Category Archives: Affirmative Action

by | July 15, 2016 · 12:53 PM

Black Americans – The Highest Achieving Black Group in Recent History

Chinedu writes:

Poor Whites are still White. And Blacks from upper-middle class environments are not immune from all the debilitating effects of being Black in America. I know this from personal experience. Some can rise above it, some can’t.

Here’s a natural experiment that will clear this up for you if, indeed, you’re looking for the truth. Compare the test scores of upper middle class Nigerian Americans (born in the USA) to those of poor Whites. If HBD is correct we should see the same pattern. If HBD is incorrect, we won’t.

If these upper class African immigrants in the US are such wonderful people as Chinedu says hey are, then why can’t they fix up their own countries? Chinedu goes on and on about how wonderful Africans are; it’s the African-Americans who are screwed up. Well, be that as it may, perhaps it is true. But if Africans are so much more high achieving that Af-Ams, then why is Africa such an nonredeemable, horrific end of the world shithole?

Compared to Africa, I would say that US Blacks have done quite well for themselves. I had the TV on last night, and there was one very highly intelligent, US Black after another, an endless stream of them. TV anchors, surgeons, medical school professors, journalists, actors, scholars, I mean it went on and on.

I took a friend to court last fall, and there were two Black women there. I thought they were clerks! No doubt due to my subconscious racism – Blacks are sort of dumb, so those women must be clerks – how could they be anything else? Well one of those women turned out to be my friend’s attorney, the Public Defender. The other Black woman was interning in the Public Defender’s office. They had both graduated from Law School and passed the bar! And I saw a Black male attorney in there on that same day.

Sure, US Blacks are screwing up big time, but there is a significant sector of them who are really kicking ass in the US, making good money at prestigious jobs.

And contrary to this racism crap you hear all the time, most governments at any level, most universities, and many large corporations are chomping at the bit salivating for high achieving, well-behaved Blacks. The universities want them in their schools, the governments want them to fill their “goals,” and the corporations often have not only goals but virtually AA quotas (though not defined as such). The demand for high achieving well-behaved Blacks far exceeds the supply.

So in this sense, I believe that US Blacks are actually the most successful Black population on Earth. Now maybe that’s not saying much – look at the competition. Well, ok. But still it is saying something. In spite of Detroit, Chicago and Baltimore, there is another story – the story of the highest achieving Black population in recent history.

16 Comments

Filed under Affirmative Action, Africa, Blacks, Civil Rights, Immigration, Nigerians, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Sociology, USA

by | May 6, 2016 · 5:59 PM

A Few Alt Left Positions on Race

RL: The Alt Left would be a movement that is pro-White, likes Whites and White culture and values the people and the societies they create. Also at least my wing would be nonracist. I would say that we should be antiracist, but antiracism has been so taken over by insane people that I do not want to identify with it anymore.

Not sure about the other wing – it looks White nationalist.

I would say that non-Whites can join, but only if they like White people, White culture and the societies that Whites create. No White-haters allowed.

Another William Playfair Web: That would take cutting the Cultural Marxist monopoly on the media, and involve not allowing things like Ferguson to happen, right?

Sure, but that will require another “Long March through the institutions” just like the Cultural Left did except in reverse. If we could just get a voice at the table, it might be nice.

As far as riots like Ferguson, that is a matter for city governments and local and even state law enforcement to deal with. The Alt Left will not take a stand on these riots other than to say that there is often very little justification for the rioting. They are usually rioting because another thug got shot dead by cops, typically in a justifiable homicide. That’s not a good reason to riot.

Another William Playfair Web: No affirmative Action.

No affirmative busing unless a student really deserves it.

The Alt Left would oppose affirmative action, but it’s already being outlawed in most states anyway, and corporations can do all the AA they want to and nobody can do a thing about it. And increasingly they do just that. The Alt Left will not take a stance on corporations practicing their own “goals” or AA or whatever it is they do. It’s their company, and it’s their business how they run it.

Busing Blacks into White schools has always been problematic. For one thing, it creates a huge number of White racists. Many young Whites, especially men, went to schools where Blacks were bussed in. These Blacks behaved horrifically and these Whites have been racist ever since. So busing in Blacks mostly seems to cause a lot of new White racists.

No tolerance for bad behavior for bussed in Blacks. Also I think they should be very selective about the Blacks they bus in. It should almost be a lottery where it is a privilege to be chosen. Whether or not you would be bussed would be based on your behavior at the Black school.

Another William Playfair Web: Maybe I am just too closed minded, but this “culture and values” stuff, is just too abstract. Whites in Ferguson or Kate Steinle’s family don’t give a rat’s ass about “White culture;” they just want a stop to crime/violence.

The media and the culture now say that White people and White culture are evils. We beg to disagree. We like and value White people, White culture and the societies that Whites create. The Alt Left is not so much pro-White but more that it is not anti-White. There’s no way to stop the crime and violence in Black ghettos anyway, so the Alt Left does not claim to have they key to that problem. We don’t care if Whites listen to us or not, but most Whites agree with the core positions. If you poll Whites on whether they like and value White people and White culture and whether White culture is worth preserving, 75% say yes.

Another William Playfair Web:…they just want a stop to crime/violence. I just can’t see indoctrinating NAM’s with White values stopping that.

We are not about indoctrinating NAM’s with White values. They can adopt them or not if they wish; it’s not something we care about. It would be nice if NAM’s stopped thinking that White culture and White people were evil things though. The NAM’s are not our target audience. The culture at large is. We are not so naive as to be believe that indoctrinating NAM’s with White values will ameliorate crime and violence in ghettos. We do not think it will do that, and that is not our intention anyway.

180 Comments

Filed under Affirmative Action, Anti-Racism, Blacks, Civil Rights, Culture, Education, Left, Political Science, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Sane Pro-White, Social Problems, Sociology, Urban Decay, Urban Studies, Whites

by | April 18, 2015 · 7:40 PM

The Jewish Boycott – A Little Known Means of Ethnic Media Control in America

The The Jewish Boycott is very little known, but it has been used many times by Jews in the US, mostly to shut down newspapers that do not toe the line. 20 years ago, a paper in the Midwest ran an article noting that 59% of Clinton’s Cabinet were Jews (fact) while Jews only make up 2% of the country. The article noted that this was not particularly democratic, and when other groups like Whites or males dominate any field, the calls rain out for affirmative action, quotas, etc., and the Whites and males are accused of discriminating against non-Whites and females.

I would agree that excessive numbers of Whites and men in certain fields is not very democratic. But by the same token what is so democratic about 2% of the population getting 59% of the Cabinet positions under a US President? Is that fair? If it’s fair, explain how and why this is fair. Answer is it is not fair, and it is the exact same thing as excessive numbers of Whites or males in any field. Of course the Jews go berserk if you bring this up because they say you are going to bring back “Jewish quotas.”

Affirmative action policies in the US try to make a given workforce look like the population either in the US or in the surrounding area – say 67% White, 15% Hispanic, 13% Black, 3% Asian, 1% Amerindian, 50% males and females each, and 3% gays if the goal is to look like America. Many corporations have “goals” where they try to make the workforce percentages mirror the population percentages in the US or the area. I do not mind this as long as they can find qualified personnel.

But how about this – in addition to your workforce being 67% White, 15% Hispanic, 13% Black, 3% Asian, 1% Amerindian, 50% males and females each, and 3% gays, you try to make it only 2% Jewish. So you turn away a lot of Jewish applicants because they aren’t Black or Mexican or whatever. Now if you do that, the Jews will go start raving nuts.

This is true even though Jews were one of the prime movers behind Affirmative Action. Also Jews were deeply involved in the Civil Rights Acts 50 years ago (greatly to their credit I would add), but it is little known that the Jews tried to write in exceptions for religion so that the Jews could continue to discriminate against non-Jews like they always do. Sleazy! This fact makes you wonder whether the Jews’ motives in the Civil Rights Movement were not really so pure after all but were instead more of a means to stick into the White man, the hated WASP’s.

Ok, so if Clinton tries to make his Cabinet look like America, how about making it 2% Jewish? Nazi! You’re a Nazi! If you say that, you are a Nazi. I know because a suggested that in a forum once and the Jews went ballistic and shouted me down calling me a Nazi.

Furthermore, is it really democratic for 2% of the population do have 59% of the highest ranking positions in the US government? What’s so democratic about that?

Anyway, the article was perfectly legitimate. This was an issue that no media outlet in the US would dare touch. However, this outlet bravely did so. The Jews flipped when they saw that article and the Jewish businesses all got together (working as a tribe once again) and instituted an advertiser boycott against the paper. Since Jews owned many businesses in the area, after a year or two the boycott was successful and the paper was out of business. I have been told that in the past, say prior to 50 years ago, these Jewish Boycotts used to happen all the time until word got around the media world that the Jews were untouchable so leave them alone.

I have nothing against Jewish businesses trying to put an overtly Nazi or antisemitic media outlet out of business via boycotts. But the Jews don’t just do it to real antisemites. They do it to anyone who says boo to the Jews or who doesn’t bow down in front of them and grovel at their feet like everyone else has to here in Judeoamerica.

But that’s just the way the Jews are. They have no sense of proportion. You either think the Jews are the greatest thing since Kleenex and you praise them and suck up to them many times a day, or, if you don’t want to do that, that means you are just like those people who threw them in the ovens. Jewish thinking is utterly Manichean black and white thinking. There is no grey area, ever.

7 Comments

Filed under Affirmative Action, Civil Rights, Democrats, Government, Jews, Journalism, Labor, Law, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, The Jewish Question, US Politics

by | February 9, 2013 · 6:54 PM

For Starters, Let’s Have a ‘Reality Show’ That’s Really About Reality

Repost from the old site. This is basically a guest post by a young female college student in the US. It takes on Jews in a pretty serious say, so prepare yourself. My comments in bold brackets.

I Don’t Hate the Jews, I Hate Everyone, published in February on this site, was one of the most widely read and linked articles to have appeared on this blog so far. It’s been read over 2000 times so far.

Although it was published seven months ago, I continue to get hits for it to this day, and it is still being linked. Hotly controversial, the piece was vilified by many as anti-Semitic, while others praised it as anti-racist.

This dual view of the piece was exemplified by a spate of recent Indymedia posts of the article. Some of the commenters praised it as an anti-racist piece, and it was filed under “Anti-Racism” at one Indymedia site. Of course, that is how the piece was intended.

On another Indymedia site, it was attacked as “racist garbage” (probably by a Jewish commenter) and it was placed in the Hidden category as a violation of the terms of the site.

The fact that a single article can be portrayed as either anti-racist or racist, depending on one’s POV, illuminates how hard it is to for humans to objectively define anything, which is exactly what semiotics, poststructuralism, Derrida and the rest were getting at.

The article focused on a group of British former liberals and Leftists who have formed a movement that I called the “Pro-War Left”. Basically, the PWL is a British corollary to the US neoconservatives, albeit with some differences in etiology, political orientation (more leftwing), trajectory and history.

To this day, interestingly, there has not been one other article anywhere in the worldwide media that has explored the “British Pro-War Left” as a corollary grouping to the neocons.

I continue to receive mail about this piece. I don’t usually publish mail, but a recent mail I received about the piece had so many nice points that I have decided to publish it, albeit with my own comments interspersed. I will call the author “Anonymous”, since I don’t know if she wants her name published. The author is a young female US college student.

Here goes:

In regards to race, I personally don’t believe in the concept. There is no defined line along the spectrum of people to warrant such a dangerous theory, really. We could even go so far as to say each one of us is our own race making the whole point moot, and it is.

[RL: I don’t agree. Clearly, one can make a case for 12 different races: Asian, East Indian, Caucasian, American Indian, Black, Pygmy, Hottentot, Negrito, Polynesian, Micronesian, Melanesian and Aborigine. Really, we could probably make even more if we want to start splitting.]

The concept seems to have been invented by some Europeans to make it easier to gain support in order to colonize, subjugate and enslave people.

[RL: Whether or not the modern concept of race was invented by Europeans in the 19th Century or not is not all that relevant, as humans seem to have been making distinctions like this for thousands of years.]

However, whether it’s a fact or not, we must acknowledge it because it’s with us, and I refuse to play the game that we should remove say, Affirmative Action, in an effort to erase the concept of race. That’s ridiculous. White men have had Affirmative Action since day one in this country by default, so it’s only fair that people of color and women have that protection as well.

[RL: This blog takes a nuanced stance on Affirmative Action. While I think it is necessary, it is not acceptable for less qualified members of certain races to be promoted over more qualified members of other races. And yes, this has been done a lot by the AA system.]

But back when race was being defined, with it came racism.

[RL: I will disagree and say that humans have always been racists; in fact, that the natural, normal state of man is a racist state.]

As race is a concept invented by “whites”, naturally the victims have always been people of color.

[RL: The victims of human racism have always been simply the “Other”, which often was something as simple as the “tribe over that hill over there”.]

The people of color also happened to live in lands the “white” people found attractive, and the darker folks seemed easier to enslave or conquer because of their lack of guns, germs and steel (yes, Jared Diamond).

And that byproduct called racism created movements like White Supremacy, Zionism, etc. All of these theories appeared noble and even Biblical, and all were based on the belief that the favored people were supreme in some way. The supremacism was portrayed in various ways, biologically, or even as victims (the “worst victims in history” theory used by the Jews, even though Zionism began long before WWII).

Americans, Israelis, Australians, white Africans, etc., are all just upholding the ideals of what is actually ongoing colonization. I do believe people are basically good, and the imperialists know this, so they must invent something that good people would support.

If you can tell a compelling enough story, and you know the components that are needed to make the story work, people will believe it. Religions are a testament to that.

Most people can’t or won’t believe their leaders are so capable of evildoing that they’d actually lie and kill for imperial reasons rather than “innocent” self defense. I mean, who wants to wake up one day to discover mommy and daddy are criminals?

I personally hated the day I woke up and realized that my leaders were doing this, although it didn’t actually happen in one day, but the realization built up to the point where there was one day when it all hit me. It dragged on for days, and now years – this realization that our government is an evil empire has made life very difficult for me to live here.

A pure capitalist society – a byproduct of ongoing imperialism and colonization – is absolute Hell. I feel that pain everyday, and most Americans feel it too yet they don’t realize that pure capitalism is the culprit. They think it’s just life. Capitalism is sold to us as one of the freedoms of democracy!

Funny thing is, you cannot have individual freedoms and democracy at the same time. If the majority doesn’t like your idea of freedom, you can’t have it! But any extreme system like pure capitalism is bound to be problematic.

People complain about dealing with bad customer service, or lack of choice of cable telephone services, or DSL/Cable connection, or bad customer service from conglomerates, or the loss of funding for social programs, the arts, education, or not having health care if they’re not employed by a corporation, or the ridiculous cost of college.

All of this is a product of pure capitalism, where maximizing profits goes above all else, even if it means people have to live in poverty or die. Oh well. They are just casualties of life, I guess, but as long as the corporation is making a profit, it’s all worth it, right? It gives people jobs, right? Except how do these corporations explain themselves when suddenly they send most jobs overseas?

Bizarrely, people still support that in some way or another, defending the company’s right to maximize its profits because, that is the American “dream” right? If only people would just stop and listen to themselves. They’ve been convinced that they don’t even deserve to be employed because it might get in the way of a company’s bottom line! That’s one amazing campaign!

I do want to preface the rest of this by saying that I don’t believe Jews would be naturally imperialistic or controlling if it weren’t for Israel.

[RL: Unfortunately, I am not so sure about that!]

The diamond industry is another story.

But support for Israel is one of those “things” that push most Jews to believe they are superior in some way, or at least more deserving. The campaign to support Israel is very well-done and extremely powerful.

In my efforts to learn more and more about Palestine/Israel, I discovered the fundamentals of colonization. They’re always the same, for the most part, so much so that it makes you wonder if there isn’t a book out there called Colonization Cookbook, Land Grab in Ten Easy Steps, and they’ve all used it.

They all do and say the same things – the European Christians said there were no people here in the Americas because they didn’t consider the natives human, the European Christians said what became Australia was terra nullius for the same reason, and the European Jews said that Palestine was a land without people for a people without a land, and on and on.

The colonists raised themselves to a higher status as a “race” and went from there. Agreements/treaties with the native people were continuously promised, then made, and finally broken.

The natives were eventually corralled into camps, reservations, Bantustans or ghettos, and the colonial violence against the natives continued until protests or a native insurgency eventually put a stop to it. But even after the colonization was halted, there was a tendency to start it back up again somewhere else, especially if our military-industrial complex is having a bad year or two.

Then the colonists either discover a new enemy or invent one. I do not believe Arabs/Muslims are behind the majority of our present day “terrorism.”

[RL: I respectfully disagree, but it depends on how you define terrorism.]

Regarding South Africa (SA), I have definitely studied that case. I was fortunate enough to meet a South African man who fought in the struggle and he told me lots of interesting stories. I also believe that the system of Apartheid and the State of Israel’s founding, both in 1948, is only slightly coincidental.

Cecil Rhodes and Herzl communicated and swapped colonization tips. And the largest stockholder of Rhodes’’ company, the DeBeers precious metals company, was Sir Ernest Oppenheimer. DeBeers is still owned by the Oppenheimers.

South Africa’s main industry at its founding was diamonds, and the diamond industry is now controlled almost entirely by Jews in diamond districts in New York, Amsterdam, Israel (20%), and other parts of the world. So the similarities between Israel and SA are no coincidence, it just remained hidden. Sadha, my South African friend, told me that it was the Zionist Jews who made dismantling Apartheid the most difficult.

I mean, why else did the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith work with and help the SA Apartheid government by spying and sabotaging anti-Apartheid movements in the US for many years? How did that help Jews fight “anti-Semitism”?

Of course, Israel and SA were partners for many years – note the arms deals, nuclear weapons, diamonds, etc. My theory is that Zionists finally agreed to let Apartheid fall because they needed the bodies to populate Israel, in order to fill the place because of the impending “demographics” issue.

[RL: Dubious. I realize that Jews have a lot of power in this world, but I don’t think they have THAT much power, thank God, and it is not helpful to ascribe more power to the Jews than they already have. Anyway, I am not aware that a huge number of South African Jews headed off to Israel after the fall of Apartheid.]

A special city project was developed in Israel for the SA Jews, and many moved there. The SA Jews acted like desperate white folks, left to live amongst the now-freed savages.

[RL: It’s a fact that many SA Jews, despite the fact that factions in their community played a significant role in dismantling apartheid, headed right out of SA as soon as Black rule took over.]

And despite the fall of Apartheid, the diamond industry is still exploiting Africans all over Africa.

Another issue is that Jews still control many industries that have immense power in this country and elsewhere.

For instance, they control the Entertainment Industry, the Mass Media, the Marketing of the Holocaust Industry, and US Middle East foreign policy (though not an industry per se). Such control is mostly to keep people’’s attention away from Israel until Israel carries out its goal of ethnically cleansing all non-Jews from Palestine, to make way for greater Israel.

[RL: I doubt it. The takeover of US mass media and entertainment by the Jewish elite (mostly accomplished from 1900-1930) was done for other reasons, not to keep people’s minds off of Israel. In fact, at the time of the takeover, there was no Israel!

As far as why the Jewish elite decided to take over these industries and engaged in actual conspiracies to do just that in the US, that is a complex issue that is the subject of an entire post itself.

Jews took over the Holocaust Industry for a variety of reasons. Number one, clearly this is an issue of prime concern to almost all Jews. Another reason is more cynical – to facilitate Gentile support of Jewish causes and to perpetuate the notion of Jewish victimhood. Control over US Middle East foreign policy is simply being done out of sheer Jewish self-interest.

That’s because Israel, the Jewish state, is central to US ME foreign policy. And let’s not forget that the simple goal of making money for the Tribe runs like a river through each of these projects.]

Of all these industries, the Entertainment Industry shapes American opinion above and beyond any other. Just look at the way Arabs are portrayed in American films, or read the book Reel Bad Arabs by Jack Shaheen to see it spelled out for yourself.

Arabs are almost never portrayed in a positive light; the Arab is always a dirty, thieving, polygamist subhuman. Nowadays, he often plays the role of token terrorist. I am now taking a class called History of Film. In the reading for the class I came across this text:

Interestingly, the men who founded these companies (which are obviously still the major powerhouses in Hollywood) had a lot in common. They were all originally independent producers and distributors who climbed the ladder from nickelodeon operator and eventually outlasted the powerful MPPC.

Interestingly, they were all first generation Jewish immigrants with little education, yet in charge of the most significant form of mass entertainment in history enjoyed by a vastly Christian population.

Hollywood is still controlled primarily by Jews who are almost all Zionists, both liberal and right wing.

[RL: Actually, the Hollywood Jews are overwhelmingly male, secular, hedonistic, irreverent, and liberal to Leftist. Rightwing Jews are almost nonexistent in Hollywood.]

Take a look what happened to Vanessa Redgrave because of her part in the 1977 film, The Palestinians.

[RL: She was effectively blacklisted in Jewish-controlled Hollywood].

Due to Jewish control over Hollywood, that film was never shown here. Just try to get a Palestinian art exhibit or film shown in a major US city and see how far you get.

Paul Findley’s book They Dare to Speak Out deals with the Jewish Hollywood angle and many taboo topics along similar lines. The Jewish – Israeli Lobby is extremely powerful in the US. Recently, AIPAC has targeted college campuses. They are working closely with Hillel, the US Jewish college student organization. Both groups are promising to really ramp up the pro-Israel position on campuses this fall.

No group is perfect, and any group can be supremacist because we are all human; and I know that Palestinians are no angels, and neither are Muslims.

As an atheist, I could go on and on about the problems of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. But let’s take a look at another imbalance: note that people have no problem discussing Christian and Islamic Fundamentalism, but why the taboo about Jewish Fundamentalism?

Jewish fundamentalism – that’s exactly what Zionism is!

[RL: I don’t really agree. There are many types of Zionism – secular Zionism, religious Zionism, ultra-Orthodox Zionism. It doesn’t make sense to wrap the entire Zionist enterprise in the Jewish religion.]

You can’t even mention the phrase “Jewish fundamentalism” without getting horrific looks; nevertheless, Jewish fundamentalism surely exists. The dirty looks are testament to the power of the Holocaust Industry. This Jewish special privilege is allowing Zionists to get away with murder.

Right now, the Palestinians are absolutely the victims of Judaism as an imperialist, supremacist movement AKA Zionism, just as the native peoples of the Americas, Australia, Africa and parts of Asia were victims of European Christianity as an imperialist, supremacist movement.

The native peoples of those lands did not leave their lands to colonize, subjugate and ethnically cleanse people on another land.

They didn’t steal others’ land and then deny it, claiming the land was vacant or, if caught in that lie, try to justify it by calling it bringing democracy to the natives or civilizing the savages, or, best of all, claim that God had given them the land, as both the European Jews and European Christians claimed!

[RL: I have to disagree here. The notion that only European Christians and Jews have been colonizing other people is an especially pernicious myth that is drastically in need of busting.

Fact is, colonization has been going on all over the globe for, as best we can tell, 1000’s of years. The examples of non-Judeo-Christian colonization and ethnic cleansing are voluminous and cannot be summarized in this comment bracket. Perhaps a subject for another post?]

So at least since history has been documented, the Europeans have had the upper hand in conquest and destruction, whereas others were simply either fighting back or left in the wake and rubble of former colonization efforts. Examples of this can be seen in Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, parts of Asia, various oceanic islands, and of course the US.

[[RL: Well, I would agree that Europeans have been doing some of the more prominent colonizing in the past 500 years, but the rest of the planet has been colonizing away on their own during this same period; it’s just that their efforts were usually on a smaller scale.]

The American people have an obligation to focus on Israel right now, to bring it to the top of the list as the worst atrocity being committed on this planet side by side with the war on Iraq and Afghanistan, even above Darfur.

[RL: I am going to strongly disagree. If the Israelis had treated the Palestinians in the past two years as the Arabs are treating the Africans in Darfur, the following a catastrophe would have occurred.

A catastrophe that looked like this: 1.3 million out of the 3.9 million Palestinians in the Territories would have been ethnically cleansed to Egypt or Jordan or wherever. The Israelis would have killed 120,000 Palestinians, often with extreme cruelty.

The Palestinians would have been herded into horrible refugee camps, where scores would have died every day of hunger and disease while the world dithered and Israel deliberately obstructed relief supplies.

Israeli soldiers and armed civilians would have gone a mass raping spree. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of Palestinian women would have been raped in this mass Rape-a-Thon. Many Palestinian women would have been murdered by the Jews after being raped.]

Zionists love to put the spotlight on Darfur because it helps their cause by pointing out that Muslims are always the bad guys, as though Christians and Jews have never done anything bad in the name of their religion.

The Israeli-Palestinian issue is of prime importance to Americans – the Iraq war is Israel’s war, and we’re fighting it for them and with them.

[RL: True in part, see my comments here on whether the Iraq War is “all about Israel” or not.]

US support is the only thing that keeps Israel afloat. By natural selection, Israel would have been gone by now if it weren’t for the extremely expensive American life support system and the very powerful Jewish Lobby.

So, although I hear people say Jews do not control the world, they do control as much of the world as they want.

[RL:I don’t agree with that. My God, if the Jews were that powerful, God help us all!]

They don’t want the whole world, they just want Israel and they will work through the power of the US to hold back the world whenever it gets in the way. But what they do control is all it takes to control the world – America, America’s opinion, and America’’s veto.

As columnist Tony Judt wrote recently in the New York Times Review of Books, Israel is an anachronism, since colonization itself is archaic, yet there the Israelis are, milking an archaic system that should have been defunct by now.

And Americans are falling for it, because most have no idea what’s really going on over there. Why? Because of Zionist control of Americans’ opinions on Israel and the Holocaust by way of the Entertainment Industry, the media, and our Middle East foreign policy.

Because the Israel’s colonial system is an anachronism, we are starting to see some desperate measures by the Israelis. Like a passengers on a sinking ship, Israelis won’t give up the Israel ship until there is nothing left to hold on to, and they’’ll lie, kick, scream, and kill as it goes down, taking a lot of innocent people down with them.

And this scenario I cannot accept. Just as I would not have stayed silent during the Holocaust, or during the French colonization of Algeria, or during the US slavery or Jim Crow eras, or during Apartheid, neither will stay silent now in the face of Zionism, nor will I accept that Zionism is simply an aspect of human nature.

At some point, we humans to learn from past mistakes and rise above such greed and hate and become a better species, shouldn’t we? We have the capacity to do so; we just all need to take an active interest.

It’s unfortunate that politics has been lumped in with religion as a subject not fit for polite discussion. This is nuts. One of them, politics, represents direct reality.

[RL: Well, potentially, anyway. The Bush Administration has shown us that the marriage of surrealism and politics is feasible.]

The other, religion, actually represents mythology, not direct reality. But politics’ place as a taboo subject is certainly by design, and undoing that edifice may be the hardest task of all.

To start, I suppose we could have a reality TV show that is actually about reality.

2 Comments

Filed under Affirmative Action, Africa, Anti-Racism, Arabs, Britain, Capitalism, Christianity, Civil Rights, Colonialism, Conservatism, Economics, Europe, Europeans, Israel, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Jews, Judaism, Middle East, Palestine, Palestinians, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, Reposts From The Old Site, South Africa, US Politics, War, Zionism

by | June 26, 2012 · 10:21 PM

Pat Buchanon As a Covert White Nationalist

A commenter writes:

Pat Buchanan also seems to be a White Nationalist, or at least someone who believes the US should remain a majority White country forever and uses his “Western Civilization” term as a code for White domination constantly. I’m sure his covert White Nationalism (Which I guess is Nixon era moderate ideology isn’t it?) is what got him kicked off liberal MSNBC.

Most Black, Latino, Amerindian etc racists by definition are on the Left, aren’t they?

Yes Buchanan is a covert White nationalist in a sense. Buchanan is about as far as any form of WN, no matter how mild, has made it in the mainstream. There is little stomach for even Buchanan’s very mild race realism and White ethnocentrism which is why he is being thrown off venue after venue.

Buchanan has few other peers in the mass media, as there is almost no space there for them. Actually, aside from his antisemitism (itself quite mild), Buchanan’s views are quite mild in terms of WN and HBD in general. He’s pretty much saying what a lot of us liberals think but are too frightened to say.

But almost all true White nationalists want to split off and form their own state. Few WN’s want to just keep the US a White majority country anymore, as that seems to be hopeless anyway. The definition of WN anymore seems to be one who wants a separate White country.

Most WN’s nowadays are split into a few camps:

1. Take back the US by force. Enforce White dominance at the state level and throw out the minorities and send them back to wherever. With the most extreme, this would involve some level of genocide or mass murder against non-Whites and “White traitors,” especially Jews and White race traitors.

2. White separatists. Most WN’s nowadays are White Separatists. They want a separate White state in the US along with separate states for Blacks and Hispanics or possibly a separate mixed race state where anyone could live. This has always been the goal of almost all of the major WN figures. Those who deny this are basically lying. WN for all intents and purposes is White separatism in one form or another.

3. The apartheid crowd. Some want to take back the US, enforce White dominance, but not throw out the minorities. This is a lesser trend. They want to keep the minorities under heel with some form of apartheid or Jim Crow. At the very least, they want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws.

4. Get rid of all anti-discrimination laws. This is the least toxic of the trends, and it’s the fallback position in the even that there is no White state and no White capture of the state and enforced apartheid. All WN’s and I do mean all of them believe that we should eliminate all anti-discrimination laws. Then White towns at least could be set up where there would be massive discrimination against nonwhites on a private level.

This ties in very well with the Libertarian position since all Libertarians want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws. People of color support Libertarianism at their own risk.

5. End all immigration, legal and illegal. Some modify this to say that we should allow immigration by Whites. This is a fallback minimal position. Obviously this is never going to happen either. We can’t even limit legal immigration. We can’t stop illegal immigration, and there are continuous calls for amnesty. This will never fly, but it’s supported by all WN’s with vehemence. The 1965 Immigration Act was one of the worst things that ever happened to America in their book.

6. End affirmative action. All WN’s support this, and quite a few regular folks do too. This is another fallback minimal position and ties in well with the positions of the Republican Party.

7. Sing the praises of a White majority US and White dominance, bash minorities, but do nothing to keep a White majority or White dominance in place. This is essentially a rhetorical position, and it’s where Pat Buchanan is coming from.

One very smart Black commenter on here wrote a while back that the logical end result of WN could only be genocide, apartheid (or separatism) or expulsion. He was correct of course.

Most Black, Latino, Amerindian etc racists by definition are on the left, aren’t they?

Unfortunately, most Black, Latino and Indian racists are indeed on the Left, often on the Far Left. As there is no space for racism on the Left, this has always bothered me, but on the Left, they say that these folks are not really racists. They’re just fighting back against White racism and only Whites can be racist, bla bla bla.

31 Comments

Filed under Affirmative Action, Civil Rights, Illegal, Immigration, Journalism, Law, Left, Legal, Libertarianism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Republicans, US Politics, USA, White Nationalism, Whites

by | October 15, 2011 · 11:14 PM

What Can Be Done About Black Pathologies?

The racists like to scream on and on about all of the problems that US Blacks cause. Crime is not the only issue. There are a ton more problems too.

Racists have a problem with this issue, and that is that the primary victims of all US Black pathologies including but not limited to crime are simply Black people themselves, many of whom are as good a people as the racists screaming about Blacks.

But no matter how much you yell about Blacks and their shit, there’s really nothing much to be done. So in a sense it is an exercise in frustration. If someone is yelling about a problem that cannot be solved, I don’t really want to listen too much.

No matter how much you hate American Blacks, there’s absolutely nothing whatsoever to be done about them that is still sane and decent.

These racist idiots mostly propose:

1. Sending all Blacks back to Africa. Yes, actually many of them do propose exactly this! You would be stunned at how many hardcore US racists (White nationalists) actually think this is a cool idea.

2. A separate White state in the US. No one is sure exactly what to do with the Blacks. Some call for some kind of a Black state in the SE US and all Blacks to be shipped there.

3. Return to some sort of legal discrimination or Jim Crow. Almost all serious anti-Black racists advocate this. Never heard a single one of them oppose it.

4. The right of municipalities and counties to decide who can and who cannot live in their cities and counties.

Since all of this bullshit is beyond the pale, there really is nothing reasonable to be done about Blacks and the obvious problems that they do in fact cause. Some of the more reasonable remedies:

1. Stop affirmative action. This honestly does zero to stop Black pathologies and probably makes them worse by depriving Blacks of income, but nevertheless it’s always proposed as some lame solution to the “Black problem.” It doesn’t do the slightest damned thing about the Black problem. What problem does it remedy? The anti-White discrimination problem, yes.

2. Put more Blacks in prison or jail. Works, but at considerable cost.

3. Stop importing so many Black people or get a lot more serious about screening the Blacks we do import. Good idea, but will have a minimal effect as most Black problems are caused by US born Blacks.

4. Start throwing a lot more Black idiots out of schools when they act like animals. Set up schools in the districts called Animal Schools or whatever and send them all there. I actually support this one.

5. Expand Head Start to all eligible Black kids. Actually proven to somewhat reduce Black pathologies and is apparently cost effective.

6. Expand Section 8. Has been proven to reduce somewhat Black pathologies. However, it has a cost of spreading Black pathologies around.

7. Nothing more to be done. Unless a project can be actually shown to reduce Black pathologies, there is no need to propose it. It would be nice if these project were cost effective too.

20 Comments

Filed under Affirmative Action, Blacks, Civil Rights, Discrimination, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Sociology, White Racism

by | August 13, 2011 · 10:46 AM

“Poor, White, and Invisible,” by Alpha Unit

“To be poor and White in America is a paradox.”

So wrote Joe Bageant in 2005. Joe Bageant, who died earlier this year, spoke for and championed the White poor in America. But don’t think that he romanticized poor people. He was unsparing in his portrayal of the proclivities and habits of the poor Whites he had grown up with. In “Poor, White, and Pissed,” he goes on:

America is permeated with cultural myths about White skin’s association with power, education, and opportunity. Capitalist society teaches that we all get what we deserve, so if a White man does not succeed, it can only be due to laziness. But just like Black and Latino ghetto-dwellers, poor laboring Whites live within a dead end social construction that all but guarantees failure.

If your high school dropout daddy busted his ass for small bucks and never read a book in his life and your mama was a textile mill worker, chances are you are not going to be recruited by Yale Skull & Bones and grow up to be President of the United States, regardless of our national mythology to that effect. You are going to be pulling an eight-buck-an-hour shift work someplace and praying for enough overtime to make the heating bill. A worker.

For certain, Whites have the lowest poverty rates in the country. But because of their sheer numbers, they comprise a substantial mass of the poor – nearly half, in fact. White poverty is not negligible. But as Joe Bageant and plenty of others have pointed out, the White poor in America are “invisible.” When people think of the poor, they generally don’t think of Whites. A lot of Whites don’t even think of Whites.

Many poor Whites in America – like poor Hispanics, Asians, and Blacks – are what people call the working poor. But some of them are part of a White underclass in which you will find the same pathologies people usually associate with Black ghettos – such as pervasive drug abuse, academic failure, out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and criminality. Again, these people are invisible to many of their fellow Whites. It’s one reason you will hear some Whites go out and confidently declare that there are some things White people never do.

A lot of Whites seem to have bought into this idea that to be White is to be middle class or above.

This frustrated the hell out of Joe Bageant. He criticized the White middle class and White liberal elites for their disdain and disregard for poor Whites.

America can no longer withstand the political naiveté of this ignored White class…Someday middle class American liberals will have to cop to fraternity and justice and the fact that we are our brother’s keeper, whether we like it or not. They’re going to have to sit down and actually speak to these people they consider ugly, overweight, ill educated and in poor taste.

In his essay “Revenge of the Mutt People,” he advocated some kind of affirmative action for poor White kids in Appalachia or the Deep South or “anyplace else where tens of millions of kids grow up in homes containing not a single book, except possibly the Bible.” He stated:

Education is everything. You know it and I know it. And what the White working classes don’t know because of lack of education has hurt you and me and them.

To Bageant, education was the way around being suckered by political and religious hucksters. He decried the way poor and working class Whites were voting against their own interests as a result of ignorance. The whole country was having to deal with the consequences. He called uneducated poor Whites “our intellectual peasantry.”

As a member of this peasantry, I quit school at age sixteen in the eleventh grade to join the Navy. I hated school, hated the social class differences in a small town that make life so miserable during adolescence, when one’s community and social status is being nailed down permanently for anyone planning on staying there.

As a former young White cracklet, I can say with all confidence that when you live with a rusty coal stove in the middle of the living room for heat, your old man smells of gasoline and motor oil no matter how much he bathes and your mom suffers from strange, unpredictable behavior due to untreated depression, you do not much feel like inviting the doctor’s daughter home. Or anyone else’s daughter for that matter.

Thus, he said, at sixteen and choosing options, “I decided that launching fighter jets from the deck of an aircraft carrier to kill gooks and the notion of pussy and booze on some exotic foreign shore looked damned good.”

When I think of what happened to my boyhood friends who stayed home and put in 30 years at Rubbermaid, my choice doesn’t sound that bad even today. They all became redneck ultra-conservatives, mostly out of some sort of fear and bitterness that I can never seem to put my finger on. But I knew these people in a younger, more hopeful time. I know they were capable of – not to mention deserved – more than they got out of life. Maybe their bitterness stems from that.

8 Comments

Filed under Affirmative Action, Alpha Unit, Civil Rights, Conservatism, Education, Europeans, Guest Posts, Liberalism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Sane Pro-White, Social Problems, Sociology, US Politics, Whites

by | October 24, 2010 · 1:05 AM

Californian Racial Neurotics

Repost from the old site.

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.

6 Comments

Filed under Affirmative Action, Americas, Anti-Racism, Blacks, California, Civil Rights, Democrats, Discrimination, Europeans, Hispanics, Illegal, Immigration, Intelligence, North America, Obama, Politics, Psychology, Racism, Reposts From The Old Site, South Asians, US Politics, USA, West, White Nationalism, Whites

by | October 16, 2010 · 12:27 AM

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

by | October 11, 2010 · 5:19 PM

Some Sensible Positions For Liberal Race Realists and White Advocates

The problem with White advocates, even those who are not explicitly White nationalists, is that far too many of them are simply out and out racist assholes. Be that as it may, but you won’t get a lot of support for those views here in America. White advocates need to take reasonable stands that the majority will support. People will look at that stance and say, “Hey, that makes sense.” The Left will still scream racist on and on, but it will sound increasingly silly. Your average person will look at the Left screaming racist and say, “Why are they calling this guy a racist? He seems reasonable to me.”

  1. Amend the Constitution to get rid of the anchor baby thing. The Left is playing this up as super-radical, but most sane Americans think it’s perfectly reasonable.
  2. Avoid overthrowing civil rights laws. Aside from the moral question, it’s pretty clear that the major civil rights legislation is here to stay, Rand Paul and the Tea Party notwithstanding. Instead, we should focus on the 1991 amendment to the Civil Rights act that deals with disparate impact. The concept of disparate impact is insane, and most reasonable people hate it once they learn about it.
  3. On immigration, instead of saying we want to get rid of non-White immigration (ain’t gonna happen), instead call for IQ tests for some immigrants. The test could be waived for spouses of citizens. In particular, focus on problematic immigrants who cause lots of trouble. Call for IQ tests for Hispanic immigrants for starters. Say Hispanics need to have 98 IQ to come to the US. The average IQ of the US is 98. It’s quite probable that the Hispanics that cause so much trouble fall below the 98 IQ cutoff. Those at 98 IQ and above will generally be good, productive citizens of the type most Americans could be proud of.
  4. Support immigration of White Hispanics to the US. This will drive people insane, because it will be hard to call us racists since the anti-racist nuts keep implying that Hispanic is a race. In addition, it will drive a wedge between Hispanics.
  5. Call for getting rid of US colonies! This is great because no one in the US advocates this except for the hard Left. That puts White advocates in bed with the Left , but that’s not so bad! Call for independence for Puerto Rico, Micronesia, American Samoa, etc. One problem is these places are the source of many problem immigrants because they the immigrants are unscreened, as moving from Samoa to the US is like moving from New York to California.We also come off as anti-imperialist, which once again puts us in bed with the Left, but that’s not so bad! This stealing of the Left’s principled positions will drive the PC Left insane. They will either be forced to defend colonialism in the PC or..? Or what? Or I don’t know. Mostly it will make the PC crowd very confused and angry.
  6. On schools, forget fighting Brown vs BOE. Done deal. Instead focus on busing. Say it’s ridiculous, a waste of money, and it insults Blacks by saying they can’t learn with their own kind but only with Whites. Say we support neighborhood schools. If a neighborhood is mixed, the school is mixed. If the neighborhood is White, the school should be White. If the neighborhood is Black, the school should be Black. The PC folks will be forced to attack this totally reasonable position and will come across like fanatical ideologues.
  7. Say we need to start getting serious about throwing out seriously disruptive students. This is Fred Reed’s view. They can all go to The Psycho Kid’s School for all we care. They have no right to ruin it for everyone else. If Blacks get tossed out more than others, as long as its racially fair (should be investigated), oh well. Maybe Black students should start acting better to not get thrown out of school.
  8. Say we support affirmative action, but only if the Black, etc. is just as qualified as the White he is competing with . This will drive people crazy. Of course, the whole problem with affirmative action is that less qualified non-Whites replace Whites. This will force the PC folks to defend what they have been defending all along, which is the hiring of less qualified non-Whites in favor of more qualified Whites. It’s seen as pretty indefensible, and rightly so.
  9. Say we have no problem with well-behaved Blacks living with Whites who wish to fully integrate into White communities and adopt White culture. Promoting “freedom of association” will get us no where; it’s doomed. Point out that Black culture leaves much to be desired, and Blacks benefit from adopting White culture. This will force the PC crowd into the dubious role of defending Black culture (ahem) while paradoxically attacking White culture as somehow pathological, which is ridiculous. They’ve been doing this all along, but this will force the point.

Most of this stuff will make White nationalists furious, but so what? We will more than make it up with new more moderate followers. Right now, White advocates preaching to a tiny choir.

These positions will drive our enemies insane! They will be totally confused by these views, and they won’t know what to make of them. It will throw a monkey wrench into the whole “White advocates are racist” thing.

39 Comments

Filed under Affirmative Action, Anti-Racism, Blacks, Civil Rights, Colonialism, Culture, Discrimination, Education, Employment, Europeans, Hispanics, Housing, Immigration, Intelligence, Law, Left, Political Science, Psychology, Race Realism, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Sane Pro-White, Social Problems, Sociology, Useless Western Left, White Nationalism, White Racism, Whites