Category Archives: Lebanese

Only Whites Are Expats?

Trash: White are COLONISTS essentially. We do not have the same primitive tribal link to the land that Mestizos or Africans do. So you move to Sydney and write your parents every day on e mail. Maybe a once a year trip.

I know many whites who moved to Australia from California. They did it simply to get away from NAM’s and be in a White individualist country. They were happy to do so…like I was happy to leave Greater Detroit.

First of all, residents of Europe are not colonists at all. They have all lived right where they are. The only White colonists are in South Africa, the US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

And what makes you think Australia is individualist? Last time I checked, it was quite socialist.

And for exactly the same reason that you say Whites leave the US, many people all over the world leave their lousy countries to move to a better country. There is an economic element of course, but there is also the notion that their own country is a Hellhole.

Bottom line is people all over the world move all over the place all the time.

Inside Latin America, there is huge migration. Costa Rica is now full of Nicaraguans. Cuba is full of Jamaicans and Haitians. The Dominican Republic is full of Haitians. Argentina is filling up with Bolivians and Peruvians. Plenty of Colombians have moved to Venezuela. Central Americans move to Mexico. And many Latin Americans have moved to Spain now due to the common language. The Whiter ruling class of Latin America seems to live about half their lives in Spain.

Many Latinos have come to the US and even Canada now. People from all over Latin America come to the US. Most are from Mexico and Central America – mostly from Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras and Costa Rica. From the Caribbean, we have many Cubans, Dominicans, and Haitians. Many South Americans such as Colombians, Brazilians, Venezuelans, Ecuadorians, Chileans, Peruvians, Argentines, Uruguayans, and Bolivians. I have met South Americans from all of these countries in the US.

South Asians pour into the UK, US, Canada and the Gulf states.

Europe is filling up with Black Africans. Many North Africans moved to France and the Netherlands. All of Europe is filling up with Syrians. There are a lot of Iranians in the Nordic states. Turkey is full of Syrians, Crimean Tatars and Kirghiz.

Black Africans flood into South Africa and also the Arab states of North Africa. Libya and Egypt are full of Black Africans, mostly Nigerians. Right now there are some Nigerians in SE Asia and there are quite a few in China. Nigerians appear to be one of the more mobile groups of Africans.

Filipinos flood into China, the US, Australia, the Gulf and Jordan. Chinese move to Australia, the US and Canada. Koreans move to the US. China is full of Koreans.

Palestinians and now Syrians have been living all over the Arab World for some time now. Lebanese move to Australia.  Quite a few Egyptians, Palestinians, Lebanese, Iraqis, Syrians, and Yemenis moved to the US. Many Uighur Chinese have moved to Syria.

Polynesians move to the US and Australia.

Central Asians pour into Europe and the US. Residents of the Stans such as Kazakhstan, Kirghistan, and Uzbekistan and Tajikistan move to Russia.

104 Comments

Filed under Africa, Americas, Arabs, Argentina, Argentines, Asia, Asians, Australia, Blacks, Bolivians, Brazilians, Canada, Caribbean, Central America, Chileans, China, Chinese (Ethnic), Colombians, Colonialism, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Dominicans, Ecuadorians, Egypt, Egyptians, Eurasia, Europe, Europeans, Filipinos, France, Guatemalans, Haitians, Hispanics, Hondurans, Immigration, Iranians, Iraqis, Jamaicans, Jordan, Koreans, Latin America, Lebanese, Libya, Mexico, Middle East, Near East, Near Easterners, Netherlands, Nigerians, North Africa, North Africans, North America, Northeast Asians, Oceanians, Palestinians, Peruvians, Political Science, Polynesians, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Russia, SE Asians, Sociology, South Africa, South America, South Asians, Spain, Syria, Syrians, Turkey, Uighurs, Uruguayans, USA, Venezuela, Whites, Yemenis

An Analysis of the Iraqi Resistance Part 5 –

I have decided to publish my most recent work, An Analysis of the Iraqi Resistance, on my blog. Previously, this piece was used for the research for “An Insiders Look at the Iraqi Resistance” a major piece that appeared on the Islamist website Jihadunspun.com (JUS got the copyright but I did the research). That long-running top-billed piece is now down, but it is still archived on Alexa here . Note that this material is copyrighted and all reproduction for profit is forbidden under copyright laws.

For information about reprinting or purchasing one-time rights to this work, email me. This article is an in-depth analysis of the Iraqi resistance and is continuously being revised. It is presently 58 pages long in total. It lists all known Iraqi resistance groups who have ever fought in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad until about 2005 and includes a brief description and analysis of each group. There are separate sections covering Size, Tendencies, Motivations, Structure, Foreign Assistance, Foreign Fighters, Regional Characteristics, Regions, Cities or Towns Controlled by the Resistance, Major Attacks and List of Groups by Tendency.

The article was intended to be a political science-type analysis of the Iraqi Resistance, and I tried not to take sides one way or the other. I used a tremendous amount of source material, mostly publicly available news reports from the Internet. Obviously, in an area like this you are dealing with a ton of disinformation along with the real deal, so I spent a lot of time trying to sort out the disinfo from the relative truth.

The problem is that one cannot simply discount sources of information such as Israeli and US intelligence, US military reports, reporting from the resistance itself, Islamist websites, etc. Of course these sources are loaded with disinfo and false analysis, but they also tend to have a lot of truth mixed in as well. In writing a piece like this, you pull together all the sources and get sort of a “Gestalt” view of the situation. When you examine all the sources at once in toto, you can kind of sort out the disinfo from the more factual material. Admittedly it’s a hit or miss game, but that’s about as good as we can do source-wise in the inherently hazy subject area of an underground guerrilla war.

Interviews with resistance cadre by the mainstream Western media were given particular prominence in this piece.

FOREIGN FIGHTERS

Foreign Fighters: In Summer 2003, there were some reports that Syrians were said to often outnumber locals in those carrying out attacks in various locales, including Fallujah, Ramadi, Baghdad, Baqubah, Balad, Tikrit and Mosul. However, these reports are contradicted by reports in 11-03 indicating most fighters in most parts of Iraq have been Iraqis. Most of the foreign fighters in the post-major combat phase (after 5-1-03) have been Syrians and Lebanese, and many of the rest are Jordanians, Yemenis, Palestinians, Kuwaitis, Saudis and North Africans – often Egyptians and Algerians.

In 12-03, Syrians were still fairly common amongst fighters in Husaybah, near the Syrian border. After the major battle in Fallujah from April-May 04, a group of 50-100 largely Syrian Sunni extreme fundamentalist fighters seemed to have control over part of Fallujah’s Jolan District.

Many of these could better be described as Arab nationalists than Islamists, and a number of them were not even particularly religious. Dozens of Arab fighters have come from France and hundreds from Europe. In addition to the nations above, others came from Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo, Bangladesh, Qatar, Sudan, Somalia, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya. Saudi dissident leaders stated that 5,000 Saudi jihadis were present in Baghdad alone in 11-03. US intelligence believed there were up to 15,000 Saudis alone in Iraq in 9-03. Saudis reportedly played a role in the suicide bombings of the ICRC and Baghdad Hotel.

A Palestinian, born in Iraq, a resident of the Al Jihad neighborhood of Baghdad, carried out the suicide car bomb attack on the upscale restaurant in the Karrada District of Baghdad on New Year’s Eve, 2003. In 11-03, the Jordanian and US governments said that they had identified at least 120 Jordanians in the Sunni Triangle fighting US forces. There were reports from Israeli intelligence that 100’s of Kuwaiti (anti-Kuwaiti regime) Islamists were heading into Iraq in 11-03. These reports were verified by Iraqi sources with AQ connections and former Iraqi military officers in Basra, who said AQ was using the Safwan Crossing because it was the easiest one to get across.

Other areas on the Kuwait-Iraq border were also being used. Before the war, the Kuwait-Iraq border was protected by an extensive fence built by the Kuwaitis. During the 2003 US invasion, US forces smashed through the wall in 9 places. In these 9 locations, crossing the border into Iraq is a simple, low-risk stroll.

These sources also said that AQ was also using the wide-open Saudi-Iraqi border. The porous Saudi-Iraq border has no fences at all and there are many Bedouin guides in that area who will ferry anyone across the border, no questions asked, for only $200. After crossing into Iraq from Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, AQ jihadis usually headed to Zubayr or Abu Al-Khasib, towns south of Basra with a substantial Sunni population.

Zubayr in particular was a popular destination due to a high concentration of Sunni Islamists. According to US and Israeli intelligence, Iran filtered in about 11,000-12,000 Iranian fighters to the Shia South, mostly Revolutionary Guards, during the Karbala pilgrimage in Spring 2003. However, this group has so far, for the most part, merely been working to gain influence in the region peacefully, at least for now. They have been involved in only a very few armed actions. They may be stockpiling arms in the South, along with other Iraqi Shia armed groupings, in case they need them later. A number of Iranian fighters have been captured in the guerrilla war phase. Their ideology and political affiliation are unknown.

However, one of the suicide attackers in the 12-11 bombing of the US base in Ramadi caused 15 US casualties was a Lebanese Palestinian member of Hezbollah splinter faction. In 2-04, Iraqi puppet authorities said that about 500 Hezbollah had come into Iraq in 2003, almost all going to the South, but for the most part they were just engaging in political work and not armed activity. However, the source also said that “scores” of Hezbollah had come to Iraq since mid-December. These Hezbollah were heading to northern Iraq to work with AAI. Hezbollah operatives were said to be providing training and guidance to AAI members; few had participated in attacks.

Sources in Pakistan claim that the Taliban, al-Qaeda (International Islamic Front), Hezb-e-Islami, and HUM (Pakistani Kashmiri fighters) all sent fighters to Iraq, with most of them coming after major combat ended. Two Taliban guerrilas were apprehended in 9-03 coming over the Iranian border into Iraq northeast of Khanaquin through the Kurdish mountains. Another Afghan was caught trying to plant a roadside bomb near the Dura Power Plant in Baghdad in 2-04.

By 1-04, indigenous Iraqi groups were employing smugglers to ferry foreign fighters across the Jordanian, Syrian and Saudi Arabian borders into Iraq. Once inside Iraq, foreign fighters are often transported to Ramadi or Fallujah, 2 of the hubs of the foreign fighter network in Iraq. A 3-29-04 interview with a Blackwater USA (the mercenary firm that lost 4 employees in the famous mutilation-burning attack in Fallujah 2 days later) mercenary based near Fallujah said that many of the attacks around Fallujah had turned out to be Jordanians, Syrians, Iranians, and Chechens.
****

****
Foreign Fighters During And Before Major Combat (March 19-May 1): Many foreign fighters came before and during major combat. An attempt was made to put them under central command towards the end of major combat. By the fall of Baghdad, the central command of the Arab mujahedin stated there were 8,000 foreign fighters in Baghdad alone. They took heavy casualties in the fighting, and many just went home after Baghdad fell. But in the postwar phase, they seem to be coming in again.

A large number of Palestinians came during major combat, about 1,500-2,000 (according to sources in the camp below) or 4,000+ (according to Newsweek), mostly from a splinter Al Aqsa Martyr’s Brigades faction aligned with Syria and located in the Ein Al Hilweh Refugee Camp in southern Lebanon. The leader of this faction is reportedly named Colonel Munir Maqdah. About 30-40 more Al Aqsa Martyr’s Brigades fighters came from just one town in the West Bank. Hamas and Islamic Jihad each sent factions of ~300 fighters. Islamic Jihad’s fighters came through Lebanon.

Fighters from Romania (Communists) and Vietnam (Communists), Indonesia (Islamists), Russia (mixed ideology – Communists, nationalists, Islamists), Dagestan (8,000 Islamists) and Malaysia (Islamists) reportedly announced plans to go fight in Iraq during the major combat phase, but none of them seem to have made it. Hezbollah sent about ~800 fighters, and they continued to trickle in long after major combat ended.

One source claimed that Lashkar-E-Toiba (LET), a Pakistani/Kashmiri group active in Kashmir, participated in the major combat phase. LET cadre in Saudi Arabia (LET purportedly maintains a Saudi presence) claim the group sent a number of fighters, possibly 100-200, during the major combat phase, and suffered casualties.
*****

****
Al Qaeda (AQ) Foreign Fighters: AQ has had an open presence in Iraq only recently. In the couple months before the war, when conflict seemed inevitable, small groupings of AQ were allowed by the Iraqi state to form cells in Baghdad, but told to stay clear of Saddam’s regime. They were allowed in on the basis that war seemed inevitable and anyone who wanted to fight the Americans was basically welcome. This group numbered only 30-40. They fought during the war and remained afterwards, when they were apparently reinforced by others. Many of the AQ who came to Iraq during and after major combat may have come in via Iran, either across the border east of Baghdad, or to the north through the Kurdish areas.

A few others supposedly came across the Turkish border into the Kurdish zone. Some may have crossed the Saudi and more recently the Kuwaiti borders. Few, if any, appear to have crossed the Syrian or Jordanian borders. The number of AQ currently in Iraq is very controversial, with estimates ranging from 300-15,000+. AQ sources in Iraq said there were 4,500 foreign jihadis in Iraq in 11-03, most of them from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen and the other Gulf countries. It seems certain that there were at least 100’s of AQ fighters in Iraq as of 12-03. In a 12-03 interview, MA cadre said there were at least 150 AQ in Iraq, with almost of them coming after the fall of Baghdad.

They moved around the country regularly. “One or two” of them might participate in an operation with a local resistance group before moving on to another part of Iraq. MA cadre acknowledged that “1 or 2” AQ cadre had participated in “a few” MA attacks before moving on. In 12-03, sources in Pakistan said that AQ was pulling out 1/3 of its 1,000-man force out of Afghanistan and directing them to Iraq. That would mean ~350 more AQ heading to Iraq. The whole question of AQ’s role in the Iraq War or the guerrila war that followed is poorly understood, probably due to the shadowy nature of the group.

Leave a comment

Filed under Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Arab Nationalism, Arabs, Asia, Bangladesh, Caucasus, Chechnya, Dagestan, East Africa, Egyptians, Eurasia, Europe, France, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Iraq War, Islam, Jordanians, Kashmir, Kosovo, Kurdistan, Kuwaitis, Lebanese, Lebanon, Left, Libya, Malaysia, Marxism, Middle East, Morocco, Nationalism, Near East, North Africa, North Africans, Palestinians, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Radical Islam, Religion, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, SE Asia, Shiism, Somalia, South Asia, Sudan, Sunnism, Syria, Syrians, Tunisia, USA, Vietnam, War, Yemen, Yemenis

Black Genes and Black People in North Africa and the Arab World

Another William Playfair Web writes: Well the Saudis had East African slaves, but that doesn’t mean your average Saudi really mixed with them. By that logic White-Americans would be mixed with West African.

A lot of Saudis have significant Black admixture. I believe that Saudis are 17% admixed with Black on average. I have seen photos of Saudi women and some of them were quite Black. But they also had straight hair and they were very beautiful which led me to think that they were Blacks with significant White admixture. Seriously, there are Black Saudi women who are some of the most beautiful women you have ever seen.

Prince Bandar is simply a mulatto, period. He is 1/2 Black. But no one cares too much about race in Saudi Arabia because most are so mixed. If you are a Saudi and practice Sunni Islam, hopefully Wahhabi Sunni Islam, you are simply a Saudi national, and no one has anything against you. There have been some jokes about Bandar along the lines that he is a Black or “slave.” Unfortunately the words for “Black” and “slave” are the same in Arabic. I believe that the word is abd.

However, US Blacks may very well not be accepted in parts of the region. In Iraq, the Iraqis objected very much being ruled over by US Black soldiers. Iraqis were quoted saying, “It’s so humiliating to be ruled by these Black soldiers.” That was actually an impetus for much of the insurgency right there. There are some pretty Black Iraqis down around Basra though.

The Gulf in general is heavily mixed with Blacks. The figures range from 8-21%. Kuwait is 8% and Yemen is 21%.

However, I am around quite a few Yemenis, and I haven’t met a Black one yet. To me, Yemenis are just White. They are part of my family. They look like me, and it seems that they think and act like me too. There are much more Black people in Yemen (Yemen is actually 40% Black), but they are treated much worse, and there is a lot of discrimination against them. However, the discrimination is on a relatively moderate level. I have seen photos of these Yemeni Blacks, and they look pretty admixed to me, more like Ethiopians or Somalis.

The UAE is 19% Black. Even Palestinians have some of Black in them. Lebanese are 2% Black. Egypt is more Black – 13% on average.

There are definitely White Egyptians. There are also a lot of mulatto Egyptians. I dated a mulatto Egyptian for a while in the US. She was extremely admixed to the point where she had those freckles you often see in some seriously mixed mulattos.

She told me that Egyptian society was not really racist, and in fact, Egyptian men felt that Black women were “hot” as in sexy and they were widely desired at least as mistresses if not as wives. In Egypt, the Whiter women are seen as colder and more “wife material.” A similar dynamic unfolds in Brazil where the hottest and sexiest women of all are seen as the mulattos. Down in the South of Egypt, things are surely much Black. But even down there, the Blacks look seriously admixed.

There are Blacks in Libya and Morocco at the very least, and across North Africa, people are on average 13% Black. I met a Moroccan woman who was White for sure, but her skin was quite brown. Clearly she had some Black admixture, but at low levels of Black admixture, the White phenotype is not much affected and the only Black you see if maybe darker skin and more Black looking hair.

Even at 1/3 Black, many humans still look shockingly White. Further, many mulattos are barely even classifiable in terms of race. These are the people that you look at and think, “What the Hell race is this person anyway!?” If you dare to ask them, you may find that they are pure mulatto. It is not unusual for pure mulatto women to be very beautiful.

In Libya, significant Black admixture is just normal but the result is more someone who looks like Ghaddafi, who was a White man with some Black admixture. Quite a few Libyans look much Whiter than Ghaddafi and it is not rare for them to be indistinguishable from Europeans. However, pure Africans are quite discriminated against in Libya.

I met a few Africans in Libya on the Net. They told me that they were mostly Nigerians and that there were many Nigerians in North Africa, especially in Libya and Egypt. They also told me that the Libyans hated them and discriminated against these Nigerians a lot, both on the basis of their being Christians and also that they were seen as “Blacks.” There were quite a few Blacks involved in the Libyan Civil War. I believe that they came from the south of Libya and some may have even been recent Sub Saharan immigrants. At any rate, most were fighting for Ghaddafi because Ghaddafi as a Pan Africanist had been very good for the Blacks of Libya.

If you get down towards the south of Algeria, the country gets pretty Black, but your average Algerian just looks like a White person from Europe. Many Moroccans look very White. I was friends with a Moroccan woman for a while, and she as simply a White woman. She could have been a Southern European without a problem. However they were defeated in battles around Misrata, many were taken prisoner and quite a few were just executed. There seemed to be a racial component to the mistreatment.

Black genes in the Arab World are a very sensitive. It is like it is ok to have some Black genes – maybe 1-21%, but at some point, you are just too Black, and you may run into problems. However, even purer Blacks, if they are indeed say native Moroccan Muslims, may be treated quite well. I knew a very African man from Benin who was staying in Morocco for a while, and he told me that the Moroccans treated him very well and did not discriminate against him for being Christian or Black at all. He was Catholic and he told me that the attended Catholic mass in Casablanca every week,and this was not a problem at all.

The Arab World and especially North Africa is quite familiar with Black people and Black genes. Nevertheless, the number of more or less pure Blacks in this region is not large. What is interesting is that the Blacks in North Africa and the Arab World do not behave significantly differently from the other North Africans or Arabs. I attribute this to the Superculture called Islam which significantly attenuates or even prevents many Black genetic tendencies from emerging.

It is important to note that in my HBD world, people are simply born with tendencies. These tendencies can either occur naturally or be highly magnified, but in some cases, a Superculture may suppress some genetic tendencies so much that they do not even emerge or emerge only in some attenuated fashion. This is why I am not a hereditarian or an environmentalist but I am a mixture of the two, and, sorry to insult anyone on here, but I consider both hereditarians and environmentalists to be complete idiots. The debate as degenerated badly into two opposing factions of serious idiocy with almost no one in the middle, as with so many idiotically polarized and politicized debates in the West.

53 Comments

Filed under Africa, Algeria, Arabs, Black-White (Mulattos), Blacks, Catholicism, Christianity, Culture, Egypt, Egyptians, Iraq War, Iraqis, Islam, Lebanese, Libya, Middle East, Mixed Race, Moroccans, Morocco, Nigerians, North Africa, North Africans, Palestinians, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Saudi Arabia, Sunnism, War, Yemen, Yemenis

Cruel People in a Cruel Land: Human Geography in Arabia

One wonders why a particular “megaculture” seems to have arisen in the Middle East where Druze, Alawi, Arabs, Jews and Persians seems to share a similar cultural mindset via diffusion, probably originally reflecting the nature of their homelands.

I am not sure what is going on here, but if you look at the region it is a pretty nasty area. Resources are poor and scarce. In resource poor regions, culture is often characterized by nomadic grazing, robbing and raiding cultures.

On the other hand, they can be extremely hospitable. This is probably also down to geography. We are talking about a desert here. In desert, what comes around, goes around. The inhospitable or selfish man is soon enough dead. Even if you are basically an opportunistic raider sort, you need to live by a desert code of kindness to strangers. Why? Due to a saintly conscience? No, due to your own needs.

Why must you be kindly and welcoming to the stranger wandering in from the desert? Because if you do not take him in, the desert is so harsh that he may soon die. Still, why take him in? Just to be nice? No. Because as you are a desert man yourself, you may soon find yourself in similar straits, wandering alone in the desert with only the kindness of strangers to rely on between you and the vultures. When you are wandering about in the desert, you want to be able to rely on hospitality to save your own life, so to return the favor in the interest of a general culture of needs-based reciprocity, you also take strangers in yourself, as you may soon be one yourself one day.

In the desert, you have your family, or you have nothing. There is no larger society. In fact, there is no society at all. Thatcher should have been born in the Najd. Yet the desert is a perversion and partial antithesis of Thatcherism. There is no real society, but you are a small-time collectivist, or you are a corpse.

Radical individualism in the desert will result in the deaths of all. This is why radical free market capitalism has gone over so poorly in the region. In this region, nobody wants this type of economics, not the Jews, nor the Arabs, the Persians, the Berbers or the Christians. Only the Lebanese Maronites, who insist that they are not Arabs and are instead Rome-gazing individualistic Europeans stranded in the Levant, promote Libertarianism and radical free-market economics. Everywhere else it is anathema. The Middle Easterner is a natural socialist.

Even the mindset of the Maronite is a conceit. Spend a bit of time around them, and in spite of all of the Europeanist posing and posturing, it becomes clear soon enough that these are children of Arabia as loathe as they are to admit it, and no quantity of statues of Mary will change that.

Hence families stay together for protection and form alliances against marauding strangers.

The desert is a cruel land, and it is not unusual for deserts to breed cruel and brutal humans. The Arabs are as harsh, unforgiving, cruel and brutal as the land in which they reside. They often show contempt for other living things – livestock get their throats slit, wild animals are often exterminated, plant communities razed – but in this way, they are only reflecting the desert itself. The desert itself kills the domestic and wild animals and wild plants that live there without even trying. In fact, the desert itself is a deathtrap, a sinkhole of murder and bones. The desert is a killer. That place isn’t even trying to keep you alive. The desert is trying to kill just about anything in it.

Anything surviving in the desert is there by wiles alone and not by the grace of the land. Hence the wily Arab, still alive and aging well in the blazing, blowing dunes.

11 Comments

Filed under Alawi, Anthropology, Arabs, Capitalism, Cultural, Culture, Druze, Economics, Geography, Iranians, Islam, Jews, Lebanese, Middle East, Near Easterners, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Shiism, Socialism

Hezbollah Fighting in Homs

Video here.

Fascinating video shows Hezbollah fighting in Homs. At first I thought it was Al Qusayr, but I think it is Homs instead. The video was all in Arabic, so it was hard to figure out what they were talking about. Here you see the high spirits of the Hezbollah fighters as they move into the bombed out, ruined city.

Take note of the horrific footage where the fighters find a room full of men, bound and executed. Who executed them? Who knows? My guess would be rebels, but it’s hard to say for sure.

At one point, they meet a Christian, still living in the ruins of his home, who complains that the rebels were vicious to the Christians.

Towards the end of the video, Hezbollah takes a couple of prisoners and seems to treat them fairly.

Hezbollah has pumped a large force into Syria, and I think that was the right thing to do. Hezbollah’s army is so good that they are quickly turning the tide in favor of the Syrian regime. Their victory at Al Qusayr was a huge defeat for the rebels. Now Hezbollah will move onto Homs and then onto Aleppo and Irbil Province. If the rebels are defeated in the north, the war will for all intents and purposes be over.

The Arab Sunni world is outraged that Hezbollah has gotten involved in the Syrian Civil War. Some Gulf countries have recently started throwing out Lebanese Shia who are residing there in revenge for Hezbollah’s role in Syria. This war is increasingly turning into a Sunni-Shia sectarian conflict.

14 Comments

Filed under Arabs, Christianity, Islam, Lebanese, Middle East, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Shiism, Sunnism, Syria, War

Anti-neocon Book Scuttled

According to the rather dubious Wayne Madsen Report, planned English and French editions of a book written by German journalist Jürgen Cain Külbel, “Mordakte Hariri,” (first published in German, then in Arabic) have been scuttled after it was attacked by Tony Blair, the U.S. Committee for a Free Lebanon (USCFL) and various Israel Lobby-linked groups in the US, Britain, Israel.

The USCFL is a neoconservative-funded organization with strong links to the Israel Lobby. Its main players are Lebanese Maronites who have fled Lebanon and are linked to the former Phalangist Catholic fascist forces in Lebanon. When one talks of the “poor Christians in Lebanon” it is useful to note who exactly we are talking about.

Unfortunately, many of the Lebanese Catholic Maronites are associated with a reactionary, fascist-like grouping called the Phalangists. This group is loosely modeled after Mediterranean-style Catholic blood-and-soil nationalist fascism of the Greek, Mussolini, Salazar and especially Franco types.

As the Angry Arab said of one of the most prominent Phalangists, Pierre Gemayal, who was recently assassinated, his family (the founders of the Phalangists) did more than anyone else to bring fascism to Lebanon.

The Maronites are apparently not descended from the ancient Phoenicians as their blood and soil crap would have it but instead are descended from an Arab tribe that resisted the conversion to Islam and moved to Lebanon around 700 years ago. Although they are culturally Arabized and speak Arabic, they often refuse to be called Arabs and regard it as an insult.

Many of them spoke Aramaic until 200 years ago or so. They tend to live in the mountainous center of Lebanon. Centuries of resistance while hiding in their mountain roundabouts, against Muslim aggression and attempts at forced conversion have radicalized them in an anti-Arab and anti-Muslim manner.

When the Crusaders invaded the region centuries ago, tragically, many of the Maronites sided with the invaders against their Arab brothers. And so it has been ever since. The Maronites have always looked West, not East, and saw themselves as part of Europe, not the Arab World.

This shows even in their religious affiliation – linking with Rome instead of the Eastern Orthodox as many Eastern Catholics have done. The arrival of Israeli Jewish settler-colonial invaders in Palestine was cheered by many Maronites, as they were seen as a European colonial group injecting European culture and values into the Arabized and Islamicized region.

Many Maronites, instead of resisting the colonization of Lebanon by the French, sided with the colonizers along with many other Christians and Jews in the Arab World. The very state of Lebanon was lopped off of Syria by the French in order to create a fake “Christian state” where one had never existed.

Syria and pan-Syrianists have resisted this severing of the motherland ever since. The purpose of this diversion about the Maronites is not to bash them, but instead to regard them as the inevitable victims of history. There is another way to be a Christian in Lebanon, and not all Maronites have gone the way of the Phalange.

Other identities are possible – it is not necessary to wallow in fascism. The Greek Orthodox have embraced a form of pan-Syrianism that, while problematic, is at least anti-imperialist, pro-Arab and patriotic.

Anyway, back to the book. Külbel’s book strongly suggests that former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated not by Syria but by neoconservative elements trying to spark a civil war that in Lebanon that would ultimately benefit both Israel and the pro-Israeli Phalangists.

This theory is highly dubious. No one knows who assassinated Hariri. The killing is being blamed on an obscure radical Islamist – and a strange Islamist group claimed responsibility for it – but the argument is that the Islamist was duped by Syrian intelligence. This “patsy” argument is currently not proven.

Possibly Syria did it – I would not put it past them – but the evidence is not really there yet. Hariri signed on to the imperialist and Zionist plot known as UN Security Council Resolution 1559, which threw Syrian forces out of Lebanon and more importantly, demanded that Hezbollah disarm its forces.

Syria has one main objective in the region – the return of the Golan Heights illegally stolen by Israel in the 1967 War. In pursuit of that goal, it funds Hezbollah as a means of keeping up the heat on Israel.

Syria will sell out everyone and everything – Arabism, the Palestinians, the works, to get the Golan back. 1559 would have resulted in the loss of Syria’s last card in its deck to get back the Golan. By signing onto 1559, Hariri may have signed his death warrant.

Madsen reports that neoconservative propaganda efforts against Western journalists are run out of numerous blogs. In particular, GIYUS (Give Israel Your United Support), funded by the World Union of Jewish Students (WUJS) was singled out.

A pro-Israeli Lobby cabal has also been revealed as operating in the German media, including Der Spiegel, Die Welt, and the NTV network (a CNN affiliate). Victims of their character assassination charades include Elfriede Jelinek (a Nobel laureate for Literature), actor Sir Peter Ustinov, and singer Cat Stevens.

5 Comments

Filed under Arabs, Christianity, Colonialism, Conservatism, Europeans, Fascism, History, Israel, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Jews, Journalism, Lebanese, Lebanon, Middle East, Middle Eastern, Neoconservatism, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Settler-Colonialism, Syria, War

Very Nice New Piece on Race in Mexico

Here.

The site is actually named after me, which has me shaking my head in amazement.

The piece, and the site itself, was inspired by my site, in particular my pieces on race in Mexico and on the major and minor races of man.

Most Mexicans are mestizos, but there are large minorities of more or less pure Europeans and Indians. He describes most of the significant White groups in Mexico and puts Whites at ~17% of the population, higher than some other recent estimates.

Although most Whites have Spanish roots, there are also significant French, Portuguese, German, Italians and Irish minorities. I met a young woman who is Mexican-American, but she is mostly Portuguese. The village she was born in in Mexico is made up of primarily Portuguese people! There are also quite a few Jews in Mexico.

More or less pure Indians make up ~12% of the population. This seems a bit lower than some other estimates. They are very different and speak up to ~90 different languages. In Yucutan, many Indians are actually mestizos, but they still speak Indian languages and identify as Indian.

Mestizos make up ~67% of the population, and are divided between Euro-mestizos, Indo-mestizos and pure mestizos. He has a nice map towards the end dividing Mexico by state on the basis of which of these 3 groups predominates in the state.

There are what he calls 3 occult roots in Mexico: Blacks, Asians and Arabs.

The first root, the Blacks, has its basis in African slaves who were brought to the east coast of Mexico. This affair did not last long as a slave who married a free Mexican had children who were free. So, slavery quickly went out and the Blacks disappeared via mixed breeding as slaves quickly took free, non-Black Mexicans as spouses.

The result was that pure Blacks nearly disappeared and the remainder are mostly mulattos, zambos (Indian-Black) and triracials. In addition, your average Mexican mestizo now is ~4-5% Black, although in general, it does not show up on phenotype. The author has a photo of some Mexican Blacks that shows that they are heavily mulattoized. They also look quite attractive, I must say.

The next root is Asians. In the early days, quite a few Filipinos came to Mexico when it was part of Spain via the colony of the Philippines. By this time, they are heavily mixed with other races in Mexico. In the early 20th Century, many Chinese came to Mexico. Unfortunately, most were tossed out in the 1930’s in a wave of nativism, but in Mexico city and Mexicali, there are still quite a few Chinese and part-Chinese, as the Chinese also married heavily into the mix.

The last root is Arabs. Most of these Arabs are Christians from Mesopotamia, the Levant and Egypt. They came in response to anti-Christian attacks waged by the Ottoman Empire at the end of WW1. Since they came from the Ottoman Empire, many Mexicans referred to them as “Turks.” Carlos Slim, Mexico’s richest man, is Lebanese, as is Salma Hayek.

All three of these occult roots each make up ~1% of Mexico’s population.

There have been various studies of Mexico’s admixture, but they tend to come up with quite different results. I agree with the the author that the best studies show Mexico’s genome to be 52% White, 44% Indian and 4% Black. So Mexico is probably just barely a majority-White country, but it is best describes ad a White-Indian mixed race country.

Most self-identified Mexican Indians have some White in them, in addition to a bit of Black. Percentages range from 1% White, 1% Black among Guerrero Zapotecs to 37% White and Black among Huastecs.

The author notes that Mexican-Americans have traditionally been a lot Whiter than Mexicans, because they tend to come from the Whiter regions of Northern Mexico. Southwest Mexicans have usually tested out at 66% White and 34% Indian. California Mexicans have gone from 68% White, 30% Indian and 2% Black in 1984 to 47% White, 41% Indian and 12% Black in 2000. The reason for the high Black % is not known, but it should be clear to any Californian that the Mexicans in the state have gotten a lot darker recently. In recent years, many more Mexicans have come from further south, whereas in the past, they tended to come from the Whiter states near the border.

A photo on his site of Chicano gangbangers shows that they are mostly White, something we have always known here.

Towards the end he makes up a list of racial categories of Mexicans, following my lead in this piece, even adopting my formulae and marking scheme.

He lists five major races in Mexico – Whites, Indians, Mestizos, Blacks and Asians.

No major disagreement there.

I have been regarded as a mad splitter in my piece above. One critic said that if Lindsay doesn’t stop soon, he’s going to have as many races as there are languages. This criticism, in addition to endless bashing by race deniers, hurt my feelings, as a result, I have made few new updates to my races of man post.

However, the author is much worse of a splitter than I have ever been, splitting off all sorts of groups that I probably would not have split off. Hence, his scheme is better seen as a view towards Mexican ethnies or ethnic groups than races per se. For instance, he divides Mexican mestizos and Mexican Whites into quite a few different races, on what basis I am not sure. Are they ethnies? Quite possibly. Races? Dunno about that.

In my scheme, I actually adopted a conservative scheme in which I tried not to split off new races unless I couldn’t help it. I wanted some significant genetic distance between a group or ethny before I would split them off. Hence, I lumped most Europeans into a single race because there isn’t much genetic distance between them. I am wondering if the author has any genetic data to back up splitting many of these groups into different races, because I only split based on hard genetic data.

At the end, I think we have two different schemes here. One is dividing races based on hard genetics and the other is splitting racers and also ethnies on the basis of partly genetics but also subjective factors. On the other hand, there probably is not much genetic data on the various different Mexican mestizos and Whites.

All in all, a very commendable piece, the fruit of long research. By the way, the photos are excellent. Make sure to check them out.

11 Comments

Filed under Americas, Amerindians, Arabs, Asians, Black-White (Mulattos), Blacks, California, Chinese (Ethnic), Christianity, Europeans, Filipinos, French, Genetics, Germans, Hispanics, Irish, Italians, Jews, Latin America, Lebanese, Mestizos, Mexicans, Mexico, Mixed Race, North America, Portuguese, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Scholarship, SE Asians, USA, West, Whites, Zambos

Street Gangs of Melbourne

Interesting that these are mostly Whites. The gang members are apparently all Lebanese Muslims. They also rape women, often European White women, similar to the behavior of the Muslims of Europe who are from Iraq, North Africa and Somalia. Curiously, there are also many Lebanese Christians in Australia, but they cause almost zero problems. Once again, it looks like the main factor driving the gang crime is the presence of Muslims in a Western society. For some reason, young Muslims in the West are often angry at infidel society and lash out by engaging in crime and forming gangs.

These gangs seem somewhat lightweight compared to our Black and Hispanic gangs, possibly due to strict gun control in Australia, but nevertheless, they don’t seem like very nice people. 15 gang stabbings in a weekend, even in a big city, is quite a few.

Whose bright idea was it to bring these idiots into the West?

41 Comments

Filed under Arabs, Australia, Blacks, Christianity, Crime, Europeans, Immigration, Iraqis, Islam, Law, Lebanese, Organized Crime, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Social Problems, Sociology, Somalis, Whites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Stark: What are your thoughts on dual citizenship?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Lindsay: Is it really 2 million?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Lindsay: No, no, no…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Lindsay: First things first.

Robert Stark: Practical solutions that are doable…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Lindsay: Those are not the recent immigrants!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Stark: Thank you for being on, Robert.

Robert Lindsay: Sure.

36 Comments

Filed under Affirmative Action, American Samoa, Americas, Animals, Anti-Racism, Anti-Semitism, Arabs, Armenians, Blacks, California, Canids, Caribbean, Carnivores, Chechens, Civil Rights, Colonialism, Conservatism, Crime, Culture, Discrimination, Dominicans, Education, Environmentalism, Europe, Europeans, Germany, Government, Guatemalans, Hispanics, Hondurans, Illegal, Immigration, Imperialism, Intelligence, Iranians, Iraqis, Ireland, Jews, Latin America, Law, Lebanese, Left, Legal, Liberalism, Mammals, Mexicans, Micronesia, Middle East, Moroccans, Near Easterners, Nordicism, North Africans, North America, Pacific, Political Science, Politics, Polynesia, Procyonids, Psychology, Puerto Rico, Raccoons, Race Realism, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Republicans, Salvadorans, Sane Pro-White, Saudi Arabia, Syrians, The Jewish Question, Turks, US Politics, USA, Useless Western Left, War, West, White Nationalism, White Racism, Whites

Wikipedia Jews Redux

Repost from the old site.

I’ve been informed that the Wikipedia Jews (click the Wikipedia Jews category at the end of the post for more) have been successful, incredibly, at eliminating an entire Wikipedia category called Jewish Businesspeople. The list had 550 names on until a while ago, and now it has zero. The Wikipedia Jews win again. The crusade to get rid of it was led by Jayjg, one of the Wikipedia Jews’ top henchmen.

Now the Wikipedia Jews are going after the list of Jewish Sportspeople. For what reason, I haven’t the faintest idea.

A little background. The Jewish Businessmen category was eliminated by the Wikipedia Jews in order to hide the truth about Jewish success in the US. Jews have been very successful in this country, and reportedly 50% of the richest Americans are Jewish. The Wikipedia Jews are trying to hide the story of Jewish success in America because it is common fodder for anti-Semites.

All through the centuries in the ghettos of Europe, wanted Jewish criminals were always hidden by the Jews. Why? Probably in part due to fear that a Jew accused of a crime would set off a pogrom. The same mindset is afoot here with the Wikipedia. Knowledge of Jewish business success in the US, it is feared, may feed anti-Semitism in the US. Letting this information get out is like “trying to start a pogrom”.

When I was on Usenet, every time a Jew would relate something uncomplimentary about Jews, for instance, the blatant racism of Hasidim they knew, the others would actually scream that: “What are you trying to do? Start a pogrom?”

Jews can talk about this stuff behind closed doors, but please, not when the Gentiles are listening. This is why the Israeli press is much more critical about Jews and Israel than the US press is. The Hebrew language press is the most uninhibited of all, because they assume that no Gentiles are reading it.

My mother went to school on the South Side of Chicago in a mostly Jewish school, apparently one of the same ones that Barack Obama now sends his kids to. Whenever a Jewish criminal was captured, the Jewish kids, many of whom still spoke Yiddish at home, would always say, “Oh, this is a bad day for the Jews!” She never heard of any other ethnic group saying such a thing.

What she describes is what Kevin MacDonald calls Jewish hyperethnocentrism. Understanding Jewish ultratribalism and hyperethnocentrism is one of the keys to the riddle of Jewish Question.

The deletion of the Jewish Sportspeople category is much stranger. The stereotype of the Jew is that he is a wimpy intellectual, he’s not much of an athlete, and he would rather run than fight.

Israel’s bristling, in-your-face, land-working, salt of the Earth, fight-to-the-death Sabras were supposed to put an end to all of that. On Usenet, Jewish ultranationalists loved to wave the few Jewish athletes in everyone’s faces. “See? We’re not all neurotic, myopic bookworms!” they seemed to shout.

The recent Wikipedia article on Samir Kuntar is another example of the Wikipedia Jews and their allies running amok. Kuntar is a Lebanese guerrilla formerly with Abu Abbas’ notorious Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) who has been in an Israeli prison for the past 29 years. He participated in a raid on Nahariya, Israel in 1979 that went down as one of the more grotesque and criminal Palestinian terror attacks.

I won’t go into the lurid details of this attack, although, after extensive reading about the incident, I finally learned that the purpose of the attack was not to wantonly murder Jewish parents and their toddlers, but to capture some Israelis as hostages to trade for Palestinian prisoners.

When their getaway was thwarted, yes, Kuntar killed Danny and Einat Haran. The description of the killings is pretty horrible, but one wonders exactly how the Israelis were able to figure out down to the last detail every word uttered and motion undertaken by Kuntar and his victims, since the two Israeli hostages were killed, two of the terrorists were killed, and only Kuntar and another terrorist were captured.

Kuntar has always maintained that the killings did not go down as described, and that the Harans were killed by Israeli bullets in the shootout on the beach.

The Wikipedia article on Kuntar is a wreck. There are long, windy passages describing the Israeli account (They figured this out how?) of the killings, complete with emotional and heartrending prose.

A look at the Discussion page shows there was a huge fight over whether to call Kuntar a terrorist. Wikipedia is not supposed to use the word terrorist to describe anyone.

AnonMoos, a notorious US neoconservative, wildly pro-Israel, Gentile Democrat I know from Usenet, has apparently landed on Wikipedia, is now part of the Wikipedia Jews team (some of the worst of the Wikipedia Jews are Gentiles, so the name is somewhat misleading).

The wreckers of the article are mostly Jewish and/or Israelis.

Kuntar has become famous again since he was just part of a prisoner swap between Hezbollah and Israel.

Much is made of Hezbollah wanting child-killer Kuntar back, but the truth is that their focus on Kuntar is because he is Lebanese, not because he’s a child-killer. Hezbollah is a Lebanese nationalist organization, Kuntar is a Lebanese prisoner, so they want him back for nationalist reasons.

The problem on Wikipedia is not that there are a bunch of little Jewish shits running around on any article remotely Jewish-related, censoring and POV-pushing. There are little cabals all over Wikipedia, including many ethnic cabals. In most cases, sober administrators stop the cabals cold, and the articles end up pretty fair.

But the Wikipedia Jews have been running amok from Day One, due to deep connections with a little shit named Jimmy Wales, an ultra-rightwing libertarian who runs the place. Why do the Jews get away with murder on Wikipedia while all the other cabals are put in their place? In this way, the Wikipedia Jews are a microcosm of America, for all intents and purposes now a Jewish country.

For more on that theory, see Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century and Alfred Lindemann’s Esau’s Tears, the 20th Century and the Rise of the Jews. Jews help man the commanding heights of America, just as they are in with the top dogs on Wikipedia, and the Gentiles are all de facto “Jewish”.

Nobody can say shit about them in America or on Wikipedia, and their critics in both the US and Wikipedia are destroyed mercilessly. The story here is the familiar one of the corruption of power, along with the testy paranoia of a tiny ethnic group.

Chip Berlet is also a top Wikipedian who is in very, very deep with the ADL, the Wikipedia Jews and the upper echelons of Wikipedia leadership. A commenter posted comments on here recently implying that Chip Berlet works for either the CIA or the FBI or both. The hero-worship of Berlet on Wikipedia makes no sense unless he is some kind of agent.

Wikipedia is run by a far-right crowd of super-libertarians. Communism and socialism are trashed in most places, and radical freemarket economics of the sort that is now devastating America are pushed relentlessly.

Most articles on Communism and socialism are grossly unfair. Hard-right fascist Jewish nationalists and hard-right fascist Hindu nationalists have formed an alliance and destroyed most articles relating to India, Israel or Jews.

Chip Berlet is supposed to be some kind of a Leftist. He’s reportedly even a hardline Communist. Ok, so why is he the hero of and hobnobbing with some of the most extreme anti-Communists and radical Right types around? Furthermore, Berlet helped the ADL spy on many Left and even Communist groups in the US on the grounds that they were anti-Semites (anti-Israel). What kind of a Communist spies on the Left?

An agent.

2 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Arabs, Conspiracies, Economics, Ethnic Nationalism, European, Europeans, History, India, Israel, Jews, Journalism, Lebanese, Lebanon, Left, Libertarianism, Marxism, Middle East, Nationalism, Palestine, Palestinians, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Reposts From The Old Site, Socialism, South Asia, Terrorism, The Jewish Question, Ultranationalism