Des Soldats Indonésiens Torturent des Papous

I am looking for translators to translate this post into French, Italian, German, Norwegian and Tagalog. Email me if you are interested.

Spanish translation (en Español). Italian translation (traduzione in Italiano). Norwegian translation (på norsk).

This is the French version of the Indonesian Soldiers Torture Papuan Men post.

Ce sont les images extrêmement choquantes de soldats indonésiens torturant un Papou et son père en Nouvelle-Guinée occidentale.
L’Indonésie a volé la Nouvelle-Guinée occidentale aux Papous en 1965 et a mené une guerre génocidaire et raciste contre les Papous depuis. Les soldats sont extrêmement racistes et considèrent les Papous à peine mieux que des animaux.

Les Papous essaient de se battre en utilisant des armes primitives mais ils ne font pas le poids face à une armée moderne. L’impérialisme américain a soutenu les Indonésiens dans cette guerre car les sociétés américaines veulent exploiter les ressources naturelles de Papouasie.

La scène a été prise à l’aide d’un téléphone portable par un des soldats engagés dans une opération militaire dans la région du Puncak Jaya dans les hauts plateaux de Nouvelle-Guinée occidentale.

Les opérations ont été lancées après que le Mouvement de Libération Papoue, un groupe armé cherchant à s’affranchir du colonialisme indonésien, mais l’activité des troupes indonésiennes consiste principalement en des actes de torture, des viols et des meurtres de civils comme cela a toujours été le cas.

Il s’agit apparemment d’« images trophée ». La vidéo n’est qu’un extrait d’une plus longue vidéo montrant les deux hommes torturés. Dans la version complète, le vieil homme est dévêtu, un sac sur la tête et un bâton incandescent est mis sur ses testicules tandis qu’il hurle à la mort. Le jeune homme a un couteau sur son visage.

Les renseignements sur l’identité des victimes sont difficiles à obtenir puisque l’on se trouve dans une zone militaire interdite d’accès dans laquelle les journalistes ne peuvent pas pénétrer. Toutefois, le vieil homme a été porté disparu et est probablement mort, tandis que le jeune homme a été relâché.

Les troupes indonésiennes ont tué, torturé et violé des Papous en toute impunité depuis 1963. Les victimes les plus jeunes n’avaient que 3 ans.

Pendant des années, les soldats indonésiens ont pris des photos - maintenant des films - comme trophée pour leurs exactions sur des Papous tués et violés. Ils montrent ces photos et vidéos aux Papous pour les humilier.

Le film est apparu très récemment, le 20 octobre 2010, et a provoqué quelques remous médiatiques.

Truppe Indonesiane Torturano due Papuani

I am looking for translators to translate this post into German, Norwegian and Tagalog. Email me if you are interested.

Spanish translation (en Español). French translation (en Français). Norwegian translation (på norsk).

This is the Italian translation of the Indonesian Soldiers Torture Papuan Men post. Translator: Paolo from Trieste.

Queste immagini sono solo un breve estratto di un filmato sconvolgente: la tortura di due papuani, padre e figlio, vittime delle truppe indonesiane.

Ci troviamo nella Papuasia dell'ovest, teatro dal 1963 di inaudite, infami atrocità. Gli indonesiani si sono accaniti su quella povera popolazione con una ferocia degna degli antichi conquistadores.

I papuani sono trattati alla stregua di bestie: vengono uccisi, torturati e stuprati persino i bambini (...anche se di solo 3 anni...).

I carnefici hanno la certezza di non essere puniti. Occupata definitivamente nel 1965, a tutt'oggi si contano più di 100.000 morti. E' un genocidio.

Come può resistere una popolazione dotata solo di armi primitive contro un esercito moderno che gode pure del supporto delle multinazionali USA interessate al controllo delle materie prime della zona? Ancora una volta, complimenti all'imperialismo americano, eh ?

Il video in questione è stato realizzato nel mese di maggio 2010 nella regione del Punkak Jaya, nella catena centrale della Papua Nuova Guinea dell'ovest, durante un'operazione militare contro il 'Movimento di Liberazione Papuano' (flebile resistenza al colonialismo indonesiano).

Nell'ottica della propaganda di guerra, un soldato filma le torture a due prigionieri.

L'anziano viene denudato, una borsa premuto sulla faccia, gli arrostiscono le palle con un ferro rovente: le sue urla d'agonia fanno accapponare la pelle! Il giovane viene schiaffeggiato ripetutamente mentre un soldato 'gioca' sadisticamente sulla sua faccia con un coltellaccio.

Malgrado la stretta censura governativa, si è venuti a conoscenza che il giovane è stato successivamente liberato (e forse bisognoso di plastica facciale...) mentre del padre si è persa ogni traccia.

L'uso dei media per intimidire ed umiliare una popolazione da sottomettere è un classico : se nel passato gli indonesiani non hanno esitato a diffondere bieche immagini fotografiche di stupri e morte, nell'era di internet sono d'obbligo i video, nuovi trofei di guerra da esibire a tutto il mondo.

Diffuso poco tempo fa, il 20 ottobre scorso, questo video ha fatto immediatamente scalpore.

Indonesian Soldiers Torture Papuan Men

I am looking for translators to translate this post into German and Tagalog. Email me if you are interested.

Spanish translation (en Español). Italian translation (traduzione in Italiano). French translation (en Français). Norwegian translation (på norsk).

This is extremely shocking footage of Indonesian soldiers in West Papua torturing a Papuan man and his father.

Indonesia stole West Papua from the Papuans in 1965, and has waged a genocidal and racist war against the Papuans ever since, a war that has killed 100,000 Papuans. Soldiers are extremely racist and view Papuans as little more than animals.

Papuans try to fight back using very primitive weapons, but they are no match for the modern Indonesian military. US imperialism has backed the Indonesians to the hilt in this war because US corporations want to exploit various raw materials in Papua.

The footage was filmed on a cellphone in May by one of the soldiers taking part in a military operation in the Punkak Jaya region of the Central Highlands of West Papua. The operation was launched against the Free Papua Movement, an armed group seeking freedom from Indonesian colonialism, but the troops are mostly just torturing, raping and murdering civilians like they always do.

It is apparently "trophy footage." This video is just a small part of a much larger video that shows the two men being tortured. In the bigger video, the older man is stripped naked, has a bag put over his head and has a burning stick applied to his genitals while he screams in agony. The young man has a knife held to his face.

Details of who the victims are hard to come by since the area is a closed military zone, and journalists are banned from the area. However, the older man is missing and probably dead, while the young man has been released.

Indonesian troops have been killing, torturing and raping Papuans with impunity since 1963. Victims have been as young as 3 years old.

For many years, Indonesian troops have been taking trophy photos, now escalating to films, of Papuans being killed and raped. They show this media to Papuans in order to humiliate them.

The footage appeared just recently, on October 20, 2010 and caused a bit of a media stir.

Black Genes in Southern Europeans

My post here, A Little Black In All Of Us, has aroused a tremendous amount of controversy. Not to beat this dead horse with a stick, but there are Southern Europeans and their supporters who strongly object to the notion that they have more than a smidgen of Black blood in them. In fact, there are websites that are set up in part to specifically negate that premise. Some of their supporters are simply racists.

This is definitely a sore point with Southern Europeans. As an Italian friend of mine said, "The Southern Italians really hate to be called negri. If you call them negri, they pull out the knife." A little sensitive?

In my post, I suggested that some Southern Europeans, notably Sicilians, Greeks, Spaniards and Portuguese, had more than a negligible amount of Black in them, around 5%. This produced a hailstorm of protest from the aforementioned folks, and resulted in some bannings from the comments.

I admit I'm not an expert on the subject. The Black genes in these Southern Europeans seem to have come from Ethiopia. This much is clear. The relevant haplogroups are M1, M78, E3b, E3b1, L1, L3, E-M35 and some others. If you follow the links to the relevant scientific journals, they will describe these lines as sub-Saharan.

The deniers say that they are not really sub-Saharan, they are Ethiopian, or Afro-Asiatic, or Eurasiatic, or whatever. In general, they say that these are Caucasian lines inside the Ethiopians.

I'm not sure any of that makes sense. Better than sub-Saharan lines, I would describe these lines as "Saharan". They arose in the Sahara and possibly in Arabia very long ago. They are still quite common in Somalia, Ethiopia and Sudan (north and south). Those folks look White to you? Of course not.

Click to enlarge. The original, with much better resolution, is here. These are Oromos, an Ethiopian people that is fighting for an independent state in Ethiopia. A commenter, Stopped Clock, left some interesting comments.

He said first of all to call these ancient lines "Saharan" is correct if referring to the much darker-skinned people who lived in the Sahara long ago when these lines arose, but not to the Arabid types who reside in much of the region today (more recent arrivals).

He also suggested a resolution to this problem. To say that these Ethiopians are 40% White and 60% Black as so many do seems simplistic and erroneous. The "White" lines go back to Arabia 45,000 years ago. People just call that line Caucasoid because it comes out of the Middle East. But I have a strong hunch that the people who lived in Arabia 45,000 years may have looked a lot more like Black people than like Whites. If anything, I think they may have looked like these interesting folks.

He also said that the latest thinking is that these people are not some mulatto Black-White mix; instead, they are an ancient African race that evolved separately from the others and ended up looking quite different.

In addition, recent data shows that these are the most ancient humans of all, older than the Khoisan. And other data suggests that the people who came out of Africa may have looked something like this. Whether these people are the original H. Sapiens is another matter. From 90,000-135,000 years ago, there were a series of droughts in Africa. This may have led to a split in humanity into two main lines - one in East Africa and another in South Africa. Presently, we do not yet know which line gave birth to modern H. Sapiens.

I'm not much of a judge on males, but these people seem quite attractive. And some of those women in the center are absolutely beautiful. They have an appearance that is both exotic and incredibly striking.

Unless you know what you are doing, you probably don't want to dive into this debate. This stuff gets real complicated real quick, and the debaters know their stuff.

It's funny how some folks react to the possibility of the tiniest bit of Black blood like Superman to Kryptonite.
This woman here, Mathilda's Anthropology Blog, who runs an otherwise excellent blog, is on a jihad to say that there is little Black blood in Southern Europeans. I don't know what her motivation is. She also opposes "out of Africa" and "single migration to the Americas".

Just to let you know, White nationalists really, really, really hate the Out of Africa argument with a passion. "Grandpa was a nigger" is taking things just a bit too far, you know. You gotta draw the line in the sand somewhere.

This post provides some good background on where the debate is at right now. Unfortunately, the whole mess has been contaminated by Afrocentrists, who seem to be some of the most idiotic ethnic nationalists around for some reason.

As for me, I'm a bit tired of the whole "Black blood in Italians" debate and I'd just as soon let it rest.

What Do White Nationalists Want?

The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.

Updated December 7::

We clearly established here a while back that White nationalism is for the most part simply White racism or White supremacism with a nice-sounding new name to keep from scaring people off. In a fancy, innocuous-sounding package, in other words.

I think maybe less than 5% of White nationalists are actually not racists. I'm not sure what's up with them. A greater percentage are fond of Asians. Some have even married Asian women. It's hard to call folks like that White supremacists, since they usually think that NE Asians are equal to or superior to European Whites.

On more moderate sites like American Renaissance, the view that NE Asians are equal to or superior to European Whites is commonly held, such that we must note that many White nationalists are in fact not White supremacists. This is an important distinction. The Left always calls these folks White Supremacists, and in many cases, that's not fair.

I'm fascinated with White nationalism for some perverse reason, and to be honest, that's why I write about it all the time.

Reading this blog is unfortunately just a glimpse into my perverse, unhealthy and chaotic mind. I wish I was more mature than that, but I'm not. Whatever is in my mind during given periods ends up on the blog. I admit I'm obsessed with race. Hence, the blog is race-obsessed. I'm not able to separate my private mental life from this blog yet, and I may never be.

Let's look at the White nationalist program to see if this movement is racist or not.

Even on Amren, in the comments, you see a very large number of White nationalists saying that, ideally, we ought to throw all non-Whites out of the US. I don't know how many feel that way. I never heard any of them say that they morally oppose such a project. I wonder how many WN's don't think this is a good idea. Clearly such a desire is racist.

On a lesser but yet important level, the vast majority of WN's seem to take the opinion that only European Whites are real Americans. All others, no longer how long they have lived here, will never be Americans. I argue that this notion is racist in and of itself. Those opposed are invited to the comments to disagree.

A very large number of White nationalists, even on Amren, hanker for a race war, in particular a war between Whites and Blacks.

They also like to project about this a lot, claiming that Blacks want a race war with Whites. Sure, Nation of Islam Black Nationalists might, but it's not a common view. I've been around thousands of Blacks (I taught in Black schools for years) and I've never heard one Black person say this.

White nationalists hanker for this because they think they can win this war. Most Blacks don't think this is a good idea, I assume because it's obvious that they would lose. If anything is racism, hankering for race war sure as Hell is.

One thing that is clear is that almost all WN's seem to want White separatism in some form or another. I'm aware that some WN's say that they are not White separatists. Their numbers are very small. Even those who say they are not White separatists still support "the right of communities to implement separatism at a local level." Hmmm.

It seems to me that in general, White separatism would have to be driven by feelings of racism. I wouldn't say all the time, but surely most of the time. As a political project, White separatism must be seen as racist to the core, regardless of the motivations of individuals.

The final WN view is that all anti-discrimination laws should be repealed. Some say we should only do this a piece at a time, but they all seem to support it. I would be very interested to meet a White nationalist who does not support getting rid of all anti-discrimination laws.

This project is so obviously racist on its face that I have even said that non-racist folks pushing this, such as libertarians and anarchists, are de facto racists in that they are pushing a racist agenda, no matter what pretty and loving thoughts may be dancing in their empathy-drenched minds.

This has aroused a firestorm of fury on libertarian and rightwing anarchist sites, but it's always a pleasure to have the right kind of enemies.

Just to be fair, let's point out what's not racist about WN. Discussions of race realism are not necessarily racist, depending on how they are handled. Complaining about or criticizing other races is not necessarily racist either. Maybe they're just telling it like it is? Opposition to anti-White hate propaganda, so prevalent in our society, is not necessarily racist.

Feeling pride in being White is not necessarily racist either.

My opinion is that all races and ethnic groups should take pride in themselves. It's sad that more ethnic nationalists don't feel this way. In fact, if you meet people from around the world, most people do take pride in their race or ethnicity! It's healthy! Love yourself, love your tribe, love your nation, love your race.

Ideally, if WN's respected the right of other groups to take pride in themselves, WN's could look at proud Blacks and Hispanics and at least respect them for standing up for their people; instead, WN's almost always see such folks as deadly enemies.

Let's look at the White nationalist project in summary:

Project/philosophy                Racist?

Strike anti-discrimination laws   YES
Remove non-Whites from US         YES
Only Whites can be real Americans YES
Advocate race war vs. non-Whites  YES
White separatism project at core* YES

*At project level, not individual level.

I would argue that from an anti-racist point of view, WN is invalidated right there.

We don't need act silly and beat people up for talking about IQ or crime rates, feeling filial pride, or defending their people against idiots of other races. Given my argument above, why on Earth would any non-racist to anti-racist White person, however proud, sign on to WN? Forget it.

In an incredible book about Peru's Shining Path, The Shining Path: A History of the Millenarian War in Peru, Peruvian journalist and uber-intellectual Gustavo Gorriti wisely noted that Sendero's revolution was a "race against time."

Gorriti speaking at some sort of citizens' security committees conference in Peru on July 4, 2008.

Sendero saw Peruvian society as it was, not as it is. Sendero saw Peru as semi-colonial and semi-feudal, but it was moving away from both by the time they started their war. Their war was actually a war against time, progress and modernity itself.

Peruvian society is horrible, and armed Left revolution is more than justified, but Sendero's analysis applied better to 1960 than 1980. In the ensuing 28 years, Peru only moved further from semi-colonialism and semi-feudalism.

US White nationalism is, like Sendero, in a race against time. In the past 45 years, support among US Whites for the five core projects/philosophies listed above has apparently declined each year in the US. The decline seems to be continuing. Yet White nationalists are racing harder than ever to implement their projects, the prospects for which seem to grow dimmer by the day. How many ways can you spell "doomed"?

References

Gorriti Ellenbogen, Gustavo. Translated, with an introduction, by Robin Kirk. 1999. The Shining Path: A History of the Millenarian War in Peru. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

Conservative Math: Liberals = Nigger Lovers = Queers

The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.

Updated October 24:

In the comments section, huy, a Leftish Brit, is stunned by the weirdness and stupidity of American conservatism, and really White American society as a whole:

I'm still amazed by the American right wing.

According to them:

Liberal = sexually liberal = faggot.

Liberal = left wing = socialist = Commie.

Thus Commie = faggot.

Rich Texan Oil tycoons who wear cowboy hats and drive SUV's and only date blond women and drink jack Daniels, or violent redneck skinheads on crystal meth or Harley Davidson gun loving biker gang members are the only real men in America.

The more individualist and selfish you are, the more manly you are.

In Europe, its the homosexual men that are most individualist with their fancy clothes etc.

Interesting stuff. I have noticed that the Democrats = liberals = socialists = Communists = fags thing is worst of all with the White racists, I mean White nationalists, excuse me!

This seems to be a standard line of their discourse. Not only are we queer because we are liberal - Democrat - socialist - Communists, but there is something uniquely faggoty, unmanly and queerish about a White man being a nigger-lover. After all, that is the White racists one and only beef against the Left. We support their racial enemies (anyone not White) and we supposedly oppose White folks.

The image they have constructed is of an ubermasculine White man as super-racist. If you're White and you're not a racist, you're not much of a White man, therefore not much of a man. It's a most interesting construction, and I wish more people wrote about it.

It's a bit beyond me why the pinnacle of masculinity is to be a racist shit, and why the commanding heights of faggotry are reached by loving humanity before one's tribe, but I'm trying to get my mind around it.

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

Great Video About Socialism

The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.

Updated October 24:

This is a video of a lecture by Richard D Wolff, Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, on the latest economic chaos and recession in sweeping the world.

Wolff is a Marxist, and the lecture is from a Marxist POV. However, it is interesting in many ways.

One thing that is clear to most sensible folks with an understanding of economics is that Marx's analysis of capitalism is one of the greatest ever done by anyone. For a long time, it was taught in all economics departments. With the advent of crazy Friedmanite neoliberalism in the past 30 years or so, Marx may not be being taught so much, but that's a mistake.

It's sometimes said that Marx is great for analyzing either what capitalism does well or poorly, but not the opposite. Not true. Marx is great for analyzing capitalism both when it is doing well and when it is doing poorly.

In my opinion, where Marx has problems is in proposing alternatives to capitalism, and history has born this out to some extent. Capitalism, with all of its chaos and problems and horrors and deaths, may just be the only way forward for the time being. Like death, disease and taxes, it may be a necessary evil.

Wolff describes how US workers saw 150 straight years of growth and improvement in their living standards, from 1820 to 1970. This is correct. He doesn't lay out how this happened, but there are many explanations for this. He also says that this scenario was rare to unheard of in the rest of the capitalist world.

After 1970, things changed. Productivity kept going up, but wages went flat or even went down. A US worker in the late 1970's made more per hour than a worker working today. As productivity rose and wages went flat, capitalists began raking in incredible profits.

This is what has happened to the US economy over the past 35 years, as neoliberalism took hold and 80% of the population saw its wages stagnate or go down. The top 20% of the population, and especially the top 1%, saw its income explode. But the vast majority of workers of every race got screwed.

As workers got more and more screwed and the capitalists, the owners, those who lived off the labor of others, saw their incomes skyrocket, confused workers began advancing all sorts of explanations about why this was happening. Anti-Semites, as usual, blamed the Jews. White nationalists and White Supremacists blamed Blacks and Browns. Lots of middle class and working class Whites blamed Big Government.

The truth was that the culprits were the business owners who were reeling in superprofits while workers got the shaft.

As this process continued, capitalists found more ways to keep the cost of labor down. They began importing massive amounts of legal and especially illegal immigrants as labor to drive labor costs down even further. They began moving many enterprises offshore and later, began offshoring work via the Internet.

Confused workers scrambled to keep up their standard of living. Others in the family, often the wife, began taking a job, bringing in a second income. Then one or more persons in the household began to work second and third jobs. Americans worked more and more hours, setting new records for workers in the West.

The despicable US media extolled this fact, and praised US workers for working themselves nearly to death, taking pains to point out how tough and hard and slaving-away Americans are compared to pampered, wussy, "soft" Europeans kicking back under socialism.

It's true - part of the US war against European social democracy has been to declare that Europeans are soft, wimpy, sissified and woosy. How did they get this way? Socialism turned hard self-reliant European men into soft, pampered girlymen. Americans were hard, tough and macho. They didn't need no nanny state to help them out. They could do it on their own. The American worker as Marlboro Man.

Wolff points out that that extra workers did not necessarily fix matters, as when the wife started working, it turned out that she needed many things, for instance a vehicle to get to work in.

Working more than one job didn't seem to work very well, nor did having others in the household go out and work, but it did the trick for a while.

After some time, Americans would have to turn to some new tricks to try to keep up their standard of living. They turned to loans. At first they ran up their credit cards. Americans were setting records for going into debt on credit cards and were among the Western world's poorest when it came to saving money.

This isn't really very good personal economics, but the vile media cheered it on nonetheless. Silly, wimpy Europeans and Japanese saved their money for a rainy day, presumably because they were too neurotic to enjoy life. Americans went for the gusto! They spent ever nickel they earned and then went in debt up to their waders! Cheers, cheers, cheers!

After the credit cards were maxed out, there was an explosion in US housing prices. Call it a housing bubble. This came at a propitious moment, for it enabled Americans to use as collateral the biggest asset they owned, their homes. Americans borrowed on their homes, refinancing them, taking out second mortgages and using the money like a credit card to continue to pursue the standard of living to which they had become used.

The capitalists continued to reel in the dough from the leveling of wages, now via outsourcing and use of immigrant labor, and now the capitalists found a new tool - debt.

They loaned money to their own workers! It was like the old days when you lived in a company town, bought at the company store and ate at the company diner, all deducted from your check. Not only will we pay you a crap wage, we will snag every dollar you spend on food, rent and shopping too.

These same capitalists were now swimming in ultraprofits with the money they were making off loaning money to workers and home mortgages (just another type of loan). They had so much money they did not know what to do with it. They threw it into the stock market, and the market for high-end goods of all sorts went through the roof.

Conspicuous consumption came back with a vengeance, and the scummy media once again sang and danced the praises of the most idiotic and obscene ways the rich chose to blow their unneeded and often unearned cash.

A whole new financial industry, a parasitic industry on the economic body of the nation, sprung up, an industry that created no products and no real wealth. It was nothing but a gigantic casino on Wall Street.

All sorts of funky instruments that no one understood were dreamed up - derivatives, CDO's, mortgage securities and all sorts of other stuff that probably shouldn't even be legal. Almost no one understood these things and no one seemed to understand what they were worth.

The inevitable bubble came and the party crashed, as it always does when capitalist bubbles go bust.

The root causes were the destruction of the regulations put in in the 1930's, during the Depression, in order to prevent another Depression. As soon as these regulations were put in, the capitalists began plotting and working to get rid of them.

Over the next 80 years, the capitalists created a Gramscian cultural hegemony that attacked socialism, government and regulation and exalted free market capitalism. Socialism, government and regulation were described as possibly good ideas, but doomed to failure. The only way to avoid the inevitable failures of socialism, government and regulation was to completely deregulate the economy. Anything less was the road to ruin.

With their money, the capitalist interests bought up all the media and most of the politicians. They used this to get rid of the Depression-era regulations and create the manipulate US culture to where your average worker thought that was a great idea, if he understood it at all.

There are various proposals for how to deal with this economic mess. As discussed in a previous post, conservatives, reeling and increasingly discredited, have tried to blame the catastrophe on too much regulation, not too little. Even the slimy media that normally goes along with this crap is finding this too much to buy.

White racists are promoting the racist notion that liberals (via affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws), niggers* and beaners* are the ones that destroyed the US economy. The Republican Party has to some extent bought into this, as has the business press, their amen corner in the mass media, and their academic hacks, but the argument is too slimy and racist for most decent people, plus there isn't an ounce of truth to it.

Steve Sailer, an excellent writer who is widely read, is the latest to promote this racist travesty, much to his shame. Sailer is looking more and more like a Republican Party hack than a really deep-thinking, independent and empirical author.

Furthermore, Sailer has been skating on the edges of racism for some time now without really going over. More often, he seemed to be giving the racists lots of nice talking points. Now he's finally pushing an explicitly racist discourse, and it's not even true. Too bad.

Rate of subprime mortgage defaults by race:

Whites       19%
Blacks       19%
Hispanics    19% 

End of discussion!

Liberals, Leftists and social democrats have proposed re-regulation, but the problem here is that we are probably going to re-do the 1930's experience all over again. We will put in a bunch of great regulations and as soon as we put them in, the capitalists and their mass media machines will start plotting to get rid of them.

Then the capitalists and their media machines will launch a jihad, for as many decades as it takes, to reverse all these regulations and get back to total deregulation again. In time, workers will forget why they put the regulations in in the first place, and they will go along with it.

The capitalists will buy most of the politicians all over again, and the politicians will vote to deregulate again. The capitalists will work to recreate their Gramscian cultural hegemony, and the average worker will once again think deregulation is the smart thing to do. The economy will blow up again and we will be right back to 1929 and 2008.

Wolff suggests that there is a third alternative. He describes a paper done by a colleague that describes Silicon Valley workers who hated their jobs. They had to dress up, sit in a cubicle and take orders and crap all day from a bunch of assholes. Can they pay anyone enough to put up with that? With the destruction of the Silicon Valley workforce, these workers were laid off.

A number of them got together and formed IT worker-run cooperatives, a non-capitalist form of ownership along the lines of anarcho-syndicalism. The study found that these workers said that they had never been happier. They were manufacturing software, selling it to buyers and dividing up the profits among themselves. The workers themselves were the new owners.

Wolff said that as a condition of the bailouts to the financial industry, we should mandate that they staff their board of directors with workers, not management, as a first step towards workers democracy.

Wolff also said that he had been giving speeches like this for 25 years now and he has had more interest in the past five weeks than in the previous 25 years.

That's ending on a hopeful note for now. Enjoy the video.

*Used sardonically

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

James Flynn on America

James Flynn is an Emeritus Professor of Political Studies at the University of Otago in New Zealand. He has also done a lot of work on the Flynn Effect, which shows IQ's rising all over the world in the past 80 years for unknown reasons. We've written about at a lot on this blog. Click the Flynn Effect category at the end to read up.

For reasons that remain unknown to me, White nationalists (almost all of whom are just White racists really) are driven into a frenzy by the mention of Flynn's name. I find this very mystifying.

First of all, White racists insist that Blacks are defective, and present a lot of evidence indicating that Blacks as a group do have a lot of problems and that this group does do a disproportionate amount of damage to society. All of this is noncontroversial to anyone whose brain has not been turned to mush by political correctness.

Low IQ is frequently cited by White racists as one of the reasons for Black dysfunction and the resulting serious problems inflicted on society.

Other reasons are given too, but all of these are chalked up to genetics for some odd reason. It's an odd White racist who thinks culture or environment is behind Black pathologies. Fair enough.

But when someone like Flynn comes forward and notes that Blacks have gotten dramatically more intelligent in the past 80 years, White racists for the most part just go ballistic and see red. Why?

If Black dysfunction really is caused by low IQ, and these problems cause massive damage to society, would it not be better for Blacks, White racists and everyone else for the Black IQ to go up, and problems resulting from the low IQ to diminish? Sure, right?

Think again. White racists are furious at the notion that the Black IQ is rising. Almost nothing sends them battier.

This is very strange. It implies, despite all of their rhetoric, that White nationalists really do not have the best interests of Blacks at heart. They don't want Blacks to get smarter, better, or less dysfunctional. The more fucked up, stupid, violent and criminal Black people are, the more joyous White nationalists are.

Wow.

Excuse me, but what a bunch of cruel, perverse assholes White nationalists are! You bitch that Blacks are incompetent, violent idiots, but that's just the way you want them to be. If that's the case, then maybe you just deserve to live with them and their messes after all?

There must be some other motivation here. The only thing that makes sense is a hoary cliche that I usually don't consider.

White nationalists want Blacks to be stupid, dumb and fucked up because that way White racists can feel superior to Blacks.

White nationalists are the insecure punks from high school rejoicing in the failures of their rivals. White racists have an emotional investment in feeling superior to other races, and anything that suggests that the folks they dislike are gaining some ground in the footrace sends them into conniptions.

Sheesh. How petty and childish can you get? As long as this is what really motivates White nationalists, I'd say they have no right to diss Blacks for being pathological. Looks like White nationalists are plenty pathological themselves. We need to feel better than others because we're a bunch of insecure weenies! Waaa waaa!

Grow up.

Anyway, Flynn has a very good article on the stupidity and uselessness of US liberalism from a sane First World point of view. He points out quite well what a bunch of political morons we are. But if the Democrats took up Flynn's philosophy, they would get massacred. America is a center-right to conservative society at best, and liberal pikers like Obama are the best we can do.

Flynn also talks about US Blacks. He points out that between the ages of 25-45, there are only 57 Black men likely to be permanent (or even semi-permanent) partners for every 100 Black women. Sure, Black women could marry out, but few non-Black men want them. If you're a Black female, you either have a kid out of wedlock with some Black loser, or you forego now and forever your chance to have a kid.

I think that most people have a right to have kids. As such, it's reasonable that Black women are going to figure out a way to become mothers one way or another. That's reasonable. I've made this argument to some White "liberal" Americans and they frowned. "Having kids isn't all it's cracked up to be," a mother of four (!) grimaced. Hmm.

Flynn points out that for every 100 Hispanic women, there are 96 promising males, hence their single parenthood rate is 50% lower than Blacks. It all makes sense. Black illegitimacy isn't sky-high due to Black genes (Why were 80% of Black parents married in 1960?) but due to unpleasant circumstances, namely the catastrophic state of Black men in America.

Equality is Not a Prerequisite For Liberalism

On a White nationalist blog that linked to me, I noted that it was possible to be a race realist and a socialist. This provoked the following objection:

...That makes no sense. A fundamental principle of liberalism is that of equality, of human beings being equal and interchangeable. It's false of course, but take it away and all sorts of other leftist and liberal ideas crumble by implication.

I don't see how one can be a race realist without that leading naturally to some sort of white supremacist / white nationalist / white exclusiveness position.

First of all, I would like to say some things about White Nationalism. I've finally concluded that White Nationalism is nothing but White racism and often White Supremacism.

It's just White racism and White Supremacism repackaged with a fancy new name called White Nationalism to make it seem like it's not those nasty things that we know of as White racism and White Supremacism, the latter being largely discredited. Well, if a philosophy is discredited, just invent a fancy new word for it and say it's not the bad thing it really is.

It also explains why White Nationalists are so sensitive about the word racism and always put it in quotes like this: "racism". Of course, they only do this when referring to White racism. Black racism, Hispanic racism, and all the other kinds are quite real; it's only White racism that is phantasmagorical.

It's also interesting how White Nationalists project. While they are denying their own racism, they are often fulminating about Black racism and Hispanic racism and whatnot. That's clearly denial and projection.

There does seem to be a trend now with a lot of White Nationalists to come right out and admit that they are racists. This is to be encouraged. If you're racist, what the Hell, just admit it. It's not like you're alone in the world - the world is full of racists. And it's not like it's the worst thing in the world to be anyway - as White Nationalists note, there are sure plenty of Hispanic and Black racists out there.

White Nationalists think they have excellent reasons to be racists - they've had bad experiences with Blacks and Hispanics and want nothing more to do with them. If that's the case, then just admit it and make your case to an inquiring world.

There are a few White Nationalists who don't seem to be racists, but I would say that 98% of them are.

No, onto this fellow's rejoinder. This is a typical White Nationalist position. To them, one is either a silly race-denying liberal or one is a White Nationalist racist.

It doesn't work that way. I know a number of White liberals and even Leftists who feel that there are intrinsic differences between the races; they just don't think the question is very important. They date, befriend and even marry non-Whites. You might be surprised how common this type of thinking is.

One thing that always bothered me about the race realist crowd is that they insist that there are intrinsic differences between the races, and then proceed to blame races and ethnic groups for various average shortcomings and higher rates of pathologies.

But if those shortcomings and pathology rates are indeed genetic (This is what almost all race realists insist) then it follows that those groups should not be blamed for their shortcomings or pathologies. After all, it's genetic and nothing can be done, right?

So, first of all, they accuse a group of being the equivalent of handicapped, then they throw the crutches away, kick the wheelchair to the side, throw the person into the gutter, all the while cursing them for being a cripple. How cruel can you get? Why does a realization that humans are not intrinsically equal automatically seem to lead to the cruelest sort of Social Darwinism, at best?

And by the same token, if the superior races are only superior through the luck of the dices, what on Earth do they have to feel proud of anyway? Nothing, really. Have they done anything to earn their superior status? Hardly. They just lucked out in the genes crapshoot. Big deal.

If humans are not equal, then it would be up to the state to equalize things. If Blacks, on average are always going to fall behind due to lower IQ (I am beginning to fear that this may be the case), then that is no fault of their own anyway, and it's cruel to force them to suffer the ravages of the market, which is what most White nationalists seem to perversely want to do.

If Blacks were on average the same as we are, and the failures of their group were just due to their being a bunch of willful, perverse and deliberately wicked and stupid pricks, I would just say the Hell with them. But I honestly think that they can't help it.

Nor can Amerindians, Polynesians, Hispanics, Aborigines, or any other group that is going to tend to fall behind. It's really not their fault. Therefore, they should not be punished with failure for things that they can't help.

If Black income is always going to be a lot lower on average than, say, Whites, due to an IQ deficit that they have no control over, then it is the duty of the state through redistributive taxation to equalize things a bit and make it more fair for Blacks who fail through no fault of their own.

Humans are not necessarily equal at all. Even within a race, we are born with wildly differing IQ's and whatnot. I think most liberals would agree with that.

Even from a White Supremacist point of view, libertarianism makes no sense. Libertarianism is not only perverse for conscious White nationalists, it's downright cruel.

If you really love your own people so much, why throw them into a Roman-type pit where they consume each other alive while you cheer on the deadliest and most homicidal of the White cannibals? Only via some form of socialism can Whites really work together to help each other and have real solidarity.

I'm not interested in supremacism or chauvinism or nationalism or any of that. What are you looking for in your acquaintances? There are smart or good or kind, or any combination of many other great qualities, Blacks, Hispanics, Amerindians, Arabs, East Indians and all sorts of other non-Europeans. Just as smart, good and kind as your European White friends.

I love my people finally (after decades of self-hate) but Whites are not the end-all and be-all. I think Whites are a bit cold, for one. Hispanics and Blacks are much warmer and friendlier, and it's much easier to befriend them. Of course, their lower-income neighborhoods also have some big downsides too. There's good and bad with all groups, including Whites.

If people are not equal, that's no argument against liberalism. It actually implies we need it even more.

It means we need affirmative action, progressive taxation, humane prisons and all sorts of things you would never think of.

Niggers* and Beaners* Wrecked the Economy Redux

White nationalists have advanced the extremely racist argument that Blacks and Hispanics are responsible for blowing up the economy with the latest subprime mortgage meltdown, which has taken out titans in the insurance and brokerage industry. Lehman Brothers, the 3rd largest brokerage firm on Earth, was allowed to implode.

AIG, one of the world's largest insurance companies, was about to go bankrupt until socialism stepped in, as the Bush Administration bought an 80% stake in the firm. I do support nationalizing huge industrial titans like this that have proven too irresponsible to run a modern company.

AIG went down because they insured the subprime securities that investors bought against going bad. Yes, you can buy insurance on your stocks, bonds, derivatives and other financial crap. Amazing, huh?

It remains to be seen whether an $85 billion bailout of AIG is a good bargain for taxpayers. It seems that we are investing public money in this mountain of AIG's losses, no? How is the public supposed to benefit from this?

AIG investors are now scrambling around trying to figure out a way to pay back that debt in order to ward off a government socialist buyout of 80% of the stock. I do not think that they can do it. AIG is, in my opinion, insolvent. Nor do I think they will have much luck borrowing money from anyone else. Would you loan these losers any money? Get real.

Meanwhile, even after the bailout, AIG's stock is still being pounded into the dirt. I guess that bailout didn't make anyone happier about AIG stock. Everyone exposed to AIG stock in the form of pensions and other funds is scrambling to get out from under the avalanche. Pension funds are suing AIG for wiping out their holdings.

Do you own an AIG insurance policy? That's not worth much, if you ask me. States are now "reassuring" policyholders. I'd be canceling that toxic policy in a New York minute.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I do not agree with the White Nationalist racist argument that niggers* and beaners* blew up the economy.

They apparently got this argument for articles like this Village Voice piece. However, if you read the piece carefully, it does not support the WN argument at all.

Under the cover of anti-racism, Andrew Cuomo and the rest of the Clinton criminals gave the industry what it wanted - loosened regulations on whom they could loan to. "It is also worth remembering that the motive for this bipartisan ownership expansion probably had more to do with the legion of lobbyists working for lenders, brokers, and Wall Street than an effort to walk in MLK's footsteps", as the article notes.

Note that the Bush Republicans did not overturn a single one of Cuomo's "anti-racist" loosening of standards. Furthermore, as I read the article, there was no federal "mandate to loan to more Black and Brown poor people."

This argument makes it seem like Evil Big Government liberals forced prudent bankers to make loans to non-White deadbeats that they knew would go bad, loans that they themselves did not want to make. This is not the case.

The debt was already being sold and resold all over the place, and, as the article notes, even if the borrower defaulted, that was no big deal either, as they would just resell the home. Lots of money to be made all around on every step of the chain, even if the borrower defaults.

The latest insanity, where Joe Public gets to bail out a bunch of gambler criminals, is truly horrible. Basically, you and me will be forced to buy up all this bad debt from a bunch of white collar crooks, debt that is nearly worthless. For this worthless debt, we will fork over $1 trillion for a pile of stinking garbage.

Further, the crooks are absolved of all of their losses at the Mortgage Casino and free to go gamble away again. This means we are setting ourselves for this situation to recur over and over, and as long as the public bails out all losses and guarantees all gains, there is zero motivation to be prudent. Wow, isn't neoliberal capitalism a great system!

Incredibly, both parties, from the most liberal of Democrats to the most conservative of Republicans, got in on this bullshit. A particularly horrible feature of the plan that the "liberals" went along with is that there are to be no new regulations whatsoever on the financial industry. Gotta love those liberal Dems!

In this way, corporate criminals get to make all of the money they can with this sort of gambling, but then when they start losing money, you and me have to bail them out. What a bunch of fucking shit!

That's like giving me a credit card to go to the casino and I get to keep all of my winnings and any time I lose money, you all get to pay me back so I can go to the casino tomorrow. I like that deal! Let's set it up now!

*Used sardonically

Niggers* and Beaners* Wrecked the Economy and Other BS

It's not just White nationalists who are making this racist argument. The business class has also taken it up. Turns out Bill Clinton blew up the economy by forcing fine upstanding loan sharks to loan to stupid, low IQ, morally depraved, irresponsible Blacks and Hispanics.

I do not agree with this argument, "Blacks and Browns ruined our economy" one bit. For one thing, there is not the tiniest bit of evidence that this is true. Social scientists and journalists, liberal or not, often tell the truth. If Blacks and Hispanics ruined our economy, that's unpleasant to hear to most liberals, but it's going to come out sooner or later, because a lot liberals (like me) would write about it whether it's PC or not.

First of all, the "pressure to loan to Blacks and Browns" thing came in under Clinton around 1992 or so. There was a problem, because entire Black and Brown neighborhoods were redlined as bad credit risk. There were all sorts of creditworthy folks living there, but they could not get a loan because of where they lived.

This was back in the American Middle Ages, 15 years ago, when lenders actually cared whether or not you could repay a loan.

The economy blew up due to subprimes in 2008. There is a horrible time lag there that just does not make sense.

This argument portrays lenders as the good guys who were forced to loan to scummy non-White ghetto types who never intended to pay back their loans.

First of all, the banks were never really involved in any of this from what I can tell. One of the drivers of this whole crazy mess was the farming out of home loans to home loan institutions like Countrywide which were basically run by criminals. The banks washed their hands of the debt because it wasn't getting paid back to them anyway.

The Countrywide folks deliberately made bad debts to noncreditworthy folks because the debt wasn't going to be paid back to them either. Why? They were going to package it and fraudulently sell it to a bunch of sucker victims. Criminal accounting agencies gave the crap mortgage securities AAA ratings so they sold better.

Suckers all over bought the stuff, including I guess a bunch of banks?! Surely, brokerages went up to their necks in buying crap mortgage securities. Then insurance companies like AIG insured the buyers of this crap debt in case it went bad. The whole fraudulent mess blew up, as anyone with any sense knew it would. But when to scammers and fraudsters ever care about the damage they do?

This argument attempts to portray the Countrywide criminals as fine upstanding citizens, forced by Evil Big Government into making loans to deadbeat niggers* and beaners* who anyone knew would never pay back the loans.

That's not true. These guys were deliberately making shit loans because they make like ~$5,000 commission on each one. They sold the debt so they didn't give a damn if it went bad. The more loans the better. Standards were lowered and subprime bullshit was invented to get noncreditworthy folks in the door and put their John Hancock on the loan they could never pay back.

Suckers were fooled about their real ability to pay back the loans - they were told that they would be able to pay back the loans easily, and they fell for it. Hey, scammers and fraudsters are good. They fool all sorts of people, even smart people, all the time. It's not the victim's fault when he's taken by a sociopathic con artist.

Furthermore, it is not up to me to decide whether or not I can pay back a loan.

Me? I'm basically insolvent.

I'd love to have a loan for $20,000, $50K, $100K or however much your fool ass is willing to loan to me.

Of course I can't pay it back.

My credit rating will get wrecked, but if I need the cash, I won't care, and anyway, you will be left holding the bag, and out for $100K or whatever. It's up to you, the lender, to decide if I am a good credit risk or not. One look at my bottom line should send any lender into paroxysms of laughter.

Anyone who makes an extravagant loan to me is an idiot, deserves what they get, and odds are they are going to lose big. Lending institutions used to be sane. Borrowers were examined with a fine tooth comb and run through the gauntlet. Few loans went bad.

When the loan isn't coming back to you anyway, there's zero motive to care about repayability.

That's a recipe for disaster.

Here a smart commenter, turkey, offers a modified theory that offers bits of both theories and seems to make sense. Clintonite neoliberal hucksters used anti-racism as a ruse to allow (Not force, since they wanted to do it anyway!) lenders to lower standards. They tossed in the clincher of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac backing of the crap loans.

This was an era in which both Republicans and Democrats were in on the increasing privatization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Some Clintonite Dem criminals like Franklin Raines made millions off this fraud. Republicans were basically along for the ride. Black and Brown proles were used as suckers and conned into credit-wrecking loans that they could not pay back so huckster-criminals could make a fast buck.

RL: "There appears to be little evidence to back this up. For many years, banks had different standards for Whites versus non-Whites and many Blacks found it almost impossible to get a home loan no matter how good their credit was."

turkey: Actually, the VDare top guy (Brimelow) pointed out in a '93 Forbes article that the default rate in the early '90s was the same for blacks and whites, i.e. the mortgage lenders were using correct terms and the market was sane. If blacks were held to unreasonably high standards they'd have had lower default rates than whites.

Instead during the '90s the neoliberal Democrats used race crusading as a ruse to let lenders make quick money off marginal loans often implicitly backed by the government (which they were all champing at the bit to do - this does not excuse them), while seeming to stay on the side of the angels, and Republicans saw the angle and got down in the trough, too.

The default rate differential between whites and black ballooned under the irrational regime. I'm not familiar with the "Hispanic" analogs but there's been so much immigration that it's probably hard to follow.

There's actually a PDF on the net of a response from Fannie Mae propagandists in the early '90s trying to get Brimelow to shut up about their gravy train that you can download. The bullshitting is obvious in hindsight.

So the higher quality of white nationalists are laying some blame on the exploitation of the religion of anti-racism, not on lumpen whites and blacks and mestizos and Amerinds themselves, who shouldn't be blamed for trusting a smiling fixer that said they could have a nice house.

*Used sardonically

100% of Hardcore US Racists Vote Republican

If you go to White nationalist sites, you will be damned if you ever find even one Democrat on those boards. You will find some ex-Democrats. Nor will you even find one person who votes Democrat, except some now voting Obama for racist reasons*.

I've made the rounds of many of these sites. The truth is that 100% of US hardcore White racists vote Republican! Year in and year out. Are there any hardcore White racists in the US who vote Democrat? I do not think so. I've never met one, and I've never seen one anywhere on the Net.

The White racists are simply a subset of US Whites. On the White racist sites, they make it completely clear that the Republican Party is the party to vote for if you are White, and especially if you are a racist White.

In looking at how White racists in the US vote overwhelmingly Republican, we can begin to understand why US Whites vote so overwhelmingly Republican. I suggest that the hardcore racists and the rest of the Whites are voting Republican for some pretty similar reasons.

James Schipper in the comments points out that the Republican Party has hardly given US Whites a damned thing for their racist votes. At the very least, he argues, it could have come down hard on illegal immigration, reduced legal immigration and ended affirmative action.

Instead, the Republican Party is 100% Open Borders and can't get enough millions of legal immigrants to satisfy their needs. It's true that they have made some movements on affirmative action, and it's being outlawed by many states anyway. But private firms can still have diversity goals and whatnot, and that's apparently legal.

The Republican Party has been winking at White racism for decades now. In 1981, Reagan went to the site in the South where the bodies of the two murdered civil rights workers were found and spoke before a crowd of hollering, hooting White peckerwood crackers, saying that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been a horrible mistake. Bush's appointees to the Supreme Court apparently oppose civil rights, but little has come of that.

The Republicans, a plutocratic political party, have used the racist Whites in the same way they used the culture warriors, the Christian Right and the rest. Your average plutocrat is probably not very racist, not very religious and cares nothing about holy roller Christians.

Wealthy young women have abortions in very high numbers. The wealthy drink, use drugs, have promiscuous sex, have homosexual sex, and do all sorts of depraved things at a greater rate than the middle classes - they always have in most every society. At the same time, they cynically use the culture wars stuff to get the fools and suckers to vote for the plutocratic party.

Like the rich who supported the Nazis, they hope to use them for the ride and hopefully never implement any of the projects of the racists or holy rollers. When it finally gets to the point where the rich need to implement racist or holy roller policies in order to stay in power, things get awfully dicey. It's a dirty, dirty, dirty, dirty game the rich play.

*There is a fascinating movement within White nationalism called White Nationalists For Obama. The idea here is to "heighten the contradictions" in Marxist terms. Electing a Black president will be so horrible that it will "wake up the sleeping Whites" to the White racist cause.

The resulting tumult will be so great that a vast race war will break in the US. In the course of this race war, the Whites will win. The upshot will be either the removal of all non-Whites from the US, or their sequestration to a few states of their own.

I used to think that the race war thing was only a dream of the real hardcore White power types, but even if you go to the more moderate sites, you will find huge numbers of commenters who are all for race war in the US to "shake things out". I was appalled. I really don't think it's ever going to happen, but in analyzing White nationalism, we ought to conclude that many, perhaps most, of them long for a race war in the US.

On the Non-persistance of Any Jewish Agenda

The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.

Updated September 2:

In the comments section, Z, a very smart commenter, deals with the "Jews are bad for Whites" thing and takes on the anti-Black nastiness that pervades the whole White nationalist movement. Z's an anti-Semite, but we allow anti-Semites on the board. The only rule is that they have to eat the Matzos and drink the Manischewitz grape wine when we serve it.

He's a soft White nationalist, but he's for Blacks. I think this is healthy.

If you love yourself, surely you can love others? So, if you're ethnocentric, surely you can love other ethnics, right? I'm for me and my people. I look in the mirror and like what I see. I proud of the good things my people have done in our history, and I'm proud of my ancestors. That's normal, healthy, human thinking. Why should I hate anyone else?

Why does self-love equate to hatred of others? It doesn't necessarily work that way on the individual level, so why should it on the ethnic or tribal level?

Z writes:

Though I read it often, I'm not a huge fan of American Renaissance because of the blatant and over-the-top anti-Black/African stance of the commenters there, and also because they totally ignore/censor articles, posts, and discussion regarding the Jewish Question.

Obviously though, AmRen is fully correct when it comes to the current mass-immigration issue.

Anyhow, being anti-Black is bottom of the barrel racism in my opinion, too easy, too simple-minded...too desperate, too low.

I am from the South so perhaps I am more sympathetic to the plight of African Americans than most White Americans because I grew up amongst them, went to school with them, played sports with them, and have seen the poverty/degradation/ignorance in which many of them unfortunately live.

And just to say: a system of local agrarian socialism would be an excellent system in helping many African Americans become more communally sufficient, because many Blacks in America are still very rural and they actually own a lot of good agricultural land too in America nowadays.

In my opinion though, if one wants to understand the real cancer eating away at White/Euro cultures, one must confront the Jews. Jews have done more damage and will continue to do more damage to White/European majority societies than Blacks ever did or will do.

In fact, Jews were in many ways central to the slave trade which brought hordes of African slaves on to American shores over the centuries (I intend to eventually post about this on my blog when I become more active on there).

Damn, Jews have been promoting 'multiculturalism' for a long damn time, haven't they?

I respond: I don't think it makes sense to blame the whole slave trade on the Jews. That's not rational.

My problem with the whole "Jews are the enemy of our race" thing is that a Hell of a lot of the folks singing this multiculti tune are not Jews. They're just White Gentiles. All these people writing pro-immigrant articles on our papers - White Gentiles. The Open Borders Lobby - the Whites in it are Gentiles.

I have another problem with this - if it's so obvious that the Jews are bad for White Gentiles, why don't ethnocentric White Gentiles just ignore them every time they come on TV, or start mouthing off in the press?

Turn on your Jew Filter, and set it to High Cynicism. To be completely honest, I do something like this myself. I have no illusions about the Jews. They're for the Jews, but they hardly ever come out and say so. So you have to subject their communications to a little "deconstruction".

I know a White Gentile who does this right now - he points out every time a Jew is on TV. It so happens that it seems like it's about 50% of the time! To say that he takes what they say with a huge grain of salt would be underestimating him. The guy I'm thinking of is a Communist, albeit an ethnocentric White Gentile one.

Are White Gentiles really so stupid that they let themselves be led around by the nose by some petty little self-interested tribe? I'm not sure if I have that much respect for them then. Maybe they deserve what they get. You should be attuned enough to your self-interests not to let some frankly inconsequential little pissant tribe lead you around like a mule.

It's true that the Jews pushed the 1965 Act and opposed the earlier Act in the 1920's.

The Jews hate monolithic cultures, especially White Christian cultures. Historically, these cultures have been bad for the Jews, to put it mildly. So they want to make them into multiethnic cultures that will be safer for the Jews.

Jews just promote what's good for the Jews, that's all. If monoethnic White Christian cultures were good for the Jews and multiethnic cultures were bad for them, they would be promoting White Christian monoethnic cultures and opposing multiethnic ones. You would find no greater foes of multiculturalism than the Jews, trust me on that.

No one out here in California cares about Black people. There are not enough of them around. I agree with Z that picking on Blacks is just the lowest of the low. You call that creative thinking? Come on. Talk about beating a guy when he's down. Talk about an easy target.

The Jews are relatively amoral on their project - there is no set agenda behind it. When Communism was good for the Jews, they promoted Communism. When capitalism was good for the Jews, they promoted capitalism. In general, there's no overriding Jewish agenda other than the classic, "Is it good for the Jews?".

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

What Would a Sane Pro-White Movement Look Like?

The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.

Updated September 2:

A pro-White movement (whatever that means) could go somewhere in the US. Recall my quote in an earlier post from a Time Magazine poll that found that 77% of US Whites were ethnocentric and felt that White culture was valuable and deserved to be preserved.

Now I don't know exactly where these folks stand, or what policies they would support, but I assure you that even out here in California, among liberal and even Leftist and Communist Whites, there is support for the 77% fraction of that poll.

A reasonable pro-White movement would be expected to speak for those 77% of US Whites who are "ethnocentric, and think White culture is valuable and is worth preserving", without offending them or turning them off with a bunch of racist crap.

The problem is that there is no such movement. When any group or webpage says "pro-White", prepare your gag reflex and get ready to take off running. Even if they aren't praising Adolf Hitler, they are surely praising Bull Connor. The pro-White movement in the US is not moderate - it's only extreme. Even the most moderate elements are far too extreme for even the ethnocentric Whites that I know.

Let's look at what the pro-White movement in the US supports, who they like and who they dislike:

The WN movement supports segregation, hates MLK, Obama, Nelson Mandela and Rosa Parks, loves apartheid, cheers the genocide of the American Indians and pours scorn on the Indians defending their land, loves White colonialism and praises it to the skies, supports White separatism, cheers on the South in the Civil War and Jim Crow, minimizes lynching, hates civil rights laws and anti-discrimination laws, hates Blacks and almost everyone who isn't White except for maybe some Asians, and hates interracial dating, sex and marriage as "race mixing" or "miscegenation".

Further, many even moderate WN's support throwing out all non-Whites from the US, and especially sending Blacks back to Africa. And it's standard White nationalism across the board that the only real Americans are White people.

Jesus man.

Do you have any idea how that resonates with the ethnocentric Whites I know? Like a lead balloon.

Let me tell you where they stand, who they like and who they hate:

They hate segregation, love MLK, Rosa Parks and Nelson Mandela, they're voting for Obama, hate apartheid, hate the conquest of the American Indians and support the Indians' defense of their land, hate White colonialism (in general - anyway, they don't praise it to the skies), think White separatism is idiotic and laughable, hate the South in the Civil War and side with the North even if they had relatives on both sides, hate Jim Crow, think lynching was "terrorism against Blacks", support civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, are indifferent to interracial dating and marriage, though they were initially dubious about it (because so many young Whites are doing it, including their relatives), don't hate other races or groups - even Blacks, find even primitive groups in the Third World fascinating and are sympathetic to them, and will give you a hate look and walk out of the room if you even say the words "race-mixing" or miscegenation.

If you start talking about throwing non-Whites out of the US or sending Blacks back to Africa, they will probably swear at you, may try to hit you, and might either throw you out of the house or just walk out of the room. If you tell them that only Whites are real Americans, they might try to hit you in the head with a frying pan.

And yet, they are ethnocentric, feel White culture is valuable, and feel it should be preserved. Who will speak for them? Apparently no one. Way to go, guys.

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

Why White Nationalists Hate Communists

The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.

Updated September 2:

I'm going to use the word White Nationalist for White racist, but it's true - 98% of White nationalists are racists. On the other hand, many WN's are not neo-Nazis. The neo-Nazis are one end of the spectrum and the American Renaissance types are at the other hand. Whatever you say about the Amren guys, they're not Nazis.

I gave WN's the benefit of the doubt and studied them with an open mind for a long time, assuming the null hypothesis that they are not racists, but it's true. Most WN's don't like anyone who isn't White. A lot only like Europeans. There are some who like NE Asians, and some others who like SE Asians too.

I don't think any of them like Arabs or North Africans, Afghans, Pakistanis, or Indians. Some like Iranians, but usually only a few. All WN's really hate Black people. If there is one thing that holds WN's together, it's their hatred of Black people.

I finally realized, too, that a lot of WN's are just not really very nice people, so in that sense, the whole "hater" thing is sort of true.

But I always objected to calling them "haters", because I don't think there is anything wrong with hating per se. I'm a Leftist; we hate all kinds of stuff! But a lot of these White racists really are just mean, nasty people deep down inside.

I think that whole "hater" term was thought up by the anti-racists, and I would bet most of them were Jews, just to make these guys look way more evil than they are.

Truth is that whole huge swaths of societies all down through time have been very racist and therefore "haters". One could argue that American society up until the 1960's was a racist, and therefore a "hater" society. Does that make any sense? If you see pictures or movies of Americans from the pre-1960's era, do they look like horrible, mean, ugly, nasty, cruel, "hater" people? Well, of course not.

Probably all societies up until our modern era have been "hater" societies, since some degree of racism was probably the norm in historical human societies. Tribal societies were typically racist "haters" too, since most were locked in tribal war with, or at least despised, their neighbors. The typical Amerindian word for the tribe next door means something like, "Those no-good scumbag wife-stealing bastards over the hill".

So we ought to quit calling these people "haters", quit calling their groups "hate groups" and quit waging insane, Hollywood and ADL (Jewish) paid-for "wars on hate". The Jews should talk anyway. Israel isn't exactly a hate-free zone. It's more like the land of the KKK version of the Jews. It's a Jewish mirror of the KKK, except instead of being White supremacists, they are Jewish supremacists.

Let's just call these groups what they are - racists. Racists can seem like very nice people, and their societies can be warm, friendly and caring, towards the people they like that is. But they're still racists.

One thing I noticed after a while is that almost all these White nationalists really, really, really hate Communists.

It took me a while to figure this out. I think this is because in the US the civil rights movement was always said to be led by Communists. If you were for civil rights, you were a Commie. Period.

Also, Communists really are fairly egalitarian, and White nationalists, and racists of any kind, hate any form of equality. They are very much into inequality and hierarchy. Fascists also are very much against egalitarianism, are into hierarchy and actually worship inequality, though they do their best to lie and say they don't.

After Communists, White nationalists hate socialists and liberals. So, really, White racists just hate the whole Left. I can't see why any self-respecting leftwinger would want to defend these clowns too much. They're basically our enemies, you know?

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

Californian Racial Neurotics

The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.

Updated August 24:

As usual, this blog has been accused of being incoherent on race, and furthermore, I've been accused of being a racist myself, as usual. The person doing the accusing is apparently himself a White racist of the White Nationalist variety.

He says that any anti-racist would never call a Black man a "nigger" (Yes, I did this once about 15 years ago or so), and an anti-racist would not care anything about his neighborhood, city, county, metropolitan area or state being turned from 80% White into 90% Black or Korean or whatever, or the United Nations, even overnight. He also said that since I talk about race all the time, I must be a racist.

That's a pretty strange definition of anti-racism. I suppose that the typical anti-racist crazies would not care about such a thing, but your average White Californian is not too happy about replaced and displaced and turned into a minority in his state.

At the same time, he's usually not that racist himself, and he will often say that he opposes racism. He gets uncomfortable to irritated at any kind of overtly racist talk. He hates White nationalism, not to mention White Power Nazis. He hates segregation, the Indian Wars and apartheid in Africa. He's not too happy about colonialism.

He's in favor of interracial marriage and relationships often has friends or family who are in one. At the same time, he thinks that the standard PC anti-racism of the activist variety is completely insane, and he regards people who push this as radical nutcases. He has a low opinion of illegal aliens, but he may want to legalize them because he thinks it's cruel to send them all home. He hates racial slurs.

He supports all civil rights and anti-discrimination laws but is often dubious about affirmative action. He's typically pretty much indifferent to the whole topic of race and racism and finds the whole subject unpleasant and distasteful and doesn't want to talk about it. He thinks xenophobes who dislike all foreigners and want to stop all immigration are Know-Nothing Idiots.

He believes that there IQ differences between the races, but doesn't necessarily want to talk about it too much, though he regards the topic as fascinating.

He will often defend Amerindians, Filipinos, Aborigines, East Indians, Africans, Negritos, Gypsies, Blacks, Hispanics, Papuans, Melanesians, Polynesians, Micronesians and just about any other minority group that is often the subject of scorn. He will regard them as interesting people who are being oppressed and he wants to defend them.

At the same time, some of these people are racists, but only about certain people. I know some White Californians who are racist against Hispanics, especially illegal aliens. At the same time, these same people have Hispanic and even illegal alien friends and acquaintances because they believe in treating everyone as individuals.

White nationalists paint a bizarre picture of anti-racism that fails to describe how people really are. Either you're a crazed PC anti-racist radical, or else you're a racist White nationalist. You're one or the other. But people are complicated and most California Whites don't fit into either category. I suspect that many people of other races and ethnicities have similar conflicting views.

When it comes to race, as with many things, people are complicated, conflicted and all over the place. It's not just race. Humans are like this about all sorts of subjects. That's just the way people are. People don't necessarily have coherent views about many things, or about much of anything.

I admit to writing about race and racism all the time and even being obsessed with it. I'm also very interested in White nationalism for some reason, but the movement is repellent. If you go to antifa forums, you also find a lot of folks who are pretty obsessed with race. On sites like Humanbiodiversity, you find much the same thing. I doubt if this makes me a racist, but maybe it makes me a nut. Oh well.

Let me give you an example.

A friend of mine was over there the other day. Older White woman. I was showing her the website of Erectus Walks Among Us, and she thought the guy was a complete idiot. She said, "Why does he care? Why did he spend all this time writing a book on differences between the races?"

I said, "He's a White nationalist. That's all they think about all day long. That's all they care about. Black people are destroying America and the world and this is the most important issue of our time."

She shook her head and said, "Well! He's a nut!"

Then I asked her if she thought there were differences between the races of the type the guy is describing. She said I'm sure they exist. I asked her if she thought that most Whites thought there were differences between the races, and she said I think they do.

I then said that a lot of these people move to try to get away from Blacks and Hispanics. She said, "Sure? Of course they do. So? What's wrong with that?" I asked her if that's racist and she said, "Of course not!"

Later she was reading the paper and pointed to some morons who keep crashing cars into canals and drowning around here. These idiots drive with full carloads along the edges of canals and then fall in the canal and drown. I said, "They're all Hispanics." She laughed and said, "Of course they are! No one else is that stupid!"

But this woman totally hates White nationalism and all overtly White racist movements, supports all civil rights laws, supports interracial marriage (her son is married to an Asian), and hates segregationists, neo-Confederates, apartheid-lovers and supporters of the Indian Wars. She even defends illegals and wants to make them all into citizens.

She loves Obama and worries that the opposition to him is racist and that a lot of Whites voting against him are racists. She also harbors no illusions about other races. She thinks there are IQ differences by race and regards this as a fascinating though forbidden topic.

This is pretty much your average older White Californian.

Let's describe another fellow.

He's 45 years old and White. This guy will defend Blacks and the whole Black agenda, and he's voting for Obama too.

He's been known to use the word "nigger" but usually as humor. He saw Cynthia McKinney once on TV and started making monkey noises and laughing. We were talking about South Central LA once and he described it as "land of the silverbacks".

On the other hand, he thinks Whites who hate Blacks are idiots, and he's turned off by anti-Black racism. He supports reparations for Blacks, but he also says that a lot of Blacks are rapists and thieves, and Whites should be careful about getting involved with them. He often uses typical pro-Black rhetoric when describing Blacks and talks about how horribly we have treated them.

At the same time, when I was dating Black women 25 years ago, he said, "You're sick! How could you date a Black woman! You're a nigger lover!" And then he laughed.

He describes himself as a racist, but only towards Jews, Hispanics and South Indians. He thinks Whites, especially Northern European Whites, are superior to all other groups. The guy's basically a Nordicist and he's been known to read proto-Nazi literature by German authors. He has no amimosity towards anyone else.

He's furious about being made a minority in his home state and he blames Hispanics. He's mad at South Indians for "taking over all the 7-11's and gas stations." He's dated Amerindian and Japanese women. At the same time, he has Hispanic and even illegal alien friends. Nevertheless, he also openly states that Hispanics are an inferior race and that Amerindians are stupid.

Let's look at one more guy.

He's 48 years old and White. This guy who used to go on and on about the need for White people to procreate, as they are going extinct. He's also very racist against Blacks, as he used to work as a security guard and then a prison guard, and has lots of White cop friends, and White cops in California are extremely racist against Blacks, even if most others aren't.

He loves to quote statistics about Blacks and crime, and once, when I had bad experiences dating some Black women, he chided me and that's what you get for associating with Black people. At the same time, this guy dated a Black woman a while back (!) and he married a Vietnamese woman a few years ago and just fathered a Hapa kid (!). Does any of this make sense? Not really.

I'm sorry if people find these folks "incoherent on race", but that's just the way a lot of people are out here. Race is a complicated subject and it twists minds in some pretty interesting ways. That's what makes humans and life so interesting.

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.