid,” a martyr for jihad. His posthumous status earned Nonie and her family an elevated position in Muslim society.

But Darwish developed a skeptical eye at an early age. She questioned her own Muslim culture and upbringing. She converted to Christianity after hearing a Christian preacher on television.

In her latest book, Darwish warns about creeping sharia law – what it is, what it means, and how it is manifested in Islamic countries.

Westerners generally assume all religions encourage a respect for the dignity of each individual. Islamic law (Sharia) teaches that non-Muslims should be subjugated or killed in this world. Peace and prosperity for one’s children is not as important as assuring that Islamic law rules everywhere in the Middle East and eventually in the world.

While Westerners tend to think that all religions encourage some form of the golden rule, Sharia teaches two systems of ethics – one for Muslims and another for non-Muslims. Building on tribal practices of the seventh century, Sharia encourages the side of humanity that wants to take from and subjugate others.

While Westerners tend to think in terms of religious people developing a personal understanding of and relationship with God, Sharia advocates executing people who ask difficult questions that could be interpreted as criticism.

It’s hard to imagine, that in this day and age, Islamic scholars agree that those who criticize Islam or choose to stop being Muslim should be executed. Sadly, while talk of an Islamic reformation is common and even assumed by many in the West, such murmurings in the Middle East are silenced through intimidation.

While Westerners are accustomed to an increase in religious tolerance over time, Darwish explains how petro dollars are being used to grow an extremely intolerant form of political Islam in her native Egypt and elsewhere.

It is too bad that so many are disillusioned with life and Christianity to accept Muslims as peaceful…some may be but they have an army that is willing to shed blood in the name of Islam…the peaceful support the warriors with their finances and own kind of patriotism to their religion.

Is the “White” IQ So Superior?

Repost from the old site.

I confess that I love to beat up White nationalists, or for that matter ethnic nationalists of any sort (this is why I verbally eviscerate Zionists – they are nothing but the Jewish equivalent of White Nationalists).

There is nothing like nationalism, not to mention the super brain-killer of ethnic nationalism, to turn a smart person’s brain to useless mush. The problem is that beating up on WN’s is cruel. It’s like slapping a retarded person and ridiculing them in public. So I feel kind of guilty when I do it.

For a look at what a nightmare the White Nationalist movement is, and what a racist horror it represents, check out the sanest, most moderate outlier of the movement, American Renaissance. I hang out there a lot, and post lots of comments, when they do not get deleted, which is 75% of the time.

I post mostly on illegal aliens, which is all I care about race-wise, as I am utterly indifferent to the “Black problem”, anti-immigration xenophobia, Islamophobia, and all their other crazy obsessions. This is a good, frightening post to get you started.

It is a common, and fairly disgusting, White Nationalist argument that Whites are superior to all other groups in IQ, with the exception of NE Asians. WN’s typically define Whites as Europeans, but no one quite knows where to draw the line there.

For instance, many White Nationalists are so insane that they say Southern Europeans such as Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians and Greeks, and Balkans such as Macedonians, Serbians, Albanians, Croats and Bosnians, and West Eurasians such as Armenians, Ashkenazi Jews, Georgians, Caucasians and Turks, and Middle Easterners such as Iranians, Kurds and Assyrians, are not White. Most of these groups are clearly White.

There is a bit of a question when it comes to Iranians, Kurds, Turks and Assyrians, but most of these groups are White by any sane definition.

So WN’s like to crow about how they are smarter than just about everyone else on the Earth. It follows that letting in anyone from any of the stupid races or ethnic groups to a White country is going to pollute the gene pool, result in growing stupidity, an inability to think and compete and a declining standard of living.

I do think that they have a point, and I am not opposed to IQ tests for prospective immigrants other than spouses of Americans. Where I object is to the typical WN insanity of labeling entire races and ethnic groups as idiots who should not be allowed to set one foot on our soil.

First of all, Western culture is good for IQ, independent of genes. This alone should throw a serious monkey wrench into WN crap about intellectually inferior races being banned from immigrating to White countries.

Look:

Everyone knows that the East Indian IQ in Europe is 96 (Lynn 2005), and it’s 81.5-83 in India and Pakistan. Merely living in an improved Western environment raised it 14 pts. Jamaicans raise their IQ’s from 71 to 85 within one generation of living in the UK – 14 points. Most sane people think selective immigration could have only raised either of those scores only a few points.

Even if we grant 3 IQ points for selective immigration, we still get an 11 rise for both E. Indians and Jamaicans just for a Western environment. Even Moroccans raise their IQs from 84-89 (5 points) within a generation of living in Holland, and there was probably no selective immigration there at all, as the Europeans were just looking for manual labor.

73 IQ US Negro Blacks (taking a base African Black IQ of 67, adding in 17.5% White to raise it to 73) raise their IQ’s to 85 in the US merely by our Western environment – a 12 point raise. There was no selective immigration to America by Africans at all; in fact, the smartest ones might have died on the trip or been killed afterwards, or never got caught in slave raids in the first place, and slaves were chosen for brawn only.

Much of the Black raise has occurred since 1920. Everyone except WN lunatics agrees that US Negroes have raised their IQ’s by 1/2 a standard deviation (7.5 points) since 1920.

Hence, we can posit that Western environment raises the IQ of the vast majority of races and ethnic groups to 85-96 merely by its increased stimulation. For groups with IQ’s of 71-82, they typically see about an 11-12 point IQ rise merely by living in the West.

One of the things that WN’s like to crow about, when they are not preening about how Whites are naturally more beautiful than anyone else, is how Whites are surely smarter than those nasty, inferior SE Asians, at the very least. Sure the NE Asians are smarter, but Whites are surely better than short, flat-nosed, brown-skinned, backwards SE Asian house pet-eaters.

Well, let us take a look at this. First of all, Vietnamese are clearly more intelligent that 32 out of 42 White groups, less intelligent than eight White groups, and the same as two White groups. Vietnamese are clearly more intelligent than most White ethnic nations.

Averages of Vietnamese IQ studies done in recent years in Vietnam has come up with a score of 99.5. WN’s are invited to crow about how this is a whole .5 point below Whitey (although see the chart below for evidence of major variability in White IQ).

Richard Lynn, a serial liar who is a favorite of WN’s, has deliberately lied about the Vietnamese IQ in order to promote his stupid theory about Ice Ages and IQ scores. As high Vietnamese and Southern Chinese IQ’s fly in the face of his nonsense, he deliberately falsifies data. To arrive at a Vietnamese IQ of 95, he averages a Thai IQ of 90 with a fake Chinese IQ of 100 (actual Chinese IQ is more like ~105).

It is axiomatic among White Nationalists that Polynesians and Mestizo Hispanics are idiots. They sometimes exclude Chileans, Argentines and Uruguayans as Whites, but Argentines and Chileans are about 80% White, 20% Indian, and Uruguayans are probably around the same. In this way, Mestizos of the Southern Cone are not tremendously different from the 60% White, 40% Indian, Mexican-Hispanics in the US.

The chart below will show us some interesting things. First of all, if Mestizos are inherently inferior to Whites, why do Southern Cone Mestizos beat 4-15 different White nations on IQ? Second, since WN’s always call US Hispanics idiots, are WN’s also willing to condemn their White Balkan Croatian, Bosnian and Albanian brothers as idiots too, since their IQ is about the same as US Hispanics?

Since WN’s love to call Maori Polynesians of New Zealand stupid, are they willing to call the Whites of the Balkans stupid too, since their IQ’s are the same as the Maori?

Also note that the White IQ is highly variable in and of itself. Yes it is around ~100 or so in the US, but it is not necessarily that high in other places. In fact, the high US White IQ almost seems to be an outlier among the White groups of the world, towards the high side.

As far as White IQ’s go, you would think that folks who love Whites (WN’s) would know something about this. Guess not. Just to be fair, we will use the WN’s very own buddy Richard Lynn, except as noted.

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

Notes

1. “Inferior” Chilean Mestizos beat four White groups, tie one.

2. “Inferior” Argentine Mestizos beat 13 White groups.

3. “Inferior” Uruguayan Mestizos beat 16 White groups, tie two.

4. “Inferior” Vietnamese beat 34 White groups, lose to eight, tie two.

References

Lynn, Richard. (January 2005). Business Today.

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

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

Since the sound quality was so poor, I decided to make a transcript of this interview available for you all. Enjoy it.

Robert Stark: We’re going to be discussing California issues, how the states have changed, and how it affects trends facing the rest of the nation, but first of all, I came across this article on Robert’s site called Some Sensible Positions for Liberal Race Realists and White Advocates. Your first point is to amend the Constitution to get rid of the anchor baby thing. Very sensible position that most Americans would support.

Robert Lindsay: I don’t know if they could get it through Congress and pass it as a Constitutional amendment, but all White advocates should be supporting this move. It is a very reasonable position to take. My position is that White advocates should not be taking crazy positions – almost all of them are taking these crazy, loony positions like “freedom of association” that are simply never going to fly.

This move to amend the Constitution to get rid of the anchor baby thing is a reasonable position. Your average reasonable person, especially White person, says, “Sure, why not? Good idea.” The Left is trying to portray this as racism, but hey, let them scream! Because your average normal American, at least White people, and even some Black people, looks at this and says, “What? They’re calling these people racists? Because they want to amend the Constitution to get rid of these stupid anchor babies? That’s not racist, that’s just rational.”

Robert Stark: I think that even liberal European countries don’t give out citizenship to anchor babies.

Robert Lindsay: Some countries may allow it, but I think most of Europe has gotten rid of it. Ireland recently had birthright citizenship, but they just got rid of it. We’re one of the last countries around to have this.

Robert Stark: Ireland has only been getting a lot of immigration recently because of their economy.

Robert Lindsay: There has been a recent trend for at least White countries to get rid of birthright citizenship. As far as the rest of the world goes, I don’t know, but I would be surprised if there is much birthright citizenship. Most countries don’t agree with the concept. Why should you get birthright citizenship? If you’re born in some foreign country, you get citizenship of whatever country your parents are citizens of.

Robert Stark: Yes, it should be based on the parents.

Robert Lindsay: You’re still a citizen of some country! You have a right to be a citizen of some country in the world. If a female American citizen and I go over to…Peru and have a child there, why is that kid a Peruvian citizen? That kid is an American citizen. It’s born of American citizens. Despite the fact that we are living in Peru now, we are still just American citizens living in a foreign country.

Robert Stark: What are your thoughts on dual citizenship?

Robert Lindsay: I understand that there is a lot more dual citizenship going around than people think. I mean, the anti-Semites go on and on about US Jews being “dual citizens” of the US and Israel. But my understanding is that there’s a lot of dual citizenship going on here in the US and in other countries as well. Immigrants from many different countries the world over who are here in the US actually have dual citizenship – US citizenship and citizenship in their home country. So apparently it’s not just a thing with Jewish Americans having Israeli citizenship – they are not the only ones.

Robert Stark: I think the Israeli issue is not so much the dual citizenship – a lot of immigrants have that – the main thing is that many people in positions of power in the government and politics are more likely to have dual Israeli-US citizenship.

Robert Lindsay: The real concern is that, say, your average person who has Irish and US dual citizenship is not some sort of virtual agent working for the Irish government. Your average person with Israeli and US dual citizenship is practically an Israeli agent! And that’s the whole problem right there. That’s the whole problem with dual loyalty and the Jews.

Robert Stark: Yes, the dual loyalty is a problem. And due to multiculturalism, it’s tolerated, when we really should not be tolerating dual loyalties.

Robert Lindsay: Dual loyalty is a problem with Jews due to the nature of Judaism and the Jews. Most other ethnic groups are not so ethnocentric as the Jews so we don’t worry about dual loyalty much with them. But due to the nature of Judaism, Jews are loyal to the Jews first and their native land second if at all. That’s why this dual loyalty thing keeps cropping up with the Jews – it’s inherent in the Jews themselves. It’s not an anti-Semitic canard.

Robert Stark: Yes, it’s just how they are.

Robert Lindsay: With the Jews, dual loyalty isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.

Robert Stark: Your next recommendation is to avoid overthrowing civil rights laws. Can you go into detail about what some of these civil rights laws are?

Robert Lindsay: The White advocates want to get rid of all civil rights laws! Every White advocate I have heard of wants to get rid of every single civil rights law that we have on the books in this country. They hate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They hate the Housing Rights Act, they hate the Voting Rights Act. They want to get rid of all of them and all anti-discrimination laws too. It’s true that Rand Paul is running for Senate now, and he agrees with that position, but nevertheless, that is a very fringe position to take. The day to get rid of civil rights laws has come and gone! The civil rights laws are here to stay!

Robert Stark: So you think that would be a very difficult idea to sell to your average person.

Robert Lindsay: Worse than that. It’s not going to happen! Those days are gone. That was maybe doable in say, 1980 or so…

Robert Stark: I think the real big issue is immigration…You’re critical of people who want to get rid of non-White immigration. Instead, you are calling for IQ tests.

Robert Lindsay: Yes, this would actually be a very interesting thing for White advocates to support. They were actually suggesting this in Germany. I don’t have any problem with that at all, but I don’t want it for spouses of citizens. If you marry someone from another country, they don’t need to take the test. But it’s a good idea, especially with these problematic immigrants. Some of these immigrants are a real problem.

Robert Stark: What groups do you see as most problematic?

Robert Lindsay: The Hispanic immigrants are a problem. Especially the ones from Mesoamerica. The ones from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras…And to some extent, those from the Dominican Republic.

Robert Stark: Is it because they are coming here illegally? Or is it legal immigrants as well who are a problem?

Robert Lindsay: I don’t think that all of the problem Hispanic immigrants are illegals. I would think that with Hispanics, the problem is IQ-related. If you said we are only taking Hispanics with an IQ of 98, which is the US average, therefore, all Hispanic immigrants, no matter how many you allow, are not going to cause an IQ decline in the country. I would imagine if you set it at 98 – your average Hispanic and their offspring who are causing problems – their IQ is below 98. The ones who are not causing problems, who are assimilating well, who act like you and me, their IQ’s are 98 and above. It’s a pretty good cutoff. It’s the dumber ones that are causing all the problems.

Robert Stark: How would this plan deal with the numbers of immigrants coming into the US? Do you think there should be a cap per country? Because right now, we take in I think almost 2 million people a year legally.

Robert Lindsay: Is it really 2 million?

Robert Stark: I think it’s maybe 1.5 million, but anyway, it’s pretty high.

Robert Lindsay: Sure, White advocates should advocate for a cap. 200,000, or 400,000…some kind of a reasonable cap.

Robert Stark: Isn’t this what Pat Buchanan has been advocating?

Robert Lindsay: I think that is a salable position. A lot of Americans might go along with that. And it really puts the pro-immigration, multicultural, PC crazies on the spot, because it forces them to say, “Terrible! They want to limit immigration to 400,000 a year! How awful! We need 2 million billion zillion a year instead!”

Robert Stark: As opposed to advocating for zero immigration, they won’t be able to play the card saying you are racist.

Robert Lindsay: Sure. You sound like some kind of a nativist nut if you say, “Yeah! We want zero immigration!” And it’s never going to happen anyway – zero immigration is not doable. Instead, you say, “Hey, we just want limits.” Then people have to stop and think, “Wow! 400,000? That’s a lot? How many do we actually let in every year, anyway? 2 million billion trillion zillion? Wow! Well, that’s way too many.” And it puts those idiots on the spot. They have to defend those insane high numbers as the only way to go, and they will have to say that those limiting immigration to say 400,000 a year are part of some evil racist plot, and that’s not going to work.

Robert Stark: And focus on the overpopulation issue as well. That’s important to bring up.

Robert Lindsay: Yes, I also wanted to say that in 1991, there was an amendment to the Civil Rights Act that dealt with something called “disparate impact.” And this, in contrast with the rest of the civil rights laws that need to stay, has got to go. Thing is, most people don’t even know what disparate impact is. No one’s heard of it, no one understands it.

But for instance the Ricci case, the firefighters case in New Jersey, was a case of disparate impact. Disparate impact says that if you give tests to a bunch of applicants, and the Whites pass the test, but the Blacks flunk at a higher rate, then there must be something wrong with the test. And you have to go back and redo the test or dumb down the test. It says that every time you have a racially disparate impact in any outcome, it’s always due to racism or bias in the testing, and that’s not necessarily true. Maybe the Blacks just could not pass the test.

Most people would be in favor of getting rid of disparate impact. And you would really put the PC idiots and the Black groups, etc. on the defensive because they would have to defend disparate impact and these crazy cases like the New Jersey firefighters, and most White people, and even a lot of Blacks, thought that case was an outrage. The goal is to push the PC-multicultural people into a corner and force them to defend things that sound really bad, and make us sound like the reasonable people. You see?

Robert Stark: The next one is getting rid of US colonies. I don’t think we need to go into too much detail here. It’s pretty simple, but in a nutshell, the US colonies are places like Puerto Rico and American Samoa. And they are big sources of immigrants. And because they can’t really be screened like foreign immigrants, they can simply come in in large numbers.

Robert Lindsay: Yes. They are unscreened immigrants, and they cause tons of problems. Our legal immigrants don’t really cause a lot of problems, to be honest, because we screen them really well. But the Puerto Ricans and the American Samoans can come here just like that. For them to come to the US is like you or me moving to Nevada. It’s like moving to another state. And it’s because they are unscreened that these groups cause so many problems. And there’s no reason to have colonies anyway!

Robert Stark: It’s ridiculous. We should let them secede. It doesn’t make sense.

Robert Lindsay: Why do we have colonies anyway? What are we, an imperialist country? Ok, we’re an imperialist country. Let’s have a conversation about this. Do Americans want to be an imperialist country? Let’s put these imperialists on the spot. Let’s force them to defend US colonialism!

Robert Stark: I think that Puerto Rico is a product of the Spanish American War. And I think the same with Samoa. So in a sense it is imperialism.

Robert Lindsay: I don’t know how we got Samoa. There’s also Micronesia, but Micronesia is not so much of a problem. But Micronesia is a colony too. We should not have any colonies. No country should have any colonies. And this is a Left position. Only the Left is totally principled on this position and says no nation should have any colonies. So by doing this, White advocates would be lining up with the hard Left, but that’s OK! Because the Hard Left takes a very principled anti-imperialist stand on this. Let’s force these elites to defend US imperialism! I want to see these guys on TV defending our imperialism and colonialism. You see, the Puerto Ricans and the Samoans and the rest don’t want to go – they don’t want independence.

Robert Stark: They want it both ways. They don’t really view themselves as Americans, but they still want the benefits of being American at the same time. That’s the problem.

Robert Lindsay: They like it the way it is. And if they become states, it is not going to be so good of a deal economically for them. But the way it is now, as colonies, it’s basically just a total scam for the colonies. But if they go on their own and become independent, they will probably just become ordinary 3^rd World countries, and they will have a lot of problems as far as that goes. Why are we coddling these people?

Robert Stark: Another issue that is very important is schools. You are talking about these White advocates who are so fixated on Brown vs. the Board of Education, that it’s basically a done deal, and they are wasting their time.

Robert Lindsay: Brown vs. BOE is a done deal, right? Are they going to get rid of it? Even this crazy rightwing Supreme Court, are they actually going to get rid of Brown? It ain’t going to happen!

Robert Stark: So your main focus is on busing and that kids should just have to go to their local schools.

Robert Lindsay: Well, we shouldn’t say it’s evil or anything like that. “Oh! They’re busing Blacks into White schools! That’s terrible!” The main thing is that busing is just stupid. I mean, why are they doing it?

Robert Stark: And it ruins good schools. Like the schools I went to in LA public schools – they used to be decent schools, but they got completely ruined. And both the middle school and high school I went to were in fairly wealthy parts of LA. But they’ve both basically turned into ghetto schools through the use of busing.

Robert Lindsay: Well, sure, but I don’t want to say that because that sounds racist. Instead, I would just say that it’s a complete waste of money. And I would say that there is nothing wrong with a White school. They act like a White school is some sort of pathological thing. “Oh! Look at that school! It’s too White! Oh, we can’t have that! We need to make it half Black!” There is nothing wrong with a White school. It’s perfectly acceptable for a White school to be a White school and a Black school to be a Black school.

Robert Stark: The multicultural and diversity types, they use diversity as a code word for non-White. For instance, true diversity would be a school where each ethnic group would be say 20%. But on the other hand, they claim that 90% Hispanic and 90% Black is diverse.

Robert Lindsay: It’s ridiculous! The diversity thing has become like a fetish. I’m an integrationist, but we don’t need diversity everywhere. If some town is naturally a White town just because a bunch of White people went and moved there and few non-White people decided to move there, well, that’s OK! We don’t have to go fix it up by say, importing 20,000 Black people. If some town is naturally Black, well, that’s OK! Maybe a bunch of Blacks wanted to move there, and maybe non-Blacks did not want to move there.

There is nothing wrong with naturally segregated places, as long as it’s voluntary and we still have laws in place to ensure that anyone can go live anywhere they want to. And when you say that Blacks can’t learn in a Black school, and the only way that Black people can learn is if they’re around a bunch of White people, that’s very insulting to Black people. It really insults them. It says they’re inferior, and it’s a real burn on Black people. And I don’t know why Black people want to believe this insult about them. What’s wrong with a Black school?

Robert Stark: You’re right, that’s what busing implies – that Blacks are inferior, and they need to be around White people in order to learn. And affirmative action implies the same thing. Most of your proposals are pretty reasonable, but saying we support affirmative action? California, which is a liberal state, actually voted to end affirmative action. I don’t see how saying we support affirmative action would appeal to most of the public if the majority of people are opposed to it.

Robert Lindsay: Well, you could always say you support affirmative action but only if the non-Whites are just as qualified as the Whites. But the point is that that pretty much rules out most affirmative action right there! This was how affirmative action was supposed to be, but it’s never been that way.

Robert Stark: But that still is reverse discrimination against Whites – if they are equally qualified, choosing the non-White. I think the best strategy would be to have economics based on economics or geography. It would benefit a lot of middle class Whites in middle America. If you look at the Ivy League universities, they are really dominated by the ultra-wealthy and then a few slots left over for affirmative action. And this is your last point – say we have no problems with well-behaved Blacks who wish to fully integrate into White communities.

Robert Lindsay: Right, that’s a good idea, because almost all of these White advocate types are segregationists, and they push things like freedom of association. That’s what this Rand Paul is pushing. It’s not going to happen. You’re not going to get freedom of association back in where White communities can have housing covenants that say we don’t want any Black people, or we only want White people. Ain’t gonna happen. Ain’t gonna happen! Instead, we should say that if there are Black people out there who wish to move to our communities and are willing to assimilate to the values of our White communities and White culture – welcome to our city!

Robert Stark: Then you say that this will force the PC crowd into the dubious role of defending Black culture.

Robert Lindsay: Yes, because then they will say, “Oh! They only like White culture! Racists!” To that, we should respond, “We like White culture. We’re White, we like our culture. There’s good and bad about it, but we prefer our culture. And personally, we feel that a lot of Black people would be better off adopting White culture or assimilating to White culture than in getting into their own Black culture.” And then the PC crowd will scream, “They’re saying White culture is better than Black culture!” But your average person, especially your average White person, hears that and thinks, “Hm. You know what? White culture is better than Black culture!”

Robert Stark: The one point that we left out is to support the immigration of White Hispanics into the US. So, how is that really practical? You’re saying our immigration policy would have to explicitly address race, and do you think that would be practical?

Robert Lindsay: Well, White advocates are already saying that they only want White immigration coming into this country.

Robert Stark: What are the White advocates’ position on White Hispanics?

Robert Lindsay: They never discuss it. The only thing they say is that we will only accept immigration from Europe. And that’s never going to happen. We may as well branch out and say, “Well, we’d like the White Hispanics to come here.” Because then it would be a lot harder for the PC Left to accuse the White advocates of racism. “They hate Hispanics! They hate Hispanics!” And people would look at that and say, “Are you sure they’re racists? They don’t seem to mind the White Hispanics.” And then the PC Left will retort, “Sure! They like the White Hispanics, but they don’t like the non-White Hispanics!”

Robert Stark: They would still be able to play the race card, but it would cause division among Hispanics. It’s interesting, because on our last show, we were covering the Rick Sanchez incident. Rick Sanchez is basically White, but because his family is from Latin America, he takes this view that he’s somehow a minority, and it’s sort of our own fault, because in Latin America, the Whites down there in many cases are fairly racist against the non-Whites down there. But we classify everyone from the region as effectively non-White, i.e., Hispanic. It’s ridiculous.

Robert Lindsay: The White advocates in the US are almost all Nordicists. They don’t like the White Hispanics very much. They tend to label them as non-Whites. And the only Whites who they think are really White are from Northern Europe.

Robert Stark: Well, the first immigration act in the 1920’s was a Nordicist thing because it favored northwestern Europeans.

Robert Lindsay: It was, true. White racism in the US has always been Nordicist, but your average White person in this country is no longer a Nordicist.

Robert Stark: I think this Nordicism thing has pretty much died out…

Robert Lindsay: No, no, no…

Robert Stark: Because if you look at these pro-White forums, there are Italians, Greeks, or Eastern European descent, but you are personally into that Pan-Aryanism philosophy.

Robert Lindsay: It’s a good thing, Pan-Aryanism, because once you get into Pan-Aryanism, it gets harder and harder to call White advocates racists. Because the PC Left says, “Oh! They’re racist!” Sneer sneer. Then people say, “Hey, wait a minute. They like Moroccans, right?” Then the Left says, “Well, yeah, but they’re still racists!” Then people say, “Wait a minute. They like Syrians. They like Iraqis and Lebanese…” The Left says, “Doesn’t matter! They’re racists!” Sneer. Then people say, “Hey wait. But they like Turks. They like Armenians, Chechens, Iranians…”

Robert Stark: David Duke is into that Pan-Aryanism stuff, because he visited Syria and Iran, and he pointed out that he saw people who were so called Aryans when he was there.

Robert Lindsay: Well, we shouldn’t be saying that. We should instead be saying something like, “All Iranians are White.” We shouldn’t say, “Well, there’s a few of them who are real Aryans, but most aren’t.” Grumble grumble.

Robert Stark: All of them? Do you consider Ahmadinejad White?

Robert Lindsay: Yes! Absolutely. If you look at Iranians on a gene map, they’re right next to Norwegians, Danes and English. They’re White people! And if you look at them, they look White. The people I talk to are California racial liberals, but they almost all say, “Iranians? They’re White! They look like White people.” And if you talk to Iranians, they all claim White too. So this whole idea that Iranians are non-Whites is just kind of a fringe concept. It ain’t gonna fly.

Robert Stark: People assume that all Middle Easterners look alike, but there are some big distinctions. Someone from Saudi Arabia is completely distinct from someone from Lebanon.

Robert Lindsay: Well, yes, but I think Saudis are mostly White. Yet some of them, like Prince Bandar, he’s a pretty Black looking guy. Some of those Gulf types, they have so much Black in them that you can’t really call them White anymore.

One thing I wanted to go back and talk about on my list here. We need to get serious about throwing seriously disruptive students out of school.

Everybody wants to know, “What do we do about the schools?” For the whole White advocate crowd, and many ordinary Whites, the overarching racial question often is, “What about the schools?” The White advocates look at the mess in mixed schools and scream, “Re-segregate the schools! Black schools for Blacks! White schools for Whites! Get rid of Brown versus BOE!” Well, you know what? That ain’t gonna fly.

Robert Stark: I agree. The way you deal with these kinds of racial issues is you go around the race aspect by just dealing with people based on their behavior. And the anti-racist types, they’re still going to call you racist because they make excuses for bad behavior. But screw them. All we need to do is to say that students who are continuously disruptive should be send them to separate schools. And if they get their behavior under control, then they can go back to the regular schools. But it’s unfair for students who want to learn to have to put up with that crap.

Robert Lindsay: They’re destroying the schools. I hate to say it, but it’s especially true with the Blacks. There seems to be a tipping point of around 13% Black, and then things start going downhill. And just like Fred Reed said (I got this idea from him) when these Blacks start acting really bad, just throw them out! Throw them over to Psycho Kids Central High or wherever where they can screw off all they want. That is a completely reasonable position. Most people, especially most White people, would support it. I don’t know about Blacks, whether they will support it.

But once again, the PC crowd will be backed into a corner, and they will be forced to defend these students who act absolutely horrible, and just flat out destroy schools. They destroy Black schools, they destroy mixed schools, they destroy all kinds of schools. And in response to their charges of racism, we will say, “Well, it’s not just for Blacks. We will throw the bad Whites out. We’ll throw anybody out.”

Robert Stark: Yes, anyone. You can’t call it racist, because it’s a colorblind solution.

Robert Lindsay: And once again, we will force these PC characters to defend the worst acting, most horrible students in the whole country, total brats, that are destroying schools for everybody else. And that’s a terrible thing to defend. I want to see them defend that behavior. See, that’s a reasonable thing that’s actually doable. Getting rid of Brown versus BOE, getting rid of integration – those are not reasonable goals.

Robert Stark: Yes, these people, they’re just living in a fantasy. Like on immigration, they want to shut it all down, but in reality, we will be very lucky if we can even stop amnesty.

Robert Lindsay: Agreed. We probably can’t even stop amnesty. We can’t even throw these illegals out of here.

Robert Stark: Yes, we can’t even throw out the illegals.

Robert Lindsay: First things first.

Robert Stark: Practical solutions that are doable…

Robert Lindsay: I don’t think we can deal with legal immigration at all right now. First things first. First of all, we need to deal with illegal immigration, and we can’t even deal with that! These PC crazies want to legalize all the illegals, for Chrissake. Let’s deal with that first. Politics is the art of the possible. And these people, these White advocates, especially these White nationalists, they are advocating positions that are totally unreasonable. They are completely non-doable, fringe, ultra-radical positions. I doubt if these folks have the support of 5-10% of the population for these radical things that they want to do. And what’s the point of that? What’s the point of being a total loser? I don’t get it.

Robert Stark: Well, if you look at the new A3P Party, most of their platform is pretty reasonable stuff that sounds similar to the stuff that you’re advocating here.

Robert Lindsay: It’s a good idea! It’s a good idea to come across like a moderate. One of the goals of politics is to come across as reasonable and to force your opponent to take crazy positions and defend those crazy positions. Fine. Put crazy words in their mouth, and then make them defend them.

Robert Stark: These issues all tie together, but originally I intended to discuss California, and we still have a decent amount of time. To start off, we are both from California, and we are both originally from the LA area, and both of us have moved up to Central California. And Robert, can you tell us, what are the changes that you have seen throughout your life and that have happened to our state and what are some of the biggest and most negative changes that you have seen?

Robert Lindsay: Well, I’m not going to call for a return to White California. That’s an era that is done and gone. And I did not mind growing up in a multicultural California. When I was growing up in the 1970’s, California was about 70-80% White. It was 80% White in 1970, and it was 70% White in 1980. So it was about 75% White during that era. I spent most of my time in a White community, but I was totally comfortable with a California that was 25% non-White. That was normal to me, it felt good and OK.

I don’t have to live with all White people. We can have some non-Whites around. We grew up with the Mexicans. The Mexicans are a part of this state. They’ve been here from the very start. This state used to be a part of Mexico. The Mexicans – they’re part of the neighborhood!

Robert Stark: But the problem is the sheer numbers. Because the PC, Open Borders types try to say, “Oh, you hate Mexicans. You’re scared of Mexicans.” But most White Californians are pretty used to being around Mexicans. They’re part of the landscape. It’s not really an issue that they are here. Instead, it’s an issue of numbers.

Robert Lindsay: Yes, right. The Mexicans in this state assimilated really well back in the 1970’s. And now, there are a zillion of them, they’re not assimilating, and they’re causing tons of problems. And they were not causing tons of problems back in the 1970’s.

Robert Stark: You wrote that Mexican-Americans are assimilating into low class White culture.

Robert Lindsay: The assimilated Hispanics, the ones that are second and especially third generation, a lot of them are assimilating to a sort of a White trash culture. Like the lowest of the Whites, the worst of our people.

Robert Stark: I saw that a lot at the Wallmarts in Fresno. Not so much in LA.

Robert Lindsay: Yes, it’s not a good thing that a lot of them are assimilating to. One thing that I have noticed is that the Hispanics who have a deeper connection to Mexico – first generation immigrants and some of their children – now I don’t really like the illegals all that much, but we have a lot of them around here. But actually the ones that have a really deep and intense connection to Mexico, who are still into the Mexican culture, a lot of them tend to act pretty good. They have a tight-nit family structure.

Robert Stark: Yes, I noticed that when I was in a public high school in LA, the recent immigrants minded their own business, but there were others who emulated the whole gangta rap culture. They wore baggy jeans and listened to rap.

Robert Lindsay: Those are not the recent immigrants!

Robert Stark: Yes, the gangbanger types are children of illegals or in some cases, even grandchildren of illegals.

Robert Lindsay: Yes, they are the children of the illegals. And now we are getting into multigenerational gangbangers. But around here, the ones that are still deeply connected to Mexico, they generally act pretty good. They act like Mexicans, people from Mexico itself. They act like peasants.

If you go down to Mexico – I used to go down there 25-40 years ago – your average Mexican generally acts pretty good. They are conservative, traditional people, they have a very tight-knit family structure, and they keep a close watch on the girls. And for instance, the traditional Mexican girls, they don’t try to sleep with every guy in town. It’s dishonorable to be a slut or to be a prostitute and sell your body.

But I see these Mexican Americans who are assimilated, 3^rd generation, and they start selling their bodies on the street and shooting heroin and just sleazing out to the max. And the ones around here that are deeply connected to Mexico, a good, proper Mexican girl, she won’t do that! To them, the worst thing on Earth is to be a whore. And, you know what? I’ve got to respect that. There is something valuable about that.

The family is often very protective of the girls. They have good, strong role models. The male has a strong role model. The female has a strong role model. The Mexican women are very feminine, they’re very nice to men, they’re very friendly. I don’t really have anything against the peasant culture of Old Mexico. There’s a lot to be said for peasant cultures. In many ways, they are good, traditional.

Robert Stark: You also said that you have seen the cultural decline of the White middle class. You wrote an article about that. Can you explain some of the things you have observed about the White middle class over time? They also seem to be assimilating into lower class culture and they seem to be getting less intellectual.

Robert Lindsay: Part of what is going on is the wiggerization of White people. Things are just getting a lot trashier. Back in 1970’s, White culture, if you had tattoos, you were considered to be a sleaze. Especially a woman, if a woman had tattoos…we knew women who had tattoos, and people hated them and treated them like they were whores. The only people who had tattoos were people like bikers or maybe Marines.

For a White middle class person, that would be considered a totally sleazy thing to do, to get a tattoo on your body. White people were supposed to be like these White bread, upper middle class, well-mannered types. Now, just about every White woman you see is decorated like a cannibal! They have all these piercings all over their bodies. I don’t want to put them down too much, but it seems sleazy to people from my generation. It seems as if there has been a trashification of our people.

Robert Stark: That sort of thing used to be seen only in lower class Whites, but now it’s seen in middle class people too. It’s due to the TV. People don’t value intellect so much anymore.

Robert Lindsay: Maybe, but White culture has always been anti-intellectual. You can go read Richard Hofstadter’s Anti-Intellectualism in American Life where all the way back in the 1950’s, he was talking about this sort of thing. I think that what’s going on is that White middle class people, especially young people, have decided it’s cool to look and act like a low class person.

Robert Stark: We have been talking a lot about race and demographics, but I would like to talk about the issue of the environment in this state and the over development and urban sprawl that the state has been seeing, and how both liberals and conservatives deal with this issue. It’s fascinating because liberals are promoting all this immigration, and business interests go along with them, but the conservatives – they’re apologists for this urban sprawl and this horrible overdevelopment.

Tom McClintock, who is this anti-immigration politician in the state…I knew this woman who was running for state assembly, and she was complaining about all of these tract homes going up in Ventura County, and his attitude was that they could do whatever they wanted to with their land. But I see that mentality as the same mentality as the people who are for Open Borders or defend job outsourcing. It’s really just as bad.

Robert Lindsay: Well, you see, he’s just a typical Republican. I don’t get the Republicans or the capitalists’ point of view. For instance, on housing, their POV is that…we have to keep on building houses? What? Forever? How long are we going to be building these units called “housing starts?” That can’t go on forever. We have to keep building new houses, new houses. And in order to keep building new homes, you need an increasing population. This is the whole growth-based economic mentality. And I don’t think it’s sustainable – endless growth forever. You can’t.

Robert Stark: So the immigration issue, it’s basically the same mentality. If you look at the places where the elites live like Marin Country or Malibu or Carmel, they’ve done a great job of conservation and low, sustainable growth with lots of open space there. They want to keep their own places beautiful. But if you look at the big money interests, they profit off an increasing population because that means more consumers. Some of these people are Democrats, some of them are Republicans, but it doesn’t matter. Instead, it’s just all about growth is good for making a profit.

Robert Lindsay: Endless growth. But isn’t that kind of crazy? Isn’t there ever going to get to be a point where people have enough money, and we don’t need to keep on growing forever? Apparently, you can’t have this endless growth without having endlessly increasing population. And more and more houses. And more and more cities. And more and more roads. And more and more everything.

Robert Stark: These neoliberal types, they say we need to keep bringing in more and more immigration as a way to grow our economy. It’s insane because it’s not sustainable, and you can’t have an economy that is based on that model.

Robert Lindsay: What’s going to happen? At some point, the whole world is going to look like New York City. What are we going to do? Are we going to start building cities on top of cities? Are we going to start building cities underground, or on top of the ocean, or under the ocean, or up in the sky? And this endless growth thing, it can’t possibly be an environmental position. If you’re an environmentalist, you can’t take this endless growth position. Why do we always need new houses in the US? I don’t understand why. Obviously because our population is growing, right? Are we going to start building second homes? Why does everyone need a second home? Do people need third houses? Do they need fourth houses?

Robert Stark: Or the size of the homes. They want these gigantic homes on one acre lots, and it’s wasteful of space. It’s not at all resourceful. And these same types – they claim to be fiscal conservatives and fiscally responsible. But this endless growth is not fiscally responsible because it’s very wasteful of natural resources.

Robert Lindsay: Those huge lots are not so great. It would almost be better to pack people into cities and then have big open spaces. But people like those big lots. I was living on a one acre lot up in the Sierra foothills. It’s not bad, there are still a lot of wild animals out there with 1-5 acre lots in the country, with those rural ranchettes.

Robert Stark: It’s fine if people have big lots up in rural areas or in nature, but the main problem is suburbia, which is a disaster.

Robert Lindsay: There are no living things anymore in suburbia. The only animals are the humans and their pets. There are a few animals that are adapting to suburbia – the raccoons, the skunks and the opossums. In some of the suburbs now, you have some coyotes.

Robert Stark: Thank you for being on, Robert.

Robert Lindsay: Sure.

Genocide Damage, One Century On

A commenter notes that Armenians resemble Jews phenotyically. In fact, he is correct. And they often act like Jews too. Armenians have a reputation for being aggressive traders, shopowners and businessmen and often formed a business elite in the Ottoman Empire in a role similar to that played by Jews. A friend of mine in New York grew up near Armenians and said they called Armenians “Jews without money.”

I ran into several Armenians at a shopping mall last week, and they looked identical to Jews! Curly hair, nose, swarthy complexion, you name it.

I don’t mind these people – we have many of them around here – but they can be difficult. They can be aggressive, obnoxious, loud, rude, in your face, rather unpleasant, sort of like the stereotype of belligerent and pushy Jew. They can also be paranoid. Sometimes you ask them if they are Armenian, and they look at you like they’re afraid you’re going to kill them. Armenians, like Jews, often think you secretly hate them and maybe want to kill them.

So, just like Jews, paranoid and hostile.

These genocides don’t do these ethnic groups any favors. Besides the obvious tragedy of the mass deaths, the group is still totally fucked up by paranoia and reactive associated hostility even a century later. It’s bad enough the murderers killed those people, but even their descendants are still fucked in the head by what happened a century ago.

It’s so sad…

Nazi Race Science – A Cynical and Realpolitik Endeavor

Commenters on a recent post are asking about Nazi racial science. The science was actually pretty good in its cynical terms. Nazi race science was subsumed to political aims. It was all about figuring out who was a Jew and who was not. There was earlier, excellent work done by proto-Nazis on European racial types – Nordics, Meds, Dinarics, Norics, Alpines, etc.

Hitler decided that Slavs were a slave race for obscure reasons, possibly because they had allowed themselves to be enslaved by Jews, but also probably dating back in time to the ancient Russian forest people’s habit of melting into the woods and not fighting the enemy and just allowing their cities to be conquered, as in the case of the Scandinavian invasions. This hiding, retreat and secrecy was the secret of their survival, and as such it was adaptive.

The Scandinavians who settled the pre-Rus simply threw up their hands and blew off chasing the secretive Russians into the woods, set up some cities, and taxed the Russians.

Robert, did the Nazis include the Jews in the Med race?

That is a actually a damn good question.

In fact, how did Middle Easterners in general fit into the Nazi view of “race.” Obviously Arabs are Semitic, and I know that Hitler was fermenting the then Shah of Iran’s favor rather aggressively, with the whole “Aryan” angle and all. The Germans and Turks have had close relations going back to the 19th century. Strange bedfellows they have been all this time.

The Nazis declared that the Amir Husseini of Palestine was an “Aryan.”  If you read their race science, it’s pretty cynical. They simply do not talk much about the Arabids. The Arabids were against the Jews, so they are racially OK.

The Nazis didn’t even say much about Blacks. The few references we have say that they didn’t think much of them as a race, but they just didn’t talk about it much. In the Nazi years, Blacks were not allowed to marry German women, but in general, they were not killed. The Nazis persecuted them to some extent, but they did not kill them. And yes, there were a few Blacks in Germany. The Nazi attitude was the less said about Blacks, the better.

Hitler also thought that Amerindians were an inferior race, and he liked the way that Whites conquered the Indians and he thought it was a model for racial genocides – the stronger races should conquer the lesser races.

The Nazis felt that the NE Asians were a very highly evolved race. Whether they were better than Nordics, they did not discuss that.

150,000 partial Jews (many half-Jews) served in the Nazi Army, even in the SS. There is an old German saying: “There is a little Jew in every German.” There is a truth to this, and the Nazis were hip to it, so they were cynical. To kill everyone with a trace of Jew would be to exterminate the German people. And, in killing the German Jews, the Nazis were also killing themselves. The German-Jew thing was very much a family affair.

The Nazis just did not dig Jews. They thought they were a degenerate, fucked up, evil race all of their own. They did not tie them in with Meds or Arabids or Armenids or any of that. They just singled them out as Jews, said they were fucked up for whatever reason, and said we’re going to be rid of them. Jews period were just no good.

They did not go after relatives of the Jews (Turks, Armenians, Arabs) at all. In fact, in some cases, they spared Jews who they felt were not racially or culturally Jewish, as in the Caucasus. Though they were scumbags, the Nazi race scientists were scientists.

There was a lot of controversy in the Caucasus over who was a Jew and who was not.

The Nazi anthropologists said some were Jews, and they were wiped out totally. Others they said were not Jews. The Nazis were literally getting ready to kill them in 1944, when the Nazi leadership said, “Wait a minute! Call in the scientists!” The anthros said that most of that group were not Jewish in Nazi terms, hence most of them were spared. So the Nazi race scientists actually saved some Jewish lives.

I forget the name of the peoples involved, but they are obscure Jewish groups down by the Crimea/Caucasus. Karaim is the name of one of them.

The Nazis were also quite clear that Turks, Bulgarians, Italians, Armenians, Georgians and the Caucasus were Whites of some sort or another. Many of these folks fought in the Nazi Army, and the Nazis said nothing about their purported racial nature – it was just not discussed.

You have to understand that these guys were totally cynical about all their race stuff – all science was subsumed to politics.

What Is Pan-Aryanism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whites are:

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

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

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

Rima Fakih Crowned Miss America

Rima Fakih, a former Miss Michigan, whose family are Shia Muslims from Southern Lebanon, was crowned Miss USA recently, the first Arab to ever win the prize. The neocons have gone insane, among other reactions, they are being led by some Jew named Debbie Schlussel, a blogger from Michigan. There are still a lot of Jews living around Detroit. In addition, many Arabs, mostly Shia Lebanese, have moved into the same area in recent years.

Rima Fakih in a bikini at the Miss USA contest. Hezbollah does not approve, and they said so.

No one knows whether or not Fakih sympathizes with Hezbollah, but 83% of Lebanese do at this point. That’s mostly because Lebanon has no army, and Hezbollah are the only folks really defending Lebanon from Israel at this point. Israel used to have some allies with the Lebanese Maronite Christians, but they’ve even blown that wad recently. I’d wager that even now most Lebanese Maronites don’t like Israel anymore.

Excellent photo of Fakih after winning the prize. She has an interesting phenotype that I can't quite put a finger on. Italian? Armenian? Something like those Georgians? The closest thing she resembles at all is a former girlfriend, who was part Lebanese Maronite and part Greek, among other things.

The thing about Lebanon is that just about everyone hates each other. The Shia, the Sunnis of the North, the Druze and Maronites from the Center, there is no love lost with any of them, unfortunately. There are temporary alliances, but they fall apart a lot. The Greek Orthodox seem to get along with others better than the others, and they are not aligned with the Maronites in any way. The Orthodox have long lined up with Syria. Many of the first suicide bombers in Lebanon in the mid 1980′s were Greek Orthodox, often Communists or Leftists.

Rima Fakih photo in the dark, making her skin look a lot darker. I don't know what she looks like in this picture. Almost like a North Indian?

Fakih’s family varies. Some support Hezbollah and the more secular but still religious Shia Amal. Others are secular Shia who have no particular love for the religious parties. Some of these secular folks are even Communists. Communists are not unusual in Lebanon – there are still quite a few of them for some reason.

Here she is in her gown. A good look at her phenotype here, which seems pretty unique. These people probably are the remains of the ancient Phoenicians, and that was pretty distinct group of folks. Of course, now their genes are scattered about the Mediterranean. After Lebanese and Greek, my next suggestion would be that she looks something like some of the Mizrachi or Arab Jews in Israel, although their looks vary somewhat. I once met an Iranian Mizrachi Jew who looked something like this. A commenter has noted that she looks something like a famous Israeli Yemeni Mizrachi Jewish transsexual Dana International.

There is much misunderstanding about Hezbollah and Lebanon. Hezbollah is not trying to create a fundamentalist state in South Lebanon. They understand the secular nature of the multicultural Lebanese state. In interviews, Hezbollah said that they would only push for a religious state if they could get say 80-85% of Lebanese to go along with it. That day is a long ways off. Hezbollah lays off the secular Lebanese.

Here is another look at her, this time with much lighter skin, probably due to the heavy bright lighting. Notice that her skin is about the same color as the White women on either side of her, especially the one to the right.

The beach in Beirut is full of women in bikinis and downtown Beirut is full of women in skimpy clothing. Downtown nightlife is popping, with lots of bars, drinking and even call girls. Nothing much is done to crack down on any of this, and Hezbollah could care less. Down in the South were Hezbollah holds sway, things are a bit different, but I think booze is still legal, and you don’t need to wear a hijab, though it’s preferred.

Here she is pole dancing from two years ago. She won the contest. I think it's safe to say she's not a Hezbollah fanatic. I don't think that the Lebanese Shia, or any Lebanese, have much Black in them, but I am not sure. Syrians are about 5% Black, about the same as Italians or Greeks. That's the lowest I have seen of any Arabs. It's probably even lower in Lebanese, even the Muslims.

Homosexuals are beaten, it is true, but that’s about as bad as Hezbollah gets. Beaten and turned over to the cops, as homosexuality is still illegal in Lebanon and it’s pretty taboo. Gay rights groups have tried to organize, but it’s not going anywhere.

The religious leader of Hezbollah, Fadlallah, has issued some very interesting rulings lately, including one that sanctioned female masturbation, especially if the female is unmarried and has not outlet.

Keep in mind that the Shia are somewhat like Catholics in that doctrine is allowed to be continuously updated to keep with the times, as opposed to the set in stone philosophy of the Sunni, whose Christian analogy is the Protestants. Like the Protestants, the Sunni have no real head religious authorities issuing rulings. Like the Catholics, the Shia have religious leaders (Popes or Ayatollahs) whose job it is to continuously interpret doctrine in the face of changing reality.

The Ayatollahs, including Khomeini, have even allowed transsexualism, and a famous Ayatollah has had a sex change, is now a woman, and is married to another Ayatollah! Then there is the temporary marriage feint which allows for somewhat casual sex outside of marriage. A famous Iranian Islamic religious scholar, a woman, recently authored a book in which she recounted her temporary marriage affairs with 40-50 Iranians, often top Ayatollahs and religious scholars. No one much batted an eye in Iran.

Lebanon is simply a conservative Middle Eastern country, with life centered around families and extended families.

Who Are the Smartest White Europeans?

A commenter suggests that Russians are the smartest Whites.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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