Alright, does everybody get it? Oslonor, though supposedly some kind of Swede, doesn't know what "white" means, doesn't recognize such a category when he sees it, and is just a complete idiot that he makes slide shows showing all sorts of mixed mud people, white, mud and god knows and pretends he is making some kind of point.

You are a great anthropologist. I am very impressed with your knowledge about Muds. I told you that you can assume I am african from Congo if you are more comfortable with that.

You are a great anthropologist. I am very impressed with your knowledge about Muds. I told you that you can assume I am african from Congo if you are more comfortable with that.

I assume you are Shapur. There couldn't be TWO like you!

But if you say Iran is ZOG, that's what I have said based on the evidence that Pres. Mahmoud looks like a monkey and white people would not elect men who look like monkeys to be in charge of anything, therefore, I suspect the hand of ZOG. We have the same thing here in the USA - a monkey boy for president. It's getting us ready for the first black president.

Here is my blog "a Critique of White Nationalist Views on Iran"

http://whitenationalistviews.blogspot.com/

I assume you are Shapur. There couldn't be TWO like you!

But if you say Iran is ZOG, that's what I have said based on the evidence that Pres. Mahmoud looks like a monkey and white people would not elect men who look like monkeys to be in charge of anything, therefore, I suspect the hand of ZOG. We have the same thing here in the USA - a monkey boy for president. It's getting us ready for the first black president.

Shapur is a Kurd. He is not African.

Oslonor

How is it that the Persians managed to stay (according to you) relatively pure with all those mud invaders around, doesn't the Koran state some gobbledygook about muslim brotherhood, that all muslims are equal and other such multicult anti-racist bullshit?
I once read a theory, that stated that Arabs were at one time lighter skinned than they are today, according to the theory, moslem arabs imported and mixed with a great many niggers and hence they have their near nigger like complexion of today. What social function or what ever prevented a conquered and occupied people like the Persians from being mixed into the same fate?

How did the Persians manage to keep their women out of the hands of the Arabs, the Turks and the Mongols, did these invaders not want to take all those allegedly fine looking Persian girls as concubines and sex slaves? Persia has for a long time been a defeated nation and people, arguably it is still a defeated people because they have not thrown off the occupier's vile religion, Islam.

Oslonor

How is it that the Persians managed to stay (according to you) relatively pure with all those mud invaders around, doesn't the Koran state some gobbledygook about muslim brotherhood, that all muslims are equal and other such multicult anti-racist bullshit?
I once read a theory, that stated that Arabs were at one time lighter skinned than they are today, according to the theory, moslem arabs imported and mixed with a great many niggers and hence they have their near nigger like complexion of today. What social function or what ever prevented a conquered and occupied people like the Persians from being mixed into the same fate?

The whole arab army was 20.000 people. Arabs did not conquer Persia as you imagine. There were internal opposition forces inside Persia who helped Arabs. Arabs had no racial agenda in Persia as some Jews have today. Persia was not run by Arabs but by local rulers paying taxes. That was all they were interested. Arabs withdrew from Persia soon afterwards. Many areas of Persia were not even aware that there was an Arab invasion even after they left.

Even DNA today confirms this. Arabs have gene marker Haplogroup EU10. Iranians do not have this gene marker. Azeris look the way they do not because of Arabs, but that is the way they look. Azeris were not even in Persia at the time of Arab invasion.

The whole arab army was 20.000 people.

That's interesting

Arabs did not conquerPersiaas you imagine. There were internal opposition forces insidePersiawho helped Arabs.

I vaguely remember something like that from history class]Persiawhen the Arabs came?

Arabs had no racial agenda inPersiaas some Jews have today.Persiawas not run by Arabs but by local rulers paying taxes. That was all they were interested. Arabs withdrew fromPersiasoon afterwards. Many areas ofPersiawere not even aware that there was an Arab invasion even after they left.

I can well imagine that the jews have a similar plan forPersiaas they have had forGermanyand all the rest of the civilized world that has ever laid a hand on these paranoid ones. They would love to corrupt Persian youth and turn them into Western style degenerates, that look back on their history with terror and think that anti-semitism is worse than child molestation. They dream of makingPersiasafe for kikes, forever, like they are doing everywhere else.

Even DNA today confirms this. Arabs have gene marker Haplogroup EU10. Iranians do not have this gene marker. Azeris look the way they do not because of Arabs, but that is the way they look. Azeris were not even inPersiaat the time of Arab invasion.

Azerbaijan is north of today’s Iran, how did they get so much Arab blood?

That's interesting

Azerbaijan is north of today’s Iran, how did they get so much Arab blood?

I clearly stated that Azeris are not mixed with anybody. That is the way they look. It has nothing to do with Arabs.

You must be in a dream state. Please read the post no.34

No, I am just not as emotionally involved in the issue . . .

No, I am just not as emotionally involved in the issue . . .

I agreee. Some people on this forum are very emotional.

I do respect your perservance and methodical research.
What I am having problems comprehending is why you keep harping on point A?
Is there no point B?
In the meantime, as for point A, we got it.
And if there is a point B, get on with it.
What difference does it make if we agree with you or not?

I do respect your perservance and methodical research.
What I am having problems comprehending is why you keep harping on point A?
Is there no point B?
In the meantime, as for point A, we got it.
And if there is a point B, get on with it.
What difference does it make if we agree with you or not?

Sorry this thread is only about point A. Point B is another thread.

Sorry this thread is only about point A. Point B is another thread.

This has got to be a woman.

This has got to be a woman.

Actually you are right. Many of my posts are written by my Persian wife.

Jews have a strong tendency to promote ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity in Western societies, and to oppose any Western trends toward biological and cultural homogeneity. The Jews view relatively homogenous Western societies in which they still reside as potentially dangerous, because in such societies the Jews stand out as the prominent unassimilated minority; in addition, the more homogenous the society, the easier it is for the majority members to come together as a cohesive group (see #2 below) and fight against Jewish influences. Indeed, Jews can argue that homogenous Western societies have historically been hostile to Jewish interests. Thus, Jews tend to support all endeavors and trends that disrupt Western biocultural homogeneity; they support non-Western immigration, "multiculturalism", miscegenation (for others, not themselves!), etc.

Jews are also threatened by authoritarian, collectivist gentile groups or movements, which historically have excluded Jews and fought against Jewish influence; for example, the National Socialist movement in Germany. Jews themselves are highly collectivist and tend toward cohesive, authoritarian groups (here), yet they vehemently oppose and "pathologize" the very same structures for White gentiles, even though such "cohesive, group-serving" structures are now absolutely required for our survival (here ... and here). As Dr. Kevin MacDonald has written, collectivist groups always can outcompete individualist strategies, and "behavior that is critical to Judaism as a successful group evolutionary strategy is conceptualized as pathological in gentiles" ("The Culture of Critique" 1998 Westport, CT: Praeger). Jews, as a collectivist cooperating group, thrive in societies in which the non-Jewish majority are atomized individualists, individualists who can easily be outcompeted by the cohesive Jewish minority. These atomized individualists, who, unlike the Jews, only think of themselves and not their ethnie or race will not put up any organized resistance to Jewish power and influence. Indeed, such "organization" - "pathologized" (for gentiles) by the Jews - would be considered anathema by such gentile individualists. On the other hand, any sort of cohesive, collectivist gentile group poses a serious danger to Jewish interests. Thus, the strong Jewish tendency of promoting individualist ideals for gentiles, while pursuing cooperative strategies for themselves.