Category Archives: Arabs

Who’s White? Who’s Not White?

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

Whites

A few things.

Spaniards and Portuguese are very White. The most Southern Portuguese are 4-5% Black. That doesn’t count.

Sicilians are ~5% Black. That doesn’t count either.

White Berbers are very White.

Jews are some of the purest Whites of them all.

My position is that Arabs are Whites.

Everyone in Turkey, the Caucasus and most of European Russia is White.

All native Europeans including Samis are White.

Iranians, Afghans, Pakistanis, and Northern Indians are more or less White people.

Many Latin Americans are White. Latin Americans up to ~25% White are considered White in Latin America. The rest are mulattoes, mestizos or zambos, or maybe people more properly called mixed race people of some type.

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

Some Arabs and Berbers might have so much Black in them that we can’t call them White anymore. It’s hard to call Prince Bandar a White man. Neither are Southern Egyptians or the Blacker Berbers White.

A lot of Indians have so much South Indian in them that they are not really White anymore.

Many people in Eastern India and Nepal are too Asiatic to be called White. Quite a few are pure East Asians.

The peoples of the Stans, Siberia, and East Turkestan are properly seen as mixed race people, but some are White enough to be seen as Whites.  Some people of the Urals are also too mixed to be White.

A lot of these people are more properly seen as mixed race people. Many are Asiatic-White mixes who might be more properly called Eurasians as a mix of Europoids and East Asians.

Many Indians are a different mix altogether, more of a White-Australoid mix for which there is no racial name.

Obviously many Black-White mixes are more properly seen as some form of mulatto.

Many White-Indian mixes in Latin America are best seen as mestizos.

With a lot of these folks, it boils down to more of a case by case basis to determine whether a given Kazakh, Saudi, Mari, Yemeni, Moroccan, Egyptian, Uighur, Egyptian or certainly Latin American is White or is too mixed to be considered properly White. Generally most people with up to 20% Black in them look and act White enough to be considered White. This is probably true for Asian mix. Once you start getting over 20%, things get a lot dicier.

Comments Off on Who’s White? Who’s Not White?

Filed under Afghans, Anthropology, Arabs, Asians, Berbers, Black-White (Mulattos), Central Asians, East Indians, Egyptians, Europeans, Hispanics, Iranians, Italians, Jews, Kazakhs, Mestizos, Mixed Race, Moroccans, Near Easterners, North Africans, Northeast Asians, Pakistanis, Physical, Portuguese, Race/Ethnicity, Russians, Siberians, South Asians, Spaniards, Turks, Uighurs, Whites, Yemenis, Zambos

Socialism, Populism, and Neoliberalism in the Arab World

Sisera: The CIA’s coups have been out of control for decades, agreed.

But you support minority rule governments in the Middle East (Saddam Hussein, certainly and possibly Assad who is at least an ethnic minority. Hezbollah operated for years in a largely Christian country, etc.) because the alternative would mean Americans die in terror attacks from those countries becoming terror bases.

I don’t know that you could argue any Latin American oligarchy was more brutal than Saddam Hussein.

So you just value certain American interests that are different than his.

Saddam was brutal but he was a populist. He just didn’t tolerate any minority rebellions or opposition really. But in return for that he was a great socialist and populist leader who did great things for his people. Saddam’s rule was not oligarchic rule by a ruling class. Actually when the Ba’ath took power, they took out the local oligarchs, confiscated their land, imposed heavy taxation, nationalized many industries, etc.

Saddam was a man of the people. He was for the little guy, the average Joe Iraqi Workingman. You could also argue that Stalin and Mao were brutal in similar ways. Leftwing regimes can be pretty brutal. I am not one to dismiss that. But leftist and Communist regimes are not cases of ruling class rule or the rule by a small group of rich and capitalists over everyone else.

The whole time Hezbollah was around, Lebanon was a minority Christian country. It hasn’t been majority Christian since the 1960’s or maybe 1970’s. Anyway the Christians are not in opposition to Hezbollah. One of the Maronite leaders, Aoun, is in an alliance with Hezbollah. Hezbollah has Christian and Sunni militias in Christian and Sunni areas. The Greek Orthodox have always supported Hezbollah. It’s a populist movement. Hezbollah only came into existence because of the Israeli invasion.

You may be correct about Syria. Democracy may well vote in radical Islamists, and that would not be a pretty picture. The Syrian rebels give you a taste of what life would be like without Assad.  We already know what life in Iraq was like post-Saddam. A sheer Hell of a charnelhouse. Surely Saddam was better than what came after.

Assad is a populist. He works for everyone. It’s not a matter of the rich running the place and fucking everyone over. They just had elections for Parliament and 85% of the seats were run by Sunnis. The Sunnis run the business community. The army is full of Sunni generals. The minority rule thing is sort of dumb. Assad cuts everyone in because he has to. Anyway, if you go the democratic route in the Middle East, you end up with Islamists.

I actually do not mind popular or populist dictatorships that serve the people. That’s fine. Assad appears to have majority support too. It’s not like the majority want Assad gone and he just usurped them.

Saddam was difficult, but there were 1 million Shia Ba’ath Party members. Shia were persecuted not for being Shia but for being Islamists. Anyway, Saddam was the best choice. Look what happened when he was gone.

For whatever reason, the rich and the capitalists in the Arab World are not evil like in Latin America, the Philippines, Indonesia, etc. Everyone wants socialism in the Arab world. But Arab socialism allows businessmen to earn money, so everyone gets cut in. You don’t have hard-line socialism or Communism because you don’t have diabolical ruling classes like you have in Latin America. If the rich and the capitalists are willing to go along with a socialist or populist project, why can’t they have full rights?

Hezbollah does not control Lebanon. Anyway, Lebanon is minority rule and has been forever. Christians are guaranteed 50% of seats in Parliament but are only 30% of the population. Hezbollah is not a ruling class group. They are basically socialists like most Islamists.

You see, radical neoliberalism, Latin American style economic conservatism, Republican Party politics, etc. is a no seller in the Arab World. Literally nobody but nobody but nobody wants it. The only people proposing it are Lebanese Maronites because they are close to Europe and they are trying to distinguish themselves from Arabs by being individualists and different.

You can’t sell any sort of oligarchic rule, ruling class rule, economic conservatism of any of that in most Muslim countries. Because Mohammad, if you read him closely, was a pretty socialist fellow. Now the ruling classes in the Arab world used to be feudalists who worked the fellahin like serfs.

But the Arab nationalist revolutions that rocked the Arab world got rid of all of that. All rulers wiped out the feudal holdings and liberated the peasants. The large landowners tried to justify their rule by saying that Mohammad said there are rich and there are poor and that is fine. They got corrupt Muslims clergy to go along with this, similar to how the ruling classes get the Catholic Church to go along with the project of the rich.

This alliance was most notable in Iraq, but it existed in other places like Palestine. Egypt was largely feudal before Nasser. Nasser was not only an Arab nationalist but also a working class hero. Leftists all over the Arab World used to have pictures of Nasser on the walls. He too liberated the Muslim peasants. Feudal rule ended in Palestine in the 1930’s in the midst of an Arab nationalist revolution there.

Getting rid of oligarchic and feudal rule was easy in the Arab World because the masses never supported the oligarchs or feudalists. Rather, they hated them. So Arab socialism was an easy fit all over the region. Even the business communities gladly went along.

7 Comments

Filed under Africa, Arab Nationalism, Arabs, Asia, Capitalism, Christianity, Conservatism, Economics, Egypt, Geopolitics, Government, Indonesia, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Latin America, Lebanon, Left, Marxism, Middle East, Nationalism, Neoliberalism, North Africa, Palestine, Philippines, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Republicans, SE Asia, Shiism, Socialism, Sunnism, Syria, US Politics

Why Do Some Countries Lack a Class Conscious Working Class?

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

To get class consciousness you really need a homogeneous working class. It helps if the working class is ethnically distinct from the upper class. In Scotland the upper class is English, or Anglicized Scottish. That is to say Scottish, but educated in England, and often speaking with English accents.

The clear majority of Scots vote for the British Labour Party. English workers are more likely to vote for the British Conservative Party.

The argument is circular in a sense because as you look around the world, generally what you see in most cases is an ethnically homogenous working class.

Would you describe the working classes of Latin America as homogeneous or diverse? They seem to be a mixture of White, Indian and Black and the mestizo, mulatto and Zambo mixtures, correct? Yet the diverse working classes down there have high working class consciousness despite their diverse nature.

Aren’t North African and Gulf countries fairly mixed between Blacks and Arabs?

Certainly in Arabia, lands with diverse working classes of Kurds, Arabs and Iranian working classes are all very left.

I believe Sri Lanka even with the vicious Tamil versus Sinhalese war, the diverse working class is leftwing. In Burma the working class is very left although there have been wild ethnic wars sputtering on for decades.

In Russia and other nations of the former USSR, there are many ethnic minorities, but the workers are still working class.

A recent exception is Ukraine where workers have gone radical Right. The former Yugoslavia is still very leftwing even after all of the ethnic conflict and even slaughter of past years. Spain’s working class is very radical despite an armed conflict in the Basque region and separatists in Catalonia. The different religions hate each other in North Ireland, but the Scottish Protestant workers are as class conscious as the Irish Catholic ones. Switzerland is divided between three ethnic groups – French, Germans, and Italians – yet it is a very leftwing country.

The extreme tribalism in Africa has not prevented the working classes from being class conscious.

Is the working class of England voting Tory yet? Or do you just mean that they are more likely to vote Tory than the Scots are?

Most workers in Europe, Arabia, North Africa, Africa, the former USSR, China, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, Japan, South Korea, Nepal are the same ethnicity as the ruling classes of those places, yet workers have a high degree of class consciousness in all of those places.

The places where working class consciousness has been harder to develop were those that had a Chinese ruling class as in Philippines and Indonesia.

I think we need to come up with some better theories about the poor class consciousness of the US working class. If you are looking for examples elsewhere, India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Taiwan, Australia, the Baltics and Colombia are places with quite poor working class consciousness.

In Australia it is recent as US style conservatism is imported.

A similar trend is underway in Canada and has been since Thatcher in the UK. But the UK is in nearly a revolutionary situation. A lot of the working classes are militant and radicalized, while a lot of the country has at the same time gone Tory. When Thatcher died, there were anti-rich riots in housing estates across the land. Thatcher was burned in effigy in the streets. Can you imagine that happening in the US?

The recent riots in the UK also had a class undercurrent. I was dating a British woman at the time, and she told me that local storeowners who treated the community well were spared by rioters. Rioters focused on stores selling upscale goods to the rich. Many corporate outlets were also smashed.

She told me that a number of those outlets had a reputation for not paying taxes to the UK by hiding money offshore. She said the rioters knew who those companies were, and they were brutally singled out. Many outlets were burned to the ground. Can you imagine heavily Black rioters in the US having class consciousness like that?

The Baltics are a case of entire nations full of complete idiots who hate Communism so much that they went into an extreme overreaction against Communism and turned against anything socialist, left, liberal or mildly progressive. Fascist heroes including many Nazis with a lot of Jewish blood on their hands were celebrated. Communist parties were outlawed, and Russian minorities were viciously maltreated.

Radical rightwingers were elected in all of these lands, and Chicago Boys Friedmanite experiments were undertaken. The results were predictable. In the recent economic crash, the most neoliberal European countries were the most devastated of all. Estonia was eviscerated, and Latvia was almost wiped off the map. 1/3 of the Latvian population left the country, including almost all of the educated people.

The Philippines and Indonesian cases are up for discussion, but these are Latin American situations of a ruling class of a different ethnicity than the working classes holding forth brutally and anti-democratically over the people. In addition, the workers have little consciousness.

Taiwan has a similar legacy where extreme hatred of Communism resulted in being ruled by reactionary fascist anti-Communists for decades. There is a nascent Left now, but it has little power yet. The wealth of the country seems to have gotten in the way of working class consciousness. Probably the extreme anti-Communism helped too, as any working class movement could be quickly portrayed as Communist.

Leave a comment

Filed under Africa, Amerindians, Arabs, Asia, Australia, Black-White (Mulattos), Blacks, Britain, Canada, Catholicism, China, Christianity, Colombia, Conservatism, Economics, Eurasia, Europe, Fascism, Indonesia, Iranians, Ireland, Japan, Kurds, Labor, Latin America, Left, Marxism, Mestizos, Middle East, Mixed Race, National Socialism, Nazism, NE Asia, Near Easterners, Nepal, North Africa, North America, Philippines, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Russia, Scotland, SE Asia, Socialism, South America, South Asia, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Taiwan, Ukraine, Whites, Yugoslavia, Zambos

Israel: Journey to the End of the Night

Very nice piece by our great commenter Judith Mirville.

There is a much nicer way to state what you’ve stated. When as usual I hear people from various religious backgrounds, no matter Jewish, pro-Jewish, anti-Jewish, or half and half, asking me to pray for Jerusalem, I always answer: “The day nobody is praying in Jerusalem any longer, that day will be a great day!”.

When I hear people talking about the deep spiritual golden aura one bathes in when strolling in Jerusalem, I answer: “I lived in Jerusalem (more accurately half-way between Jerusalem proper and Bethlehem, not that far from the wall of shame), and there is less spirituality there than in Ottawa, Canada around the American Embassy. The golden light and the foliage hues are much more soul-nourishing there in early autumn.

Israel is some offshore suburbia of Hollywood where as you put it everybody plays a second-grade actor’s part and each employee’s salary depends on his art of unknowing the truth about the plot of a the fictional TV series episode projected all around the world at six and ten: there can be no peaceful end of any kind, as it would prevent the series to go on and sell, since gratuitous ever-increasing suspense is the name of the game.

I saw one Israeli checkpoint employee humiliating transiting Arabs telling them they would never be able to perform like Woody Allen due to their low IQ: traditional biblical law required all performing actors to be beheaded on sight and that rule remained in vigor up to the 19th Century Jewish emancipation in the Pale of Settlement.

There is no light at the end of the tunnel as you say, though there is a final dead end: Israel was originally founded to be a purely secular state, but as the state committed more and more and ever more faults against all human decency, they flew ever deeply into fictional religion of the most stinking kind so as to daze themselves out of reality. They are now entrapped by their own cheapest religious script.

They are condemned, so as not to answer for their broken promises, to build the infamous Third Temple. They will mobilize all sorts of crowds in the the world, Jews, philosemites, and also antisemites to suggest that building it together with animal sacrifices will make accrue to them the riches of all nations for eternity by its very magic divine presence, except that no divinity or shekinah will show up, as the whole Holocaustian theology is based on the idea of the absence of any divine presence in the world.

One day the Temple will enter into operation. It will have been built very rapidly, all pieces ready to be assembled like LEGO blocks. They will have already put the whole Arab world at war when they destroy the Dome of the Rock. The stock exchange places in Asia will conclude that after all those Jews which had been mistaken for a people of geniuses are one superstitious Arab tribe among so many others of about mean 95 IQ (in Israel).

In a few hours or so all Jewish fortunes will melt like Groenland under the freakish polar weather. Much graver: the conclusion of most Oriental assessors of dying Western cultures to be studied and preserved or not will be that Jewish expertise, though not negligible, had been grossly overrated in nearly all fields compared to that of so many other nations.

Israel will end up as poor as Nauru after the extraction of the last phosphates, level with Yemen, and without any means to buy the energy they need to guzzle just to export Jaffa oranges, now toxic because of over-irrigation and heavy metal accumulation.

The only alleged domain of superiority that will remain to them and bring them some clients will be their power as masters of Kabbalah, level with Haitians and their voodooists and Romanian Gypsies with their divination techniques.

All countries that count on the biggest temples of the world to crown themselves into eternal superiority (whatever their faith may be) end up like Ivory Coast after the completion of the greatest basilica of Christendom in Yamoussoukro.

2 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Arabs, Israel, Jews, Judaism, Middle East, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, The Jewish Question, Zionism

Trench Warfare in East Ghouta

East Ghouta trench warfare. Good Lord that fighting looks brutal. Some truly vicious close-range trench warfare can be seen in this video. This what war looks like – the real thing. I will say that SAA and allied Palestinian, government and Arab Nationalist militias have very high morale from all the footage I have seen. It’s amazing as I am sure they are taking serious casualties. I saw a video today of a Syrian village of ~400 in 2011. 13% of its men were military age, and seven years later, almost all of them are dead, fighting for the government. Don’t let anyone fool you into thinking that the government forces are not taking serious casualties.

There is so much I could say about this operation. Let us just say that everything you are hearing in the US and Western media is completely biased and a lot of it is flat out lies. The civilians in the area largely support the Syrian Army and oppose the Al Qaeda-type rebels.

The rebels have been using East Ghouta for years as a base to shell Damascus. Damascus gets shelled almost every day for years now by these character. The mortars are usually just aimed at the city but in recent months a number have targeted the Russian Embassy and meeting between various Russians, military and aid organizations, in the area. It is thought that the rebels do not have the ability to target Russians with this accuracy. What is going on here is that US, Turkish, UAE, Qatari, Saudi, Jordanian and Israeli intelligence (mostly US) is working closely with the rebels in an effort to deliberately target Russians. So the US is actually killing Russians in Syria deliberately and has been doing so forever.

Mostly this shows the folly of pacifists or isolationists ever voting Republican. Republicans have been the party of the hawks ever since the Cold War and it hasn’t slowed down yet. Of course Trump shifted to ultra-hawk because he is a hard US conservative and almost all of these people are fanatical warmongers. The Republicans have been far more hawkish than the Democrats since 1946.

The Democrats may be the party of Humanitarian Bombers, but the Republicans don’t even pretend to that. Instead, it’s all about how many people you can kill, civilians or not. Civilian deaths in Syrian and Iraq skyrocketed after Trump “took the gloves off” (something Republicans always do – gloves are for soft Democratic girly men). Why was this a good thing? Why did Trump massacre all of these Syrian and Iraqi civilians and why are bloodthirsty Americans cheering for this slaughter?

When East Aleppo was liberated, there were intense negotiations at the end to rescue 12 US intelligence officers who were holed up with the Al Qaeda rebels until the bitter end. Websites even published the names of these men.

Here again, the Western media is screaming. Humanitarian corridors to evacuate civlians have been activated and regular aid convoys are getitng through. The strikes have been mostly surgical as in East Aleppo. The US is just freaking out because it’s Al Qaeda type jihadis are getting defeated in this Damascus suburb. The US wants to keep its jihadis in East Aleppo to rain mortars down on Damascus every day to show that Assad cannot even control his own capital. It’s mostly an appearances thing, but then appearances and symbolism play greater roles in warfare than most know.

There haven’t been any hospitals stricken in Ghouta. Remember when “the last hospital in East Aleppo” got destroyed 15-20 times over a period of months. It was always “the last hospital in Aleppo.” How many last hospitals in Aleppo were there? There can’t have been more than one. The artillery and airstrikes in Aleppo were mostly surgical. Many of the hospitals bombed had long since been taken over as rebel bases. This is something the US media never told you. Yes, some civilians are getting their property taken away from them, but that is because they supported the rebels. It has nothing to with ethnicity and there is no ethnic cleansing. Sunni Arabs who supported Assad are to some extent displacing Sunni Arabs who supported the rebels.

There was another false flag chemical weapons attack in Ghoutha earlier, championed by pathological liar Nicki Haley. Western officials warned of the attack earlier, a sure sign that this was another false flag. So far, all chemical weapons attacks in Syria have been rebel false flags. I have studied all of them, and I haven’t seen one attack by the Syrian government yet. The Syrian government simply does not use chemical weapons. It’s not that they are nice people. If you are a rebel or rebel supporter, you may be arrested and taken prisoner by the army and transferred to a military prison. The death rate is high in that prisoner and 10-15,000 prisoners may have already been executed, mostly by hanging. That said, chemical weapons and massacres of villagers are not the SAA’s style. They’re nasty, but they are just not that type of nasty.

Of course, a few days after the fake attack, the SAA liberated this Ghouta town and promptly discovered a chemical weapons factory.  The rebels had been producing their own chemicals and then releasing them in false flag attacks as they have been doing since the start of the war. Even the US military now admits that most if not all of the chemical weapons attacks in this war so far  were not  done by the Syrian government. Amazing – the military tells the  truth where the controlled (US Pravda) media  never does.

Ghouta is 70% cleared. Many rebels have left on buses to be bussed to other rebel zones,mostly in Idlib. A number of others have taken advantage of an amnesty program that has been offered by the government for years now. Today, 10,000 civilians fled to safety via a humanitarian corridor. The rebels have been firing at these corridors for some time now, shooting at civilians who are trying to flee. A number have been killed in this way.

1 Comment

Filed under Arabs, Conservatism, Democrats, Eurasia, Europe, Geopolitics, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Jordan, Journalism, Middle East, Military Doctrine, Palestine, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Radical Islam, Religion, Republicans, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sunnism, Syria, Turkey, US Politics, USA, War

The King As God and Pie in the Sky When You Die

The Catholic churches sold pie in the sky to the working classes for centuries, urging them to accept their downtrodden role in life as religiously sanctified. Yes, this life is terrible, they said, but this is your lot in life, essentially ordained by God and religion (notice the connection with Hindu caste here) to live this life, there is glory, beauty and valor in suffering, after all suffering being at the heart of Christianity since He died on the cross.

Revolting now would be a sin, the Church preached. I am not sure how they conjured up how it was a sin, but perhaps given the connections between religion and  the state in those days the priests said that the monarchs  were ruling via God and hence rebellion would be rebellion against God and religion itself. How can you fight a war against God, Jesus and the Bible? Talk about a heresy! And in this way, the people were calmed.

The Nepalese Hindus were told the same thing and hence they were banned from rebelling against the state. If you prayed, lived a good life as sin-free as possible or at the  very least had your sins absolved regularly, you could accept your miserable lot in this earthly life on the grounds that if you lived religiously properly, you could have “pie in the sky when you die.”

In other words, keep your head down, don’t complain too much, don’t rebel, accept your lot in life and just try to be a good Christian you will rewarded with an eternity in Heavenly bliss when you die. You wonder why the early Marxists hated religion so much and called it the opium of the people. I believe it was mostly for this reason – religion sapping the normal revolutionary will of the people in service to a powerful elite who abused the common people.

As noted above, in Europe it was common for the monarchs to claim to be ruling in God’s place acting via intercession in place of God Himself and religion.

In this sense, the monarchs in Old Europe were God. There were the people and then God and religion. In between stood the priesthood and especially the monarchs. The latter in particular made great pains to show that they had been chosen directly by God to rule and that it was actually God and religion which was ruling the people via the monarch.

In ancient times, it was supposedly not uncommon for rulers to claim to be ruling in place of God or via God. In this sense, God and religion themselves were ruling the people and the monarch was simply a pawn, a tool of the Gods, forced to implement the will of God and religion and an intercessionary conduit. The ruler was barely even a human. He was in fact something of a Human Pipeline, transmitting the will of religion and God to the people via decrees and rules. If you are being ruled by God and religion themselves, how can one revolt.

The Hindu monarchy in Nepal does the exact same thing.

I am not sure the extent to which the Muslim rulers pulled this off as intercessionary prayer is supposedly banned in Islam as being one step from idolatry while also being a prohibited innovation. However, many of the sultans and imams who ruled the Arab World were in a sense religiously sanctified often by being the genetic line of Muhammad himself. If you are being ruled by Muhammad’s descendant via the laws that Muhammad laid down himself with the imam being in a sense intercessionary to Mohammad, God, and religion (though never stated explicitly as such).

So the same thing was going on in the Arab World except that noticing it and stating it out loud were virtual heresies akin to saying that the ruler himself was a heretic.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Arabs, Asia, Catholicism, Christianity, Europe, Hinduism, Islam, Left, Marxism, Nepal, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Social Problems, Sociology, South Asia

Problems of the Arab Mind, with a Nod to Raphael Patai

Interesting comment on the site from this old post, which I really ought to run again. It sure would be nice to talk to this woman some more. I would like her to elaborate on her comments here. From the way she describes it, it is almost like Arab culture is an actual Culture of Narcissists, with most of the men being narcissistic mostly due to how they are raised. And yes the women are raised to feel inferior from the very start. This is the case in family life even from the early years. It is clear to the Arab girl growing up that the boys and men in the family are superior to the girls and women.

I totally agree with Robert. Being cunning while having no resources is natural to them. They also involuntary gaslight everyone around them 24/7, from business tactics to the closest people in their life (Yes, even family).

I am Latina and after being married to one and traveling to North Africa several times, I can assure you it takes their holidays of Ramadan to get them to actually help other people. They can walk right past a child dying of starvation and not offer and feel no remorse. They are unbelievably selfish to a point an American could never grasp. This is what allows them to get into relationships with other narcissistic Arabs. It’s sickening really because all women want is love, and a woman will never be happy married to an Arab for long.

They have an uncanny ability to manipulate and gaslight/brainwash people. It’s really fucking scary. All that charm with their good looks fucks your head up. They will break your spirit, disconnect your soul from your body, and hold it in a suspense state. I finally broke away after 13 years of loving and hoping he would change. I had to literally start recording our conversations because he would have me questioning my own sanity. When I was alone I would play those conversations back to myself because I honestly couldn’t remember at the time what was going on around me.

It’s all just so sad. I lost all those years living in CPTSD, and now I’m in total isolation. So what I’m saying is stay away from them as much as possible or you will be sucked in. Keep in mind I am a professional. I am a current member of SHRM and also a Human Resource Director.

The sad part is their women stand up for them because they were born and breed to be slaves via humiliation from the beginning. This is the way cults, the military, and other organizations manipulate their members to mind control them. These women don’t even know that they were born to gaslight themselves. Sad but true.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

1 Comment

Filed under Arabs, Culture, Islam, Narcissism, Personality, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Religion, Romantic Relationships, Women

Do Intelligent People Realize That They Are Smarter Than Anyone Else Surrounding Them?

Answered on Quora. Quora is neat because there is an IQ section and there are frequent questions about IQ, often directed at high or very high IQ people. A lot are on the lines of How do very high IQ people think/react/live/feel etc. about this or that? What is it like to have a very high IQ? Well, those are valid questions and they need answering, so lots of high and very high IQ people on there jump in and answer those questions. It’s completely socially acceptable to do that on there.

That’s neat because the whole rest of society is pretty much blocked out to discussions like that. You simply cannot talk about how smart you. You can talk about being superior in any other way (face it: high IQ people are superior at least on the one metric of intelligence), and most people will eat it up if you do it in the right way. Personally, I recommend false modesty. When discussing any accomplishments,  I often shrug my shoulders like I am talking about a glass of water or I even put my head down, lower my voice and act like I am embarassed or even ashamed of the accomplishment. Mostly I just discuss it matter of factly like it’s nothing. This usually goes over very well. But you can’t really talk about brains at all.

You certainly cannot discuss your IQ score most of the time. It’s a social taboo. I can’t even write about the subject on this blog, even though this is an IQ blog for Chrissakes, because writing about it on the blog falls under the same taboo as discussing it in public. You are “bragging” and you are violating the social taboo about as much as if you blurted it out in public.

However, Quora provides a completely socially acceptable forum for high and very high IQ people to discuss IQ and their intelligence without necessarily being seen as bragging (granted some still come off as braggarts due to the way they talk about it not because they mention the fact). I suppose the social taboo police types still think it’s horrible that we talk about in forums designed for that specific fact on Quora, but honestly, they can go to Hell. There’s nothing wrong with talking about anything on a public forum set up to discuss specifically that very thing.

Anyway, here is my answer. Hope you enjoy it and I hope at least one person finds some good advice here because there’s also a life hack technique discussed here about being a social actor to play a fake role and get along better with others.

You must realize that at any given time, I actually am smarter than everyone or certainly almost everyone around me, assuming that intelligence = IQ, which I believe it does. According to my IQ score, if you have 1,000 people in a room, I am smarter than all of them. You have get 2,000 people in the room to have one person who is on my level or higher.

So in my small city, there should be 60 people as smart or smarter than I am. That assumes my city has an average (100) IQ, which is highly dubious. I would say instead that the IQ of this city is more like 93, if it is even that high. Now I cannot do the math anymore because I only know how to do it with IQ set at 100, but the number is now less than 60. Edit: I just did the math and at my city’s 93 IQ, there are exactly four people in this city who are as smart or smarter than I am. Wow, that’s a powerful thought!

That means that if you got 1/4 of the population of my city together, I would be smarter than all of them! You would have to get half the town in one place to get one person as smart as or smarter than I am.

However, even though that is an objective fact, I rarely make myself aware of it. I simply blot it out of my mind. I live in a tough minority-heavy working class or even poor neighborhood. This place is like the hood or the ghetto, except it’s Mexicans, so it’s a barrio, so it’s much more livable than a Black ghetto. But the general vibes are the same. All of the men are very tough and hard.

There are gangs around here. There’s a lot of drinking and there are some drugs too. You can get hit anytime here for any reason if you disrespect someone or act like an idiot, so you have to be cool all the time. Gay men and lesbians are certainly not welcome here at all. Even feminine men would have a real problem because here if you are a man, you have to be hard because if you’re not, you might get hit. It’s a low class, hypermasculine, heavily ethnic, working class neighborhood. This place is anti-intellectual and I doubt if most people around here read one book last year.

The point is that I have to fit in here so I adopt more or the hard street tough hustler type mindset of the neighborhood. This means that most of the time, I shut down my own knowledge of my intelligence level and pretend that I am about as smart as those around me. The main reason is that I do not want to feel superior to these tough working class uneducated people around me. If I start feeling that way, I think they will pick up on it and regard it as arrogance and not be friendly. I want to be as friendly as possible so I try to get down to the same level of the salt of the Earth types.

On the other hand, most people around here have figured out that I am pretty damn smart because of the things that I like to talk about. We have Arabs around here and I ask them about their countries, US foreign policy and foreign affairs. They are amazed that I know so much about their country. They always ask me if I am from there or if I have been there.

Even the Mexicans and Salvadorans cannot believe that I know so much about their countries. They all assume I must be from their country because to them, no one not from there knows this much stuff about their land. The Indians are the same. They insist I must be Indian or must have been to India, otherwise there’s no way I could know all of this.

I must say that a lot of the Indians and Arabs are smarter and I can let down my hair with them pretty quickly. They often pick up that I am smart very quickly, and a lot of the Indian men are quite smart fellows. A lot of Arab men are also very smart. When I find another smart ethnic person, I show a lot more of my intelligence. They see this right away and sometimes switch into “intellectual mode” (especially the Indian men).

I am probably smarter than most all of even these Indian and Arab men but I refuse to think about or even recognize that because I want to be on their level. Instead I marvel at how much relatively brighter and more educated they are than most folks around here.

At times, I have to deal with some very smart people in this city, though they never live here. I mean physicians, pharmacists, judges, etc. I seem to be about on the same level as most of these folks. Especially physicians. Physicians are taken aback by me quite quickly, probably because I am a lot smarter than the average patient. They very quickly figure out that I am very smart, and they are often very surprised by how smart I am. They usually comment something along those lines.

If you have been reading this far, you can see that the smarter someone is, the quicker they realize that they are dealing with a very smart person on the other hand. I would say that the speed at which they recognize this almost correlates with IQ.

It’s not uncommon when meeting a physician that very quickly, maybe within a couple of minutes, he jerks his head back and shakes his head and is shocked at how smart I am. They appreciate it, and I can usually have some really neat conversations with my physicians because smart people (like physicians) like other smart people.

If you are very smart, like say a doctor, another smart person is going to be a lot more fun to be around because they are more on your wavelength. Also smart people, like physicians, like to learn new things, and smart people are always telling you new things. They also like to be challenged mentally, and smart people tend to challenge your mind.

A lot of people find this intimidating, but smart people, like say doctors, seem to find it as a sort of delightful challenge because they seem to like to crunch their brains, maybe almost even for sheer kicks. Also understand that smart people, like say physicians, are often also very curious and smart people are an endless source of fascination for a curious person because you can learn so many fun and cool things from them.

Do I know I’m smarter than most everyone around? I suppose I do, because it is a scientific fact. However, I often blind myself to this idea and a lot of the time, I even lie to myself, say it’s not true, tell myself I am an idiot, that I know nothing, exaggerate the intelligence of those around me, etc. This is a sort of acting or role-playing that I do so I can get along better with people around me.

Going around all the time consciously thinking you are smarter than most everyone around, even if it’s a fact, doesn’t seem to work very well. I seem to come off a bit uppity, superior or arrogant. I don’t want to come off that way because I want smooth relations with other humans. So a lot of the time I shut that fact out of my mind or even pretend it’s not true.

1 Comment

Filed under Arabs, Culture, East Indians, Hispanics, Intelligence, Mexicans, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Salvadorans, Sociology

Game/PUA: Differential Masculinity and Femininity Among Both Males and Females As a Rationale for Interracial Sexual Preferences

Let us look at the masculinity-femininity chart across races:

Masculinity In Men

Race             Masculinity Level 

Black men        Highest

Arab/Berber Men  Very High

Hispanic men     High

Polynesian men   High

White men        Medium

Amerindian men   Lower?

East Asian men   Low

Indian men       Lowest, but varies

 

Femininity In Women

Race                Femininity Level

Asian women         Highest

Arab/Berber women   Very high

Indian women        Very high

Hispanic women      Higher

Amerindian women    High

Polynesian women    High

White women         Medium

Black women         Low

Testosterone levels in both genders seem to correlate pretty well with gender and race above. The highest testosterone women are seen as the least feminine and the lowest testosterone women as the most feminine. The highest testosterone men are the most masculine, and the lowest testosterone men are the least masculine.

Masculinity/femininity, that inscrutable variable that the idiot Cultural Left wants to wipe off the face of the Earth – this is the goal behind the ludicrous “get rid of gender” and “everyone choose your own gender” campaign –  seems to be pared down to that most coarse and biological of things, the level of some certain invisible chemical coursing through our veins and brains. How boring. How prosaic.

The whole problem with these varying levels of masculinity and femininity is multiculturalism.

In India, Indian women think Indian men are just fine.

In Asia, Asian women think Asian men are just fine.

In isolation, males and females of each race seem to be perfectly happy with the opposite sex in terms of masculinity or femininity.

Now enter multiculturalism. Catastrophe.

Now men can compare the femininity of the various races of women. In general, men will choose the more feminine women over the less feminine women. Likewise, women will now be able to compare the masculinity of men cross-racially. They will tend to prefer more masculine men over less masculine ones.

This probably only goes so far.

Hence White women will pick Black men over White men because they are more masculine but will reject Asian women as less masculine. They will be comparing everything to the baseline of White men.

Asian women will choose White men over Asian men as White men are more masculine. However, Black men may be too masculine. Here you are asking to pair the most feminine women with the most masculine men. It may not work. Asian women may regard Black men as so masculine that they are uncivilized, animal-like brutes. After all, Asian societies are run on a certain level of highly civilized and controlled behavior, and Black men seem to violate that. Asian women probably want their men masculine but controlled, civilized and mannered.

Of all the races, Asians set the bar highest of all in terms of acceptable behavior. Many behaviors that are just fine in White culture are outrageously rude to Asians. Many Asian women are said to have a visceral hatred for Black men on the grounds that they are dangerously uncivilized and violent.

Asian men regard Black men as the nadir.

In Asian society, a man must support his children. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Asian men see Black men running around having eight kids by eight different women and not supporting any of them, and the Asian men are profoundly disgusted. To him, this behavior is barely even human. If asked, he will say that those Black men are acting like dogs. After all, male dogs simply run around impregnating any female dog who comes their way, and of course they don’t help raise the puppies. To be so far below human behavior that you are acting like a dog is profoundly repulsive and outrageous in Asian culture. It produces a nearly visceral response.

Black men probably like Asian women just fine, but those women are probably not available to them for the reasons above.

White men will use the baseline of White women to choose Asian women, as they are more feminine than White women, but they will reject Black women, as they are more masculine than White women.

Indian women, faced to compare White and Indian men, may well choose White men, as we are more masculine. As super-feminine women though, they may be outraged, offended and frightened by Black men, who they may well see as so masculine that they are brutal, violent, dangerous and animalistic. Indian society is highly mannered and the chaotic nature of many Black areas may be profoundly offensive to proper, dainty, fussy,  and submissive Indian women.

Indian and Asian men, faced with rejection by their women, may look elsewhere, but as the least masculine races among men, women outside those two races are going to see them as less masculine than their own kind. It’s their own women or nothing.

Black women ought to be just fine, but the problem is that many Black men are looking elsewhere, although Black men are quite happy with Black women. White women are more feminine than Black women compared to the Black baseline, so Black men’s desire for a White woman may just be a choice of a more feminized race of women.

Further, many Black women are incredibly loyal to their race and want Black men or nothing. Of course they prefer Black men, as they are the most masculine of all. Who wouldn’t? But what happens when they look elsewhere? White men seem a lot less masculine than the Black male baseline. That makes them a  lot less desirable for Black women because women’s choices tend to be towards more masculinity, not less. Further, as the least feminine of women, non-Black men are going to regard Black women as too masculine for them. Men’s choices will tend to be in favor of more feminine women and against less feminine ones.

Black women do not have a lot of choices outside their own men. For Black women, it’s Black men or nothing.

This dynamic even seems to be working with other races. There are reports that in Europe, White women are choosing Arab or Berber men over White men simply because they are more masculine. And in Argentina, Argentine White men are reporting that many Argentine women are leaving White Argentine men in favor of more masculine Hispanic mestizo men. There are reports that in Mexico, many White women are preferring macho mestizo brutes over mannered and affected White men.

As you can see,  Black women as the least feminine women and Asian and Indian men as the least masculine men get the short end of the stick. A Black woman/Asian man pairing would be bizarre. You are asking the most masculine women to pair with the least masculine men. Black women probably see Asian men as severe wimps. You are also asking the least masculine men to hook up with the most masculine women.  For an Asian man to date a Black must nearly feel gay, as if he is with a man. The people at the far ends of the spectrum are the least likely to choose each other.

11 Comments

Filed under Arabs, Argentines, Asians, Berbers, Blacks, Cultural Marxists, Culture, East Indians, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Hispanics, Mexicans, North Africans, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Romantic Relationships, Sex, South Asians, Whites

Hillary Clinton on Iran

Here.

Hillary Clinton: Consistent, Tough, and Effective Leadership to Counter Threats from Iran

What threats from Iran? There are no threats from Iran! Iran is not a threat to anyone, not to Europe, not to the Arabs, not the US. Well, they are a threat to the Jews*, ok. So? Are we Jewish? Is America a Jewish country? Are all the nations of the West Jewish countries? I guess so!

See, this is how the Jews have been working for decades now. “All of the enemies of the Jews are the enemies of America,” and “all of the enemies of the Jews are the enemies of all of Europe.” Of course, that lie won’t work with the Arabs for obviously reasons, though the Saudis have been in alliance with the Jews forever now.

The US has fallen for it. The West has fallen for it. Hence, the endless wars for the Jews they have been getting us to fight on their behalf. Clever trick, huh? Smart people.

(((Hillary Clinton))). Screw it, if you’re in with (((them))) you get brackets. The people in bed with them are just as bad as the real deal, and the Jews couldn’t do crap without hundreds of millions of Gentiles backing them to the hilt.

Want more?

Hillary Clinton and Israel: A 30-Year Record of Friendship, Leadership, and Strength

Disgusting!

Like I said, (((Hillary Clinton))

* “The Jews” means Israel, Israel-firsters and neoconservatives. It doesn’t mean merely someone who is Jewish. In fact, under this definition, the vast majority of Jews are actually Gentiles.

5 Comments

Filed under Arabs, Asia, Democrats, Iran, Israel, Jews, Middle East, Neoconservatism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Saudi Arabia, The Jewish Question, US Politics, USA, War