Israeli officials, neoconservatives, and Zionists are pushing relentlessly for the military destruction or internal overthrow of Iran. The drumbeat of anti-Iranian propaganda on television, in the print media, from Jews and government officials, while not yet as intense as anti-Iraq propaganda prior to the 2003 invasion of Mesopotamia, is ceaseless and mounting.
Iranians (or Persians), the largest ethnic group in Iran, are not Semites. Unlike Jews and Arabs, they are Indo-Europeans. Iranians have a distinguished Aryan past. Many Iranian “minorities” also have Indo-European origins or speak Indo-European languages. As elsewhere across the highly admixed Eurasian borderlands, the racial and ethnic picture in Iran is highly complex and a millennium and a half of Islamic religious and cultural overlay further differentiates the populace from Europeans. Nevertheless, in biocultural terms, the people of the West and Iranians share common Indo-European and proto-Indo European roots.
Whites and Jews do not.
Bloodlust
Pat Buchanan wrote recently that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) “is surely aware a US clash with Iran, with him at the president’s side, could assure his re-election. Last week, Reid whistled through the Senate, by voice vote, a bill to put us on that escalator. Senate bill 2799 would punish any company exporting gasoline to Iran. Though swimming in oil, Iran has a limited refining capacity and must import 40 percent of the gas to operate its cars and trucks and heat its homes. And cutting off a country’s oil or gas is a proven path to war.” (Reid, who is white, has a Jewish wife and children.)
In contemporary politics it’s always six of one, half dozen of the other. Rather than military attack, Buchanan therefore favors current US policy: “US interests would seem to dictate supporting those elements in Iran who wish to be rid of the regime and re-engage the West”—elements he describes as “the leaders of the Green Movement who have stood up to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah.”
In other words, Buchanan and the establishment Left prefer a clandestine coup d’état (”regime change”) engineered by the secret police agencies and governments of the ex-West on behalf of Israel.
Prior to the 1991 Gulf “War,” Israel’s disinformation machine depicted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein as a tyrant and a danger to the world. According to ex-Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky, “The Mossad activated every asset it had, in every place possible, from volunteer agents in Amnesty International to fully bought members of the US Congress.” The same process is at work now, with “Holocaust denier” Ahmadinejad-Hitler replacing Saddam-Hitler as the embodiment of ultimate evil.
Iranian girl
Two years ago, in an article in The New Yorker (July 7, 2008), Jewish journalist Seymour Hersh revealed secret Buchanan-Obama style US subversion inside Iran, including murders, creation of minority ethnic strife, and political meddling designed to overthrow the government there. Although Hersh’s account covered Bush Administration-Congressional Democratic policy, things have not changed under unitary Obama-Reid-Pelosi Democratic dominance. (US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi [D.-Calif.], a Catholic Italian-American, has a Jewish son-in-law and Jewish grandchildren.)
Jewry and Israel are guilty as well. The Times (London) reported:
Ehud Olmert, the former Israeli Prime Minister, in a speech at the weekend, alluded to a report in The Times on Saturday that Mossad was waging a covert war of assassinations across the Middle East, targeting Hamas and Iranian officials.
“There are a huge range of options between a full military attack and accepting a nuclear Iran,” Mr Olmert said. “There are other means that, together with other things happening, and they are happening [emphasis added], can create a result that would not allow the Iranians to reach what they are trying to reach.” (February 16, 2010)
The January 20, 2010 Jewish assassination of Hamas member Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai, again according to the Times (February 21, 2010), occurred within the “context” of anti-Iranian policy. Since the murder had been deceptively arranged to look like a natural death, it was only discovered because the government of Dubai is not as controlled as the ex-Western governments that quietly facilitated the killers’ movements.
“The mission was not regarded as unduly complicated or risky,” the Times reported. According to an Israeli source, the killers were “very much aware of the CCTV [closed-circuit television surveillance cameras] in Dubai” that led to their being discovered—though not captured or punished. They got away scot-free. It’s creepy reading and watching [video] how the swarm of psychopaths glued themselves to their unwitting victim, especially knowing our government is in league with them, and that Dubai is but the small tip of a very large iceberg.(1)
It would appear that Jewish elements are accustomed to operating with impunity in ex-Western nations possessing far more advanced police systems and technological capabilities than Dubai. Indeed, how could it be otherwise, when Jewish and Israeli firms are so deeply enmeshed in providing, staffing, and training the public and private “security” apparatus in those countries? Jews anticipated that, like the US, Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, Dubai officials would be unable or unwilling to reconstruct and assemble the multiple CCTV images of their operation into one account.
Conclusion
Neither coup d’état nor invasion is acceptable.(2) The fact that the Iranian nuclear program is being used as a pretext for the Great Power assault compounds the evil, for Israel bristles with weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, acquired with the criminal connivance of officials in France, Norway, and the United States, and concealed from public view by cooperative media establishments.
From a strategic and fiscal perspective, the destruction of Iran is folly. It is not in our interests. It is iniquitous. But our corrupt and self-absorbed ruling class is not known for prudence, self-restraint, adherence to law, or morality. Even if its impetuous hatred ultimately brings our own house crashing down around our heads like the Twin Towers, there is nothing whites can do about it.
Only dissent by a Jewish minority can eventually alter the course of events, because only Jews have primary influence in such matters. Everyone else is merely along for the ride, remaining silent or choosing which Jewish faction to support on the basis of expediency, obedience, conformity, or normative preference. Precluded by a totalitarian political and cultural regime from making independent contributions to an artificially circumscribed “debate,” and certainly prevented from advancing non-Jewish interests or values, Gentile ideological and policy input must remain derivative, marginal, and uninspiring, à la Jimmy Carter, Mearsheimer and Walt, etc.
The internal Jewish schism over Middle East policy that seems to be forming will take time to develop—too much time, it appears, to spare the Iranians, who, as a minor power, will likely be destroyed either by a subterranean coup d’état or neoconservative military violence.
From the standpoint of history, race, and community, our primary interests align more closely with (more or less) Indo-European Islamic Iranians than with anti-white Jews, Israelis, and ex-Western governments currently riding high at everyone else’s expense. There is no evidence that Iranians desire the extermination of our people.
1. For a concise analysis of the social dangers of free-roaming Jewish death squads, see sociologist James Petras, “Mossad’s Murderous Reach: The Larger Political Issues.” Killings like the one in Dubai are what elites were chortling about in the despicable movie Inglourious Basterds (2009), about which Jewry’s most powerful censor wrote, “If only it were true!” Abraham Foxman, “Inglourious Basterds Should Be Recognized With An Academy Award,” HuffingtonPost.com, February 18, 2010.
2. Israel Defense Forces website, “U.S. Army Chief: ‘Iran attack option on the table,’” Feb. 14, 2010.
23 Comments
“The United States is not my nation. It is their nation. Or better, their system: the system of Jews, non-whites, and deracinated, ideologically addled whites whose only value to me is their genes. My race is my nation, and the United States is the enemy of my race. I am acutely aware of my powerlessness to impede, much less destroy this system. Fortunately for me, it is doing a splendid job of destroying itself, and I am not going to stand in its way.”
Excellent! It is good to see others are starting to see around the current house of cards. Ironically enough it is Revolutionary V. Lenin who coined the phrase ‘Worse is better for now’ (which has been popularized in White Nationalist circles by Tom Metzger).
“A good number of Iranians came to the US after the fall of the Shah, half of them Jews, but I do not think that large numbers of Iranians are currently settling in the West.”
Don’t forget the Kurds! While not ethnically Iranian (Persian) many hail from the same vicinity and have been moving into this ‘Once White Country’, further raising the Tide of Color. I actually lived right next door to some Kurds when I lived in Seattle for a time. They were alright though in that they kept to themselves and didn’t try to ‘assimilate’ (date White Women).
“They send Americans to destroy Iraq, then bring in Iraqi refugees to destroy America and other white nations.”
Yes, this has been called ‘invade the World, invite the World’ as a sinister strategy and its bitter harvest has been tasted by some Whites who have to deal with the Brown Drown that is occurring now! We need a habitat for Whites!!!
Iranians, to my knowledge, are not prominent among the Muslims invading the West. A good number of Iranians came to the US after the fall of the Shah, half of them Jews, but I do not think that large numbers of Iranians are currently settling in the West.
However, if we were to attack Iran and set up a puppet regime, then suddenly the West would be flooded with Iranians, just as we are now being flooded with Iraqis. These Jews never miss a beat. They send Americans to destroy Iraq, then bring in Iraqi refugees to destroy America and other white nations.
Generally speaking, the Inner Enemy, in this case the Jews, is the more threatening enemy.
My point was directed mainly at those in our camp who can’t see beyond the Jews — as if the billions of non-whites in the world are somehow our friends simply because they oppose Israel.
In Europe, there are numerous nationalists whose opposition to America leads them into an uncritical collaboration with European-based Muslims. The latter, however, are just as much an enemy of Europe as the Americans.
Our case is slightly more complicated, for the Iranians pose no such direct threat — at least not yet — though a nuclear-armed Iran will unquestionably pose a threat to our European homeland.
Down the road the Jews are bound to screw things up — it’s in their nature. We may be dead by then, but their domination won’t last. A war on Iran could possibly speed up their journey down desolation’s way, which MIGHT be good for us — or as Andrew suggests, it may not. This can be debated, but there can be no doubt that other non-whites are not our friends.
Tactically, then, it may be to our advantage to emphasize the Inner Enemy, but strategically no such calculation should be made.
“…President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s remarks evince no hatred for the peoples of the West that I am aware of. I certainly have no grounds for attributing hatred to the Iranian people as a whole…Islam and the West have clashed in the past. However, contemporary Islamic hostility has different roots: slavish Western support for the unspeakable crimes of Jews and Israel in the Middle East; the mass importation of Arabs and Muslims into Western societies by Jews and white Europeans (they did not invade us); and the virulent anti-white Zeitgeist propagated by Western intellectual elites, the political system, the educational establishment, and the controlled media.”
A reasonable question to be asked is this: is it possible to formulate a “racial/civilizational peace treaty” with the Islamic world?
For example:
1. The West adopts a policy of non-intervention and peaceful coexistence with the Islamic world, withholds financial and other support from Israel (letting the Middle Eastern situation be resolved by the principals without third-party intervention), and states, openly, that North Africa, the Middle-Near East, Iran and all the Central/South Asian Islamic nations, Indonesia, etc. are part of the Islamic civilization and can continue developing along their own lines without interference from the West.
2. The Islamic world recognizes the same right to exist to the West, accepts repatriation of Islamic peoples from the West back to their homelands, accepts the rights of European peoples to their nations in Europe , North America, Australia, etc. and renounces attempts to spread their civilization to the West.
Would this be possible? What was the Iranian reaction to the Swiss minaret ban? Does anyone know?
Is it possible to divide the world between Huntington’s “civilizations” with the West and Islam living within their own territories and respecting the right of existence of the other? If the answer is “yes” then Mr. Hamilton has a point. If the answer is “no,” then Mr. O’Meara is more correct.
At this time, it’s not possible to think of Iran separate from Israel. Sides have been taken by every aware person in the world; we here are very aware. All of the Comments to this article have revealed which “side” the Commenter is on. There have been no surprises. I’ve known for a long time that certain leading lights at TOQO are not on the same page as I am on the Jewish issue. That’s been a disappointment.
The two sides are usually Jews and some Other. I know which side I’m on. Reflection does not cause me to lose sight of what I know is the most important issue: Jewish take-over. I oppose it, wherever it rears one of its many heads. Like now in Iran.
Michael, Ted, Larry, and Greg, thanks for your thoughtful comments.
I look forward to checking the links provided by Ted. I should perhaps write a separate short article about my reservations concerning an alleged 40%-50% European admixture of Ashkenazi Jews. If I do, I will certainly welcome any feedback, positive or negative—particularly from Ted. But, I’ll have to study the links first.
Regime collapse as envisioned by Michael O’Meara is possible. Few realize how close we came to exactly that in September 2008. I am perhaps less sanguine than many that a collapse would redound to our collective benefit. But the current path of genocide is no better.
Let me address the other issues in a general way.
Ted’s last sentence succinctly summarizes, “In the last analysis though, Mr. O’Meara is correct; does either group [Iranians or Jews] support the rights of Europeans and the West, or do they oppose them?”
Iranians have their hands full simply trying to survive. They are a small power beset by thugs possessed of overwhelming advantages. Since the ball and chain pulling them inexorably under is Jewry, Israel, and “the West”—including the vast majority of white Europeans—it is hard to see how they could spend one minute worrying about white rights, any more than the commentators here, not friendly to Israel, give a fig about Iranians.
And yet, Iran sponsored the only international Holocaust revisionist conference ever held, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s remarks evince no hatred for the peoples of the West that I am aware of. I certainly have no grounds for attributing hatred to the Iranian people as a whole.
Islam and the West have clashed in the past. However, contemporary Islamic hostility has different roots: slavish Western support for the unspeakable crimes of Jews and Israel in the Middle East; the mass importation of Arabs and Muslims into Western societies by Jews and white Europeans (they did not invade us); and the virulent anti-white Zeitgeist propagated by Western intellectual elites, the political system, the educational establishment, and the controlled media.
The cultural, historical, linguistic, and genetic links between whites and Indo-Aryans should not lightly be dismissed. In themselves, they do not create an identity of interests. And since white Europeans have famously engaged in one fratricidal civil war after another throughout their entire history, there is no reason to assume that peaceful relations with more distantly related groups are in any way inevitable. Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon us to think in terms of a future characterized by different parameters, norms, and possibilities than presently exist. I no more support the invasion or overthrow of Iran by Jewish-aligned forces today than I did the NATO operations against Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995 or Serbia in 1999.
In terms of the Other, Jews divide the world, first and foremost, not into a plethora of different groups, as we do, but into two: Jews and Gentiles. I accept this perspective as empirically correct. Moreover, it is a difference not only of kind, but of degree—there is an enormous difference between Jews and everyone else.
Thus, I do not conceptualize the Other as a series of undifferentiated, coequal groups, in which Jews, Iranians, Muslims, blacks, Asians, etc., are equidistant from us. I make an initial distinction between Jews and Gentiles. Whites have more in common with all Gentile non-whites, including blacks, than they do with Jews. Other races have interests more closely aligned with one another than any of them have with Jews—whether they know it or not.
Many white nationalists (thinking globally) look upon Jews as allies or potential allies. Hence their exaggerated anti-Islamic fervor. They are currying favor.
For me, Jews are the Main Enemy. Any like-minded faction of any non-Jewish race with compatible ultimate aims is a potential ally against the Main Enemy. This does not entail mixing with other races, inviting them into our homelands, regarding them as our equals, or anything of the sort. Indeed, thanks to the unconscionable actions of our anti-white predecessors, millions will have to be cordially sent packing (repatriated).
Finally, the adoption of Ted’s criterion would paradoxically compel us to classify the white race itself as inimical to our cause, since the overwhelming majority of whites oppose the rights of Europeans and the West. Instead, we must think in terms of potential group attitudes and behavior as they might exist in a fundamentally altered world, not the one we inhabit now. In such a world, while some whites would remain anti-white—the Jane Elliotts and John Browns—we might nevertheless hope that a majority could adopt non-hateful attitudes diametrically opposed to those they harbor at present.
Similarly, expunging socially constructed anti-white racism at the elite and governmental levels should diminish its virulence among non-whites considerably, even if it does not eliminate it completely.
I agree with Greg Johnson here. EGI is not an abstract, theoretical construct, but a concept intended for real world application. What are important therefore are NET genetic interests, with all factors taken into account. Imagine three groups or individuals, X, Y, and Z. Y is a bit genetically closer to X than is Z; however, Y openly harms the genetic interests of X, while Z is neutral to, or actually supportive of, X’s interests. Despite being somewhat genetically more similar, Y does more damage to X’s EGI than does Z. This of course does not mean that mass migration of Z into nation X is justified (and migration of Y certainly is not); however, it is clear that the practical consequences of genetic interests involve much more than the results of (methodologically correct) gene assays.
Likewise, components of identity such as nation, culture (including religion), and civilization (“High Culture”) are useful for EGI even though they often do not precisely track with genetic gradients and boundaries. Such components of identity can motivate for the defense of net EGI and strengthen the organic solidarity of the greater group; therefore, in On Genetic Interests, Salter cites Huntington’s “civilizations” as potential building blocs of “genetic interest units” (my term), with appropriate caveats given. On the other hand, it is important that focusing on nation, culture, and civilization not devolve into maladaptive memes such as constitutional patriotism, citizenism, or a “spiritually racist” “culturalism” that has no foundation in biological facts whatsoever. The biological and the cultural perspectives should be complementary, not antagonistic.
For the current post, the point is that from the European perspective whether Ashkenazi Jews or Iranians are genetically/racially more similar is not as important than the fact that the former group works to promote alien immigration to the West, and the latter group, which belongs to a civilization traditionally hostile to the West, is among the immigrants colonizing the West.
Two thoughts on Andrew Hamilton’s latest fine article:
1. Apropos of Michael O’Meara’s remarks, I think I am like many White Nationalists insofar as I suffer from a kind of divided consciousness. My first impulse, whenever weighing a political question, is to look at it from the point of view of what is right as such, and what would be right if America were a sane society. This impulse I think is perfectly natural, since to some extent I will always default to both universal standards of right and wrong and considerations of what would obtain in a healthy and sane society, for I think that these are my birthright as a human being.
But then I switch gears and think about not the world to which I have a right, but the world in which I actually live. To survive and prosper in this world, I have to view things from the point of view of naked ethnic self-interest. And this often leads to radically different conclusions.
Hamilton’s view is close to my default position: It is evil and absurd for the United States to be corrupted and suborned by the world’s most malignant and unlovable people into launching a war that will bring untold suffering both to my own people and to an ancient and noble people who are no threat to us as long as they stay on their side of the planet.
O’Meara’s view is closer to what I arrive at upon reflection: Yes, a war with Iran would be bad for Iran and bad for the United States. But what is bad for the United States is good for the white race as a whole, and what is good for the white race is more important to me than what is good for Iran. So I am not going to worry myself about preventing this war, even if there were something that I could do about it, which of course I can’t.
The United States is not my nation. It is their nation. Or better, their system: the system of Jews, non-whites, and deracinated, ideologically addled whites whose only value to me is their genes. My race is my nation, and the United States is the enemy of my race. I am acutely aware of my powerlessness to impede, much less destroy this system. Fortunately for me, it is doing a splendid job of destroying itself, and I am not going to stand in its way.
2. Measurements of genetic similarity should only motivate us if we can expect some reciprocity. We may be genetically closer to Jews than the Japanese, but that should not be a factor in our decisions because it is certainly NOT a factor in Jewish decisions. For Jews, their Jewishness trumps all issues of genetic similarity. We are no different than the Japanese to them. We are all “goyim.” The same is true with the Iranians. The average Iranian may be genetically closer to us that the average Semite, but if that Semite is a fellow Muslim, this religious brotherhood trumps all considerations of genetic similarity for the Iranian, and so too should it for us.
Maybe genetics should be the ultimate foundation for all distinctions between “us” and “them,” but it is not. Religious and national identities that do not respect genetic similarities are far more likely to draw the line between us and them. We might wish it were not so, but wishing does not make it so, and it is dangerous to allow our very rare feeling for race to become a sentimental impediment to Realpolitik. The stakes are too high for that.
Maybe I’m just some hick who doesn’t know any better, but every Iranian I’ve ever met looked Arab and was usually very left-wing politically. Personally, I find these foreign policy debates to be somewhat of a waste of time. Our nations are being overrun with hordes of third-world savages. This is my main concern. The Iranians can take care of their own problems.
I am certainly not in favor of military action against Iran, nor was I supporter of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, but I have no sympathy for Muslims who have nothing but hatred for me, regardless of their motives. Let the semites fight out their own battles and let’s just stay out of it.
I do, however, think that Iran poses a much more serious problem than Iraq and needs to be addressed somehow. However light-skinned a minority of their population is does not change the fact that the nation is run by members of a death cult who believe that it is their duty to bring about the end of the world. What are we going to do if these nutjobs get a nuclear weapon? You don’t have to be a neo-con to have serious concerns about a nuclear Iran.
The following essay, which touches on some issues brought up here, contains some links about Jewish genetics:
One.
Also see:
Two.
Some recent ASHG abstracts suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are ~ 50-50 European-Middle Eastern. This should become clearer after the actual full manuscripts are published.
Not that much on Iranians, but see the “genetic similarity matrix” here:
Three.
True enough, many measurements and methods used in population genetics are flawed, misused, and misinterpreted (often with an “anti-race” agenda); nonetheless, it is unlikely that better methods of evaluating kinship coefficients (which are what is required for a proper consideration of genetic interests) are going to substantially alter what the matrix shows.
In the last analysis though, Mr. O’Meara is correct; does either group support the rights of Europeans and the West, or do they oppose them?
Andrew,
It’s good that someone in our ranks is beginning to address these international issues.
In an article written years ago (“Boreas Rising”), I argued that the principal factor affecting our fate as whites was the international realignment that came with the defeat of anti-liberal Germany in 1945. I suspect that the most likely factor to alter the prospect of our impending demographic demise will be another major realignment of the international order — especially one that will provoke the collapse of the present Judeo-corporate regime in Washington.
In this context, I would make the following two points:
1) In approaching international questions, the one consideration affecting our position, I believe, ought to be: If it’s good for the US government, it’s bad for us. Another Mideast misadventure, as well as another Obama administration, would only enhance our chances of liberation. The more imperial overreach, the more strains to the bankrupt economy, the more anti-American world reaction, the more incompetence and corruption at the top — the better for us. Personally, I would be happy if our Jewish-controlled state embarked on another overseas folly — as Marxists say, it would simply heighten the existing contradictions.
2) The enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend. The Jews are our chief “Inner Enemy,” to use Yockey’s term. Iran and the larger Islamic world are, though, inherently anti-European and one of our principal “Outer Enemies.” If the Inner Enemy destroys Iran’s nuclear capacity, it’s no concern of ours — except to the degree that it would weaken the US government internationally and weaken our Outer Enemy. Let the Inner and Outer Enemies destroy one another — it’s to our advantage. Both Jews and Iranians are “Caucasian,” not white — i.e., not of European Christian descent. A pox on both of them — for they each wish us harm.
Thanks to Edmund Connelly for his comment. His line, “We have to recognize and accept the facts before we have any hope of changing things” sums up my own philosophy more incisively than I ever could have.
My article was intended as the first of a handful of short articles about Iranian history and about Iranians’ relationships to the West and to Jews. However, I should address some of the issues raised.
Race
The Eurasian land frontier is vast and genetically, linguistically, culturally, and religiously complex. This complexity has been ignored for too long. It needs to be explored. But, obviously, different people can come to different conclusions. To take a simple example: were Stalin and Beria white? Both were Georgian; Beria was Mingrelian (not Jewish). The question is rhetorical. I don’t know the answer.
Turning to Iran, a great deal of genetic admixture has occurred over the centuries. Don’t gloat: probably every major city in the “West” already looks worse than Iran, and white demographic collapse and admixture on an enormous scale has permanently altered future possibilities. Significant admixture is occurring even in areas falsely denigrated as “lily-white.” Both time and process need to be factored into account. Once populations are brought into contact, gene flow creates a racial dynamic that often occurs with great rapidity. You may still be white. But your future isn’t. Races take a long time to form, but can quickly be destroyed.
I do not consider Iranians to be Europeans. However, like Europeans, they are Caucasoids. There is a genetic relationship. More than that, their origins are Indo-European. There are many Caucasian groups (again—a genetic relationship) who are less close to us than that: they lack Indo-European roots. The significance of this was perhaps better understood in the nineteenth century and by the German intelligentsia of the 1930s and 1940s than it is today.
Anyone who delves into Indo-Aryan history will immediately recognize strong cultural and psychological affinities. This is true of both Iran and India. It comes through very forcefully.
I intend to write more specifically about contemporary Iranians in a subsequent piece. However, the analysis will necessarily be framed primarily in terms of ethnicity, language, culture, and religion because genetic and anthropological evidence is sparse. Therefore, the named factors must suffice as a first approximation. However, each of the factors mentioned typically signals the existence of a genetic gradient of some sort; when combined, the gradient generally increases.
I liked the photo of the Iranian girl. It brings readers up short and hopefully makes them think. William Pierce used a photograph of a European-looking Palestinian girl to drive home a similar point. As to how common the girl’s phenotype is, one would require an objective survey to find out. My assumption is that it is a minority look. But then, possibly most Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians and Greeks have darker hair, eyes, and complexions than she has. Race isn’t solely about pigmentation. (Take a look at the New York Times‘ David Brooks. Despite his phenotype, he isn’t white.) Further, if she comes from a region in which significant admixture occurred, her parents, siblings, and eventually children might display quite a different look. Conversely, some of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s relatives might look as European as the girl does (if admixture was present in his family tree).
F. Roger Devlin:
“The fallacy of arguing from language to race.” I am aware that language and race are not identical. But language and race are closely related. Not always, but often enough. Cavalli-Sforza, among others, discusses this in terms of “population genetics.” With regard to “race,” physical anthropologists have done so in the past.
To demonstrate how subjective impressions can be, I would not be surprised to find 40% Scythian ancestry among contemporary Persians (the dominant ethnic group in Iran). However, the data to make such a determination does not exist.
The figure of 40% European ancestry among Ashkenazim seems high to me. I would need a citation to a reliable source to preliminarily evaluate the claim.
I’m sure Greeks and Romans, like Medes and Persians, knew nothing about their common origin, which is nevertheless an objective fact. To Romans, Gauls and Germans were barbarians. Americans of the 1940s considered the gaggle of Jews around Roosevelt to be fellow whites, and Germans evil foreigners who spoke an incomprehensible tongue.
Morgan:
Your statements are correct. The fact that you independently invoke the Medes demonstrates you already have some knowledge of this subject.
Pat Buchanan
There are only three columnists I’ve read consistently, every column they wrote, over the past 20 years. They are Sam Francis (the best), Pat Buchanan, and Paul Craig Roberts. I am fully aware of what Buchanan has been writing about Iran. As HA correctly points out, although Buchanan doesn’t employ the shrill, violent language of the neocons, his position is not in doubt. He is not naïve.
‘as a White, Germanic man I find any comparison between myself and Hindus, Persians or even Mediterraneans a colossal insult.’
As a blue-eyed, gracile man of uncertain antecedents, I don’t mind comparison between myself and Hindus, Persians, etc. I would not be surprised if my family tree turned out to be something like 75% German and 25% other non-Jewish. I also would not be surprised if typical white nationalists were to consider me not white enough for membership in a white nationalist organization.
I have no good term to describe the set of my opinions: I oppose Zionism and I suspect that Jewish genes may have an inherent, hyper-ethnocentric tendency to anti-social behavior, thus I have very strong reservations about Jewish ethnic genetic interests. If some advancement of genetic science could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jewish genes did not dictate the kind of behavior that Kevin MacDonald has documented at length, I would be very interested in methods to convert Jews away from Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism.
However, I have no objections to joining hands with Hindus, Persians, Sicilians, etc. and opposing Zionism, Jewish nepotism, Jewish censorship of non-conventional historians, etc. My inclusive attitude on this score no doubt disqualifies me from calling myself a “white nationalist,” but I don’t know what term would be appropriate. Perhaps I could call myself a sociobiologist in the tradition of Kevin MacDonald.
Furthermore, I note that my enthusiasm for non-standard accounts of history has only increased my empathy for non-white ethnic groups. This study of “conspiracy theories” does little to endear me to most “white nationalists,” who stand to gain little from denying orthodox history.
Thus while I may be absolutely unqualified to be a “white nationalist,” I end up reading the same books of western history, sociobiology, etc., and drawing the same kind of fire from the defenders of orthodox political opinion.
While I oppose military action (open or clandestine) against Iran, I still see the message of this article as folly. It is common among the more radical of our brethren to want to see “Aryan brotherhood” between Whites and pretty much anybody in southern Asia that we can label as such. All in the name of an anti-Israeli front. I am Jew-wise and understand the sentiment, but as a White, Germanic man I find any comparison between myself and Hindus, Persians or even Mediterraneans a colossal insult.
The direct quote from Buchanan couldn’t be clearer. While trying to appear more reasonable than the shrillest neocons, he supports their goal of regime change in Iran just as he supported their troop surge in Iraq. What Patsy omits is far more important: Iran’s existing regime would be more than willing to engage with the West (on mutually beneficial terms). It is Jews who’ve prevented any such engagement for decades, most importantly through Israel Lobbyist Martin Indyk’s “dual containment” policy. If there’s a country that needs regime change, it’s not Iran.
in biocultural terms, the people of the West and Iranians share common Indo-European and proto-Indo European roots. Whites and Jews do not.
This sounds to me like the fallacy of arguing from language to race. The Ashkenazim have as much as 40% European ancestry. I would be surprised if that much Scythian blood still runs in the veins of the modern Iranian.
Moreover, Greek and Roman always defined themselves against the Persians above all as the embodiment of all that was “Asiatic” and foreign to their own ways.
I would agree with the above passage if “course of events” were replaced with “American rhetoric.”
Indeed, whites are powerless to change the American media, American pop culture, and American rhetoric. However, the world is a big place. The “course of events” includes inputs from nature — e.g. lunar eclipses happen without input from human rhetoric.
There are many ways in which a Jewish-American effort for a war with Iran could fail. The United Nations and IMF could provide insufficient money; the price of gasoline could do something unexpected; the rate of US military casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan could become unsustainably high. The Chinese might decide that they like Iranian crude oil more than USA bonds.
The “course of events” is vast and complex. Jewish rhetoric is not infinitely powerful.
Mr. Hamilton continues to make excellent arguments. And as he has done elsewhere, his tactic of noting who is Jewish or has Jewish relatives helps us all become further “Jew wise.” After all, these things are NOT disconnected.
He notes, for example, how Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) who is white, “has a Jewish wife and children.” Or that US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi [D.-Calif.], a Catholic Italian-American, “has a Jewish son-in-law and Jewish grandchildren.”
This is a practice we should all follow.
Finally, Hamilton makes a frank statement that, though it may depress us, still speaks the truth: “Only dissent by a Jewish minority can eventually alter the course of events, because only Jews have primary influence in such matters.”
Sadly, we see far too much evidence of this on a daily basis.
As wise people often say, we have to recognize and accept the facts before we have any hope of changing things.
Iranians are a mixture of Indo-European, old Mediterranean, Asiatic and Semitic races. They are not 100% European stock. Even Jews are a mixture of these races plus black African.
Mr. Hamilton never said anything about wanting Iranians to migrate to the West. Nor did he say that the population is still purely Indo-European. What he did say is that the root peoples of the current Iranians, the Persians, and we could say Medes as well, were Aryan. Some of the original stock remains but they are a minority. Even then, Mr. Hamilton said nothing about wanting them to migrate to the West.
Some great points were raised. However, a common mistake of those in search of Aryan-ness globally is that they are looking for a needle in a haystack. Perhaps my phrase is hyperbolic, but that Iranian girl you featured above is absolutely, positively not the average Iranian. The average Iranian girl is caucasoid of either a Mediterranean or darker hue. These darker hued Iranians are the majority of the population. Even if they were Christians and Westernized, trust me, you wouldn’t want them in the West.
Andrew Hamilton is disingenuous in his assertion that Pat Buchanan supports U.S. coordinated regime change in Iran. There is no public figure in America today who has been more courageous and articulate in opposing U.S. military involvement in the Middle East and America’s blind support for Israel. Finally, Mr. Hamilton’s comment about a secret “Obama-Buchanan” inspired subversion strategy inside Iran is too absurd to even rebut.
Mr Hamilton, I never heard such an absurd claim since Hitler declared his Japanese allies White and race-relatives. I think the picture of the Ayatollah Khumeyni or any of the other ayatollahs or even of Mr Mahmood Ahmedenijad would have been more representative of the Iranian phenotype than that blonde (!) girl. BTW the Iranians dont seem to think that you are their blood brother but that you are the Big Satan (we are only the little satan).