Little Green Footballs Calls Me a Neo-Nazi

You’re welcome.

Regarding the last line of my post: it seems that I incorrectly assumed that it was the SPLC that had lumped all the totally uncool people together with the nazis. Not so (not this time).

The original article, in fact, mentioned only the actual gutter dwellers — VNN, Stormfront, and the like — whom I called “the real nazi scum”. The guilt-by-perceived-association was courtesy of LGF alone.

A minor point, perhaps, but one worth making nonethess.

Well… Four legs good! Two Legs Bad! This was the shout of the sheep in Orwell’s Animal Farm. The sheep were uninterested in rational discussion, and because of the sheep’s foolishness the pigs took over.

You must respond firmly and patiently when dealing with these people, but don’t expect much success. Pat Buchanon has been demonized for as long as I can remember.

It’s nice to meet you, Q. You’re a decent sort.

Unlike Charles Johnson. Here’s how he responded to Q’s statement of fact:

“After reviewing Q’s recent posts, and the links he’s been posting, his barely-disguised racism is no longer welcome at LGF.”

I’d call Johnson a Nazi for this if I didn’t object to the trivialization of this term, of which the whole LGF thread is a prime example.

Quandary, Pat Buchanan is in fact a contemptible figure.

Care to expand on that Q? I’m not sure I won’t agree with you.

A pity about LGF, really. It used to be a valuable resource. And still is one of the most prominent Islamo-critical sites.

Still, sed magis amica veritas.

I fully agree with Lawrence Auster’s critique of Buchanan.

Also here.

In general, I have no patience for paleocon reactionary foolishness, antisemitism and crypto-anti-Americanism (which are, of course, spiritual kin).

I find Pat contemptible for his defense of Palestinians, sadly, because other than that I think he’s pretty much a hero of the West!

It’s deeper than that, Jake. Buchanan is also notoriously soft on Islam in general. Presumably because being otherwise may make one look like a friend of the Jews.

That is not a principled defense of the West, that is emotionally-motivated opportunism.

Buchanan sided with the Muslims over the cartoon riots. Is that how a defender of the West behaves?

I completely agree Q! Which again is a damn shame considering how much good Pat is capable of.

Yes, I agree with you about Buchanan too. I’ve meant to write articles critical of the anti-Israeli paleocons, but I’ve been too distracted by subjects that I thought were more pressing—after all, how much influence do any of these writers have? But someday I will write about them.

Who cares what a bunch of trendy, effete, pseudo-conservatives think. Don’t waste too much time refuting their statements, Ian. They want to put you on the defensive. They are just trying to appease those who would call them racists for being conservative. A lot of fake conservatives are like that. They try really hard to present themselves as “anti-racist” to the liberals. They feel that by slandering you, they will maintain or achieve respectability. Refute their accusations, and point out their absurdity. Then call them what they are: fake conservatives, deluded race-deniers, and shrill mental midgets. The LGF crowd is just having a “Two Minutes Hate” of which you are the subject. They’re working themselves up in a moronic frenzy so they can be perceived as politically correct.

I think some of you may have misunderstood my comment about Pat B. The question that started this thread was a tactical one relating to the correct response to the LGF bunch. Pat B, while he may be an antisemitic creep, is still a successful antisemitic creep who gets invited on television all the time. He has managed this in spite of all the name calling over the years. For this reason his tactics and methods are worthy of study even when the substance of his argument is wrong. Pat uses humor effectively, keeps his opponents on the defensive, changes the subject, etc. I can think of only two reasons why Pat B. is still on the scene in spite of all the name calling. Reason one is that he is good at what he does. The other reason may be that is simply more acceptable to the media to be anti-Jew than anti-black. Kinda shoots down the whole “Jews control the media thing” if the latter is true.

I find the Pat Buchanan bashing rather distasteful. In light of all of the nonsense coming from LGF, it seems ironic that people here would start insulting Pat Buchanan, especially in this discussion. We may disagree with some of what Pat has said about Israel or WWII, but I don’t think I would be justified in calling him an anti-Semite. Pat himself said the following about Jews. This comes from a site called nizkor.org, which is apparently a Holocaust memorial/educational site.

”No true Christian can carry within his heart hatred for any of God’s children … I am as aware as any other Christian that our Savior was Jewish, His mother was Jewish. The Apostles were Jewish. The first martyrs were Jewish…So no true Christian, in my judgment, can be an anti-Semite.”

-Pat Buchanan, comment to a Christian magazine, 1992

This quote from Pat comes from one of his columns:

”Israel remains a tough, resourceful, energetic nation, an offspring of the West … whose current struggle merits sympathy and support.”

Here is a quote about PB from the same site:

”As a Jew, I never felt any hostility from Buchanan on that score, never heard him make a disparaging remark about Jews, never noticed any difference in the way he treats Jews and non-Jews,”

-Michael Kinsley, co-host of CNN’s “Crossfire”

There are quite a few more too. Here is the page from Nizkor.

So for those who are calling Pat an anti-Semite, I respectfully disagree with you, and ask that you reconsider your assessment of him. Criticizing Buchanan like that is just burning bridges in my opinion. It’s not helpful at all.

Also, I would like to add that I strongly disagree with Pat if indeed he sided with the Muslims over the cartoons. He loses a great deal of credibility in my book if what Q said is true. Criticisms of Pat over the cartoon controversy would be more valid than accusations that he is an anti-Semite.

It sounds like some of you guys see the Israeli/Arab conflict as whites vs. non-whites. How can this be when Israelis and Palestinians are more closely related then either is to Europeans?

“It sounds like some of you guys see the Israeli/Arab conflict as whites vs. non-whites. How can this be when Israelis and Palestinians are more closely related then either is to Europeans?”

By Princess on 6/14/08 at 7:49 pm

Yes, I have noticed, the Hebrew Jews are closely related to the Palestinians. However, the Jews and Palestinians are not Arab; they are Semitic White Caucasian. Also, it is in our best interest to side with the Jews against Muslims, even if the Muslims are White.

Greeks are more closely related to Iranians than to other Europeans. The Greek language in its general structure is considered more similar to Persian than to the Latin, Germanic, and Slavic languages. Slavs, most of whom belong to the Alpinid or Osteuropid subrace, are more similar to Armenians and in their physical morphology than to other Europeans. Are Greeks and Slavs not white?

‘Whiteness’ is a raciocultural designation, not a scientifically valid ethnic taxon; that is, it is just as much dependent on the concept of ‘race’ as it is on culture. Greeks are white not simply because they are of Europid stock (although that is a necessary condition), but because they belong to Western civilisation (in its broadest sense). Jews are white for essentially the same reason, and Arabs are not (even though Israelis, Arabs, and Europeans all belong to the same Europid - that is, Caucasian - race.

“‘Whiteness’ is a raciocultural designation, not a scientifically valid ethnic taxon; that is, it is just as much dependent on the concept of ‘race’ as it is on culture. Greeks are white not simply because they are of Europid stock (although that is a necessary condition), but because they belong to Western civilisation (in its broadest sense). Jews are white for essentially the same reason, and Arabs are not (even though Israelis, Arabs, and Europeans all belong to the same Europid - that is, Caucasian - race.”

Fair enough. I also think that Islam is too incompatible with Western Civilization for a Muslim to be a white nationalist even if he was a blue eyed, blond headed Swede. But would you consider light skinned Christian or agnostic Turks, Arabs or Iranians who identified with Western Civ. to be white?

At some point we have to ignore the stupidity and realize that the reason anyone indulges is name calling is because they have a weak argument. I would rather be called a racist than a moron. In the very near future the facts of biology will defeat the lies of the left. By the way LGF is not conservative if his main argument is for the total uniformity of intelligence in mankind.

Mr. Jobling: I agree with everything you say here, except this: “LGF is one of the most popular and influential conservative blogs….” By what criteria should we judge it conservative? It’s (sort of) anti-Islamist and it’s pro-Israel. But so are many liberals. I can’t recall Charles Johnson’s taking any stand that would indicate that he supports any of the defining tenets of conservatism.

LGF is becoming an important issue among American conservatives because of the beginning of the reassertion of European nationhood, as we’re seeing now in the reactions to Ireland’s rejection of the EU constitution. LGF has denounced the pro-nationhood parties in Europe such as Vlaams Belang, calling them nazis and fascists and antisemites regardless of the facts to the contrary. This puts LGF in the pro-EU camp, which, whether the self-labeled Lizards realize it or not, stands for the eradication of national characteristics, and the subjugation of the dwindling number of Europeans to a bureaucracy that strongly favors the Islamization of Europe.

Princess wrote:

“Fair enough. I also think that Islam is too incompatible with Western Civilization for a Muslim to be a white nationalist even if he was a blue eyed, blond headed Swede.

In the classification of animals into species and races, little emphasis is placed on skin or hair colour; greater emphasis is placed on gross morphology. Such antiquated racial designations as ‘white’ and ‘black’ should be substituted by ‘Europid’ and ‘Negrid’ respectively; the colour-based system has given rise to the false notion that races only differ in their skin colour rather than their nervous and sensory systems and therefore their cognitive capacity, temperament, and behaviour. But if the term ‘white’ is to be used at all, it must refer only to those ‘Caucasoids’ (another misnomer) who belong to Western civilisation - not all Caucasois irrespective of culture.

With that said, I think we should care less about who is ‘white’ and put greater stress on genetic quality control. Negrids should not be allowed into enter Western countries, not simply because they are ‘non-white’, but because they have statistically poor heredity and a low average intelligence. The higher regions of genetic capacity within the Negrid population should be rejected because they merely provide the leadership base of the low quality Negrid population as a whole. Similar remarks may be said of high-IQ Arabs, Turks, and Indianids. The higher their intelligence, the more effective they are at destroying Western civilisation.

“But would you consider light skinned Christian or agnostic Turks, Arabs or Iranians who identified with Western Civ. to be white?”

Turks are of partial Mongolid ancestry and can no more be regarded as ‘white’ than a depigmented Octoroon.

Arabs do satisfy the first condition of ‘whiteness’ (the biological aspect) but fail to satisfy the second condition (the cultural aspect). Intelligent Arabs are more likely to form the leadership class of the Arab population than to identify with Western civilisation. Moreover, although undoubtedly of Europid stock, they are of statistically poor heredity, and should be rejected for this reason alone - even if the majority of them are not hostile to Western civilisation.

For clarification, most of those with ancestry from Europe, the White Middle East, the borders of the Middle East & Northern Africa, and even parts of Pakistan and India are of the same sub-species. And those from Europe and White Middle East (especially of Bilad al-Sham and some Persians) are at least arguably of the same race. I don’t have any scientific or genetic expertise to prove this, and I don’t pretend to. However, just half a century ago, sight was almost the only effective way to determine one’s ethnicity/race. And sight is still a sufficient tool for me.

I don’t care if a few isolated Jewish genetic markers may be slightly distant from ethnic European ones. My own sight is enough for me. (The funny irony is that a few of the MR-types (who use fancy studies on Jews) wouldn’t have had these fancy studies to use against the Jews. Even today, they could kick out (and maybe worse for neo-nazi types) almost every probable Jew, and risk eliminating just as many (if not even more) White Gentiles. Otherwise, they would have no choice but to accept Jews, as we look very similar.

One last point; how could we reject all Jews, during a foreign invasion (such as the Huns, Moors, Turks, etc.), when their intelligence could well help us fight off peoples who make the tannest Jews look like our close cousins?

“Arabs do satisfy the first condition of ‘whiteness’ (the biological aspect) but fail to satisfy the second condition (the cultural aspect). Intelligent Arabs are more likely to form the leadership class of the Arab population than to identify with Western civilisation. Moreover, although undoubtedly of Europid stock, they are of statistically poor heredity, and should be rejected for this reason alone - even if the majority of them are not hostile to Western civilisation.”

I’m assuming by good stock you mean high IQ. Richard Lynn has the IQ of Israel at 95.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQandtheWealthof_Nations

I don’t know if they include Palestinians in that calculation, but I don’t think we can claim that Oriental Jews are much better stock then Palestinians or Lebanese with the same certainty that we can claim whites are smarter than blacks.

I agree that our eyes are usually a pretty good judge of who is white and who isn’t. I’m only bringing this up because I find it disgusting that so called white nationalists and race realists attack Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan for not being pro-Israel enough when either of them becoming president would’ve saved western civilization. We’re never going to get rid of Islam and it is only a threat to us thanks to multiculturalism and immigration. I have a problem with French rioters and their liberal enablers, but see no reason to have any with a Palestinian or Iraqi fighting for his own land. For all this website complains about David Duke or other “Nazis” the only ones who support immoral wars that kill people and put them under occupation are the Neo-Cons and those that love to throw around the word “anti-semite.”

I am by no means a nordicist, but many posters’ views on what constitutes biological “whiteness” are far off from my own. Arabs are not white. They are not white biologically, culturally, or otherwise. They are “Caucasoid”. Caucasoid is a very broad category that can include black Ethiopians and Somalians. Obviously, if you think Ethiopians or Somalians are biologically white, then you are not thinking straight. Just because Arabs and Iranians fall within the broad Caucasoid category, does not make them biologically white. To suggest that Arabs are biologically white, is absurd.

As for Jews, some are white, some are not. A Jewish person can be white. A Jew can be of any race. There are black Jews, Arab Jews, Mongoloid Jews, and white Jews. Most Ashkenazim I’ve seen are white. I’m no expert on genetics, but I have read some things about this. Many of the white Ashkenazim share some Y-chromosomal markers with other near Eastern populations, such as Palestinians, but these same Ashkenazim Jews have much more in common genetically with the white populations in which they’ve lived and intermarried with for centuries. I haven’t seen many Sephardic Jews, so I’m not sure if I would call them mainly white or what. I can think of one contemporary Sephardic Jew-a celebrity-named Hank Azaria. Hank Azaria is white in my opinion, and he is of Sephardic Jewish ancestry.

Also, I will concede that there are rare cases of individuals in Turkish, Arab, or Iranian populations who could definitely pass for white. Perhaps they were isolated and had some wandering whites for ancestors centuries ago. But to say that, in general, Turks, Arabs, Iranians, or Afghanis are white biologically(even if not culturally) is absurd.

For the most part it looks like people prefer to talk about who they don’t like rather then how we can work with the sort of person that post at LGF. I took a quick look at the 300 some post there on this matter. I have seen worse, eg “hey dude you are f*****g racist scumbag.”
Yes the site does have some healthy numbers and I checked with Alex and found it is about the 17000 most visited site on the web.

How to influence these people is a very worthwhile question. I don’t think well reasoned, skillfully written arguments are going do much in changing their outlooks. I would bet there is a body of literature under propaganda that would be of great help in both understand where their thought processes are and how they might be moved to another place.

Here’s a couple of things that I’m guessing might help with them. Youtube type matterial, perhaps short drama, or better yet the use of sharp humor. Interviews of people who were effected by real events talking about what is really going on in this world. All this, not simple to do, or cheap and most difficult of all it takes talent to make it work.

As far as written efforts go I think matter of fact type arguments might make some head-way. For example, the all most complete lack of coverage of the anti-white race riot in Mich. at the start of June. Well, young, dumb Little Green Footballer, if that is a fact, do you support the suppression of news about violence directed at white people? Something along these might help a little light bulb go off over a few heads. Much work to be done here.

By Anonymous White American on 6/15/08 at 7:19 pm

I agree, most (though far from all) Middle Easterners outside of the of Bilad al-Sham region(especially Arabs) are not White. Most Turks and most of those east of Syria are not White. Saudi Arabians, Omanians and Yemenians are almost as dark as some (non-albino) Sub-Saharan Africans. But they are of the Caucasiod subspecies.

The sad thing is that Iraq, Iran, part of Northwestern India, and almost all of Northern Africa used to be White regions, until they were invaded. Now Europe and some of the Middle East are the only idigenous lands we have left.

I’m just giving you my personal experience, as an educated, active white nationalist living in Southern California. I mix (intimately) with plenty of Middle Easterners from Syria, Turkey, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan who are fair-skinned, blue (or green)-eyed, and identify with Western peoples and our values. The ones I know are Sunni Muslim and intensely dislike blacks, Orientals, and Mexicans and want immigration STOPPED. Their kids, almost without exception, do better than the white, Jewish, and Asian kids in the local schools.

Hah you’ve got brave old Chucky boy on the run.

On LGF he admitted:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/showc/749/5448067

Put on your HazMat suit before following this link, to see what the paleo-racist right is saying about me and LGF: [Link: http://tinyurl.com/5a2e9c ]

Followed by:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/showc/769/5448090

I’m linking that way because I don’t want these creeps to know where the links are coming from, by the way. At least, not right away.

Heh what a dork, he’s “afraid” you will know where the links are coming from.

Joshua,

“The ones I know are Sunni Muslim and intensely dislike blacks, Orientals, and Mexicans and want immigration STOPPED. ”

Very interesting! Can you say more about this matter or where there may be some commentary on this topic?

max

“I mix (intimately) with plenty of Middle Easterners from Syria, Turkey, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan who are fair-skinned, blue (or green)-eyed.”

Skin and eye colour are trivial considerations. The important, visible racial distinctions are in gross morphology, not colour. There are Negro subraces with lighter skin than certain Europid subraces. Blond hair occurs among Australian Aborigines.

“and identify with Western peoples and our values.”

Incorrect, as proven by Muslim opinion polls.

“The ones I know are Sunni Muslim and intensely dislike blacks, Orientals, and Mexicans.”

What races they happen to dislike is not a relevant consideration with respect to their racial classification or their compatibility with Western culture.

“Their kids, almost without exception, do better than the white, Jewish, and Asian kids in the local schools.”

You are either being untruthful or your experience with Middle Easterners is highly unrepresentive. The Muslim average IQ is 85, equal to that of the American Negro. Muslims in Western countries score lower than whites on academic ability tests and have a higher high school drop out rate.

Princess wrote:

“I’m assuming by good stock you mean high IQ. Richard Lynn has the IQ of Israel at 95.”

Arabs constitute 20 percent of the Israeli population and have an average IQ of 86. Fourty percent of the population in Israeli is Oriental Jewish, and 40 percent is Ashkenazi Jewish. According to Richard Lynn’s Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis, Israeli Ashkenazim obtain an average IQ score of 103, and Israeli Oriental Jews obtain an average IQ of 91. Both Oriental Jews and Ashkenazi Jews in Israel are therefore cognitively superior to the Arab population.

You have neglected to cite Richard Lynn’s explanation for the 95 IQ figure obtained by Israel:

“The IQ of 95 for Israel is the weighted mean of the IQs of 103 for Ashkenazim Jews, 91 of the Oriental Jews (12 IQ points lower), and 86 of the Arabs.” (Race Differences in Intelligence, page 94)

In other words, the Arab and Oriental Jewish populations depress the overall IQ of Israel.

Finally, Israeli Jews are not representative of the Jewish population as a whole. Most Jews are Ashkenazim; only fourty percent of Israelis are Ashkenazim, and most Ashkenazim live outside of Israel. The average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews as a whole is 115. The lower average IQ obtained by Ashkenazi Israelis (103) is probably the result of selective migration. Many of the Jews in Israel were escaping poverty in Europe and were therefore probably less intelligent than Jews in general (poor people have a lower average intelligence). Richard Lynn also claims that a minority of Ashkenazi Jews in Israel are not Jewish at all but pretended to be Jewish in order to obtain permission to leave the Soviet Union and move to Israel.

With all this taken into consideration, Israel still obtains a higher average IQ than such European countries as Ireland (IQ 93) and Greece (IQ 92).

Princess wrote:

“I don’t know if they include Palestinians in that calculation, but I don’t think we can claim that Oriental Jews are much better stock then Palestinians or Lebanese.”

Incorrect. The average IQ of Arabs is about 85, equal to that of the American Negro. The average IQ of Oriental Jews (who constitute a small minority of the Jewish population) is 91, approximately equal to the average IQ of Ireland and Greece.

Princess wrote:

“We’re never going to get rid of Islam and it is only a threat to us thanks to multiculturalism and immigration.”

Immigration is only part of the problem. Islam is an expanstionistic ideology. The Islamic threat can only be subdued by (a) changing and reversing our current immigration policies and by (b) containing the Muslim world, so that it cannot expand into neighbouring non-Muslim territories. This can only be achieved by giving assistance to non-Muslims who are fighting Islam, by establishing military bases on the bordering regions between the Muslim world and the non-Muslim world, and by ending all aid to Muslim countries.

Princess wrote:

“I … see no reason to have any with a Palestinian or Iraqi fighting for his own land.”

I can only assume that you lament the dispossession of the American Indians, and support the struggle against whites in South Africa and Zimbabwe. You believe that Anglo-Saxons should never have colonised North America, Australia, and southern Africa. In place of great nations, it would have been better if these terrotiries had remained populated by Indianids, Australids, and Negrids, who have contributed nothing to human civilisation.

I believe that every territory which was colonised by the white race - including Israel - has been a source of strength to us. There is no reason to leave land to race that cannot profit from the mineral and natural resources to the full.

The struggle of races and tribes may have its lamentable side, but the result is the gradual prorgess of the species to higher levels of excellence. Rather than codemn imperialism, we should recognise it as a fact of life and learn what we have gained from it.

Hi EA Steve, Which part of my post were you trying to quote? I think we actually disagree quite a bit. Most Arabs-and it IS very close to all-Arabs, are not white. And I was not familiar with this “Bilad al-Sham” region that you’ve mentioned. I suspected you were perhaps referring to the Levant, and I looked it up and I was correct. Levant Arabs, although lighter than those from the Arabian peninsula are still not white.

Can you imagine King Abdullah II from Jordan blending in with the white population of early 19th century America? He would stick out like a sore thumb. He would be considered some type of mulatto, or perhaps correctly identified as a foreigner from the middle east. His wife who is even lighter than himself, would probably be able to fit into Spain or Italy though. But there are many(maybe a majority) of Spaniards and Italians that I would not consider white. That probably doesn’t sit too well with many of you. I just look at them on a case-to-case basis.

Many Spaniards and Italians would fit right into parts of the Middle East with no problem at all. I have met white Spaniards and Italians though, and when I speak with them it ALWAYS turns out that their ancestors come from the northern part of their country or from among the nobility.

I’ve seen many middle easterners, and not one of them I have met, NOT ONE has had blue or green eyes, or anything but jet-black hair. I’m not saying it’s not possible, but I’m saying that it is incredibly rare, and probably more of a result of some unlikely mutation than white ancestry. And none of the Jordanian women I’ve seen looked like King Abdullah’s wife Rania. Their skin was darker, they had incredibly convex noses, and very deep-set black eyes. Undoubtedly alien upon first glance. But that’s what their people look like, and there is nothing wrong with that. But I’m not going to consider them white.

I’m not a nordicist. Someone does not have to exhibit blond hair, blue eyes or dolichocephaly, to be considered white in my book. Someone with brown eyes and brown hair can absolutely be white. “Black Irish” are white, northern Italians are white, southern Germans and Austrians are white, most French are white, Poles and some other Slavic groups are white. Most individuals of the above groups are not anthropologically “Nordic”, but I still consider them white. I don’t even buy into much of that sub-racial anthropology Carleton Coon stuff. I wanted to mention that because I am anticipating someone accusing me of being a nordicist. I’m just using common sense. Arabs are not white. Not biologically or culturally. I’m surprised there are so many people here that feel otherwise. I don’t mean to disrespect anyone’s views, I just disagree with them.

Auster has two new threads on the paolecon folly:

Buchanan’s double dementia.

Conservatives must separate themselves from Hilter and Islam apologetics.

Antisemtisim is unacceptable for several reasons:

-It is morally reprehensible;

-It is factually wrong and leads to the fatal distortion of the entire worldview and the embrace of destructive ideas and self-defeating strategies (such as Islamo-apologetics);

-It alienates potential allies and discredits the valid points of race-realism, immigration-restrictionism etc.

-Last but not least: antisemitism is a spiritual kin of anti-Americanism and anti-white race (including self-) hatred. Those are all manifestations of an aggressive loserdom’s revolt against the worldly and spiritual success it can’t hope to match.

Regarding the Sunni Arabs and their supposedly high average IQ: even if it were true (which is doubtful), so what? The average IQ of NE Asians is higher than that of whites — should we surrender our countries to the Chinese because of that? (For that matter, if they’re so smart, why is their own country such a shithole?)

IQ matters, of course, but it’s not the only thing that does. The problem with Islam is not the relatively low average IQ of its adherents (although that doesn’t help), it is the fundamental incompatibility of its tenets with our civilization. (Christian Arabs, on the other hand, has shown to be successfully assimilable, for the most part.)

>It sounds like some of you guys see the Israeli/Arab conflict as whites vs. non-whites. How can this be when Israelis and Palestinians are more closely related then either is to Europeans?

Israel vs. the Arab world is not whites vs. non-whites. It is the West vs. the non-West. The cause no less worthy of support.

“Incorrect. The average IQ of Arabs is about 85, equal to that of the American Negro. The average IQ of Oriental Jews (who constitute a small minority of the Jewish population) is 91, approximately equal to the average IQ of Ireland and Greece.”

The American negro has an IQ of 85 thanks to his white blood and the advantage of living in a first world country. It’s not unthinkable that if Palestinian Arabs lived in America they would come within one or two points of your Oriental Jewish supermen.

But even if that is not the case, the IQ difference between Oriental Jews and Arabs is only one half that the difference between Oriental and European Jews. If Ashkenazi Jews wanted to exterminate Oriental Jews would that be ok with you? Or is 90 the cut off point between human and subhuman?

And if say, it turned out a sub group of Arabs, say Lebanese Christians, had an IQ of say 93 would you favor them in a struggle against Oriental Jews?

“Immigration is only part of the problem. Islam is an expanstionistic ideology. The Islamic threat can only be subdued by (a) changing and reversing our current immigration policies and by (b) containing the Muslim world, so that it cannot expand into neighbouring non-Muslim territories. This can only be achieved by giving assistance to non-Muslims who are fighting Islam, by establishing military bases on the bordering regions between the Muslim world and the non-Muslim world, and by ending all aid to Muslim countries.”

Islam can be an expansionist ideology all it wants. It’ll never have the resources to take on a Western country and its leaders have never behaved stupid enough to try. Once again, the “Islamic threat” only exists thanks to immigration. If it wasn’t for Israel and the neo cons we could have the same relationship with the Muslim world that China or Japan does. Even if we did accept your premise that Jews are “white” and “western” while Arabs/Muslims aren’t, explain how fighting a billion people over a land the size of New Jersey with no natural resources is worth it.

The commenters at LGF plumbed the depths of infantile triviality by mocking my penis size last night—just do a search on “jobling” at this link.

“Ian has a tiny jobling!” Good grief!

I assure you that none of the lizards is apprised of the facts on this matter.

Charles Johnson put a link to this page in one comment and said anyone who followed it should put on a Hazmat suit beforehand. But it’s LGF that reeks with the toxic stench of radioactive idiocy.

The tone of the whole site roughly resembles that of a kindergarten playground. I think I’ll call the people over there the kindergarten conservatives.

I said I’d post a response to LGF’s campaign of pre-school taunting today. I worked on it for a while but didn’t finish, and I may or may not decide to take the matter up again. I may find more pressing things to do, and besides, those people aren’t worth my time.

Princess, here’s an illuminating exchange from the VFR thread I linked earlier:

“Mencius Moldbug writes:

The irony of the Israeli situation is that anyone who thinks the U.S. is pro-Israel is on crack.

What would happen if the U.S. adopted a Buchananite isolationist position relative to the Arab-Israeli conflict? If it told both the Israelis and the Arabs that it was done with the Middle East, that whatever happens, that it has no dog in the fight? Um, who has the strongest military in the region? Forget the West Bank and Gaza—the IDF would be occupying the Islamic world from Tehran to Timbuktu. And if Nigeria and Indonesia wanted some of that, they could probably get it, too. Their kids would grow up speaking Hebrew. It’d be Alexander the Great, 2.0.

The reason that a few fools with homemade rocket launchers can fight the IDF is that they have the State Department on their side. Remove U.S. diplomacy, and Israel turns the Palestinians into a big grease spot. If Israel’s position with the U.S. in the game is weaker than Israel’s position with the U.S. outside the game, the net effect of U.S. policy is anti-Israel. Case closed.

I really can’t understand why this isn’t obvious. I would not be so hasty as to accuse Buchanan of anti-Semitism. My guess is that the problem is some kind of liberalism, probably akin to what Arthur Pendleton diagnoses in the paleolibertarians. But whatever it is, it reeks.

LA replies:

I agree, and have said many times, that the U.S. embrace of Israel, correction, the U.S. involvement in the peace process, has been terribly harmful. It was only with the peace process that the U.S. began micro-managing Israel’s affairs, which made the U.S. seem much more involved with Isreal than ever before, and made people resent Israel for that relationship, even though that relationship was now actively harming Israel, not helping it. And then, because the peace process so weakened Israel, Israel became ever more dependent on the U.S., and so didn’t dare say no to what the U.S. was telling her to do, even though those were the very things that were weakening her.

I’ve also said many times that it’s ironic in the extreme that the world, including the paleocons and Buchananites, began ganging up on Israel much more AFTER the peace process got started. AFTER Israel spent years accommodating the Palestinians and seeking a deal on a Palestinian state, Buchanan and his allies attacked Israel as though she were a Nazi like oppressor. All this shows how liberal-inspired efforts to “raise up the oppressed victim,” in this case the Palestinians, only increase the liberal guilt of the party doing the raising up. The more you try to help the oppressed, the more oppressive you seem. And the hideous irony is that the anti-Israel paleocons were simply signing onto the liberal thought process of demonizing the supposed oppressor who is not an oppressor at all.

Finally, I would not call the truly neutral stand that Mencius advocates “Buchananite.” Buchanan is NOT neutral and hands-off. He is actively anti-Israel, he invokes hatred of her, he pushes proposals for her destruction.”

The truth of the matter is that while the American people is, by and large, a friend of Israel, the American political establishment is not. They need Israel alive, but weak and dependent — and bleeding, because that blood is the political currency they pay for their machinations in the Arab world.

As for larger question of why we should be a friend of Israel: do the concepts of right and wrong mean anything to you? Do you think it is right to sell out one’s friends so as to bribe one’s enemies?

Also: whatever is the actual state of things, the perception in the Arab and Muslim world is that America is on Israel’s side. Is there any doubt that allowing (let alone participating in) Israel’s destruction will be interpreted as a sign of weakness? A sign that we’re ready to be overrun ourlselves. And not only by our Muslim enemies, but also our Chinese enemies, among others.

Furthermore, while the defense of Israel is a part of the defense of the West, it is not central to it.

The central, and the most pressing, issue is stopping and reversing third-worldization of the first-world countries.

Ian, Take a look at what these kids have been raised on; the stupid crap, in tv, movies and comics. Pick up any of the so called “City Papers” or the like and take a look at the content and level of argument. I would not blame you for dropping your planned response. Really, I would try to find a cartoonist to ridicule and debase them in the most primitive ways.

Princess wrote:

“The American negro has an IQ of 85 thanks to his white blood and the advantage of living in a first world country. It’s not unthinkable that if Palestinian Arabs lived in America they would come within one or two points of your Oriental Jewish supermen.”

Not relevant. I was simply explaining why the average IQ of Israel is 95. Twenty percent of the population is Arab and fourty percent is Oriental Jewish. Some Ashkenazi Jews in Israel are not actually Jewish. These populations depress the average IQ of Israel. Nevertheless, the average IQ of Israel is higher than both Ireland and Greece.

Princess wrote:

“If Ashkenazi Jews wanted to exterminate Oriental Jews would that be ok with you?”

I am not in favour of extermination, but I see nothing objectionable about increasing the average intelligence of Israel through voluntary eugenics.

Princess wrote:

“Or is 90 the cut off point between human and subhuman?”

Read the text you are replying to again. Please make your responses relevant to my messages, or monologue at your leisure, if you like, but I humbly request that you do not interperse my messages throughout it as though you are responding to something I stated.

Princess wrote:

“And if say, it turned out a sub group of Arabs, say Lebanese Christians, had an IQ of say 93 would you favor them in a struggle against Oriental Jews?”

See above. I never said I supported Oriental Jews because their IQ is higher than Arabs. I was only explaining the IQ difference between Israeli citizens and Ashkenazi Jews.

Princess wrote:

“Islam can be an expansionist ideology all it wants. It’ll never have the resources to take on a Western country and its leaders have never behaved stupid enough to try.”

If Muslims have the ability to build nuclear bombs, and can spread this technology to other countries, then the Islamic threat is at least partly independent of our immigration policies.

Princess wrote:

“If it wasn’t for Israel and the neo cons we could have the same relationship with the Muslim world that China or Japan does.”

China and Japan never colonised the Middle East. Islam only went into decline when it was dominated by Western powers.

Princess wrote:

“… explain how fighting a billion people over a land the size of New Jersey with no natural resources is worth it.”

There are 300,000 white Rhodesians and only 3.4 million Boers in South Africa. That is far less than the number of Jews in Israel. If you support the Boers in South Africa because they are civilised people surrounded by hostile savages, then you should support Israel. Israel shares our values; its enemies do not. Moreover, the of Israel belongs to Jews. When European Jews made their first Aliyah, Israel was a land without people; the Jews were a people without a land.

Q.,

I want to respond to your assertion that the United States isn’t pro-Israel because it’s the most obviously false. Israel has gotten the most aid from the US then any other country in the world. We also support it on an international level like no other country in the world. When Israel attacked Lebanon two years ago the US was the only major country not to call for a ceasefire. Also, from the book The Israel Lobby, “Since 1982, the United States has vetoed 32 United Nations Security Council resolutions that were critical of Israel, a number greater than the combined total of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members together.” Are China, Russia, the Middle East, and the Europeans all a bunch of anti-semites? Even if you think that’s the case, if America is also anti-Israel I shudder what to think what the US would have to do to be pro-Israel.

How does Israel repay America? What do we get from this “friend” who “shares our values”? Well, they’re the only friend who has been credibly charged with killing US troops (see USS liberty incident), attacked US and British interests in an attempt to blame their enemies (see the Lavon Affair), has a long and still continuing history of spying on the US (see this month’s cover story in The American Conservative) and may have had spies pushing for a war that’s killed 3,000 Americans and bankrupted the country (see Perle, Feith, etc).

You seem well meaning, go and and read “The Israel Lobby.” I know those authors have been labeled “anti-semites” by media outlets (run by guess who?) but go beyond the smears and think for yourself.

Princess,

The US vetoed the UN Security Council Resolutions because it thinks that Israel has the right to defend its existence and is not legally required to surrender the West Bank to the Palestinians until there is a peace treaty in place between the two peoples, which is in accord with international law.

The USS Liberty incident was the result of a tragic misunderstanding by the Israeli military. The Lavon Affair happened 50 years ago. Israeli espionage doesn’t strike me as a big problem in the grand scheme of things, although, if it’s going on, I guess it should be stopped.

I agree with JRC that the shared Western values between the US and Israel justify American support of Israel. Free societies are precious enough to justify the increased risks of terrorism that America incurs from its support of Israel.

The US went to war in Iraq because there was good reason to believe Saddam Hussein was a threat to our national interest and world peace and because of our general abhorrence of totalitarian tyrannies. If Israeli spies were indeed pressing for the war, I’m glad, because I think they were right to.

I have little patience for your grievance-mongering against Israel and reserve the right to delete your comments in the future.

Princess,

To add a few things of my own to Ian’s astute response:

-In order to be more pro-Israel, the US government should become less involved in her affairs, just like MM and LA suggest. Stop micro-managing the “peace process”, stop arm-twisting Israel into suicidal concessions, and let her do what needs to be done.

-The American Conservative (so-called) suffers from all the paleocon pathologies that Auster and Ian himself outlined in the linked articles. Its malice and bias are painfully obvious, and its credibility on anything concerning Israel is, thus, zero.

-It is ludicrous — and yes, antisemitic — to suggest that “Israeli spies” pushed the US into the Iraq war, just because a few secondary players (long since gone from the government) happened to be Jewish Americans (not Israelis).

-Parenthetically, I personally am strongly against this wasteful nightmare with no end in sight, driven by fallacious ideological assumptions. (Instead of a straightforward punitive expedition that this war should have been.) And it did end up benefitting two hostile powers — Saudi Arabia, who lost one of its regional enemies and gained a dumping ground for its homegrown jihadis, and Iran. But none of this implicates Israel in any way, shape or form (other than helping the US conduct covert operations inside Iraq during run-up to the invasion — more of a friend than a NATO member Turkey, wouldn’t you say?).

-The media run by…? I would never guess. Enlighten me.

>Go beyond the smears and think for yourself.

I suggest you follow your own advice.