Some Southeast Asian Types

Following up on our recent post about Mongoloid types, let us look at SE Asians, or more properly Southern Mongoloids.

A classic Lao beauty. Does she look Australoid-Mongoloid? Give it up.

A very beautiful Laotian girl.

Malay types vary considerably, but this is a nice example of a common phenotype.

A classic Malay type, a very beautiful woman. Note the Muslim headscarf.

Common Thai type. Note light skin, common in Thailand. Many Thais have considerable Chinese ancestry.

Thais vary quite a bit in their features, but this is fairly common Thai phenotype. Note the very light skin.

Fascinating people, the Taiwanese aborigines. Probably derived possibly from an ancient Ainuid type base. They often have an almost Caucasoid or Amerindian appearance, which suggests an Ainuid origin.

Taiwanese aborigines, a very interesting type. The woman have probably had breast implants. They look something like Amerindians.

The Hmong say that Hmong women sometimes give birth to babies with blond hair and blue eyes, a legacy perhaps of their origins in the Tarim Basin long ago, the same homeland as the Tocharians and the Tarim Mummies (Tocharian speakers). That area has a long history of Caucasoid-Mongoloid interaction. I thought blond hair and blue eyes were recessive and would never show up in a Mongoloid line but maybe I am wrong.

A Hmong woman with, incredibly enough, a blond baby. When I worked with the Hmong, they told me that blond and blue eyed babies were sometimes born to Hmong women, a legacy of their origin in the Tarim Basin long ago.

These are some very classical looking Vietnamese women. Vietnamese have a strong South Chinese or Cantonese appearance, one of the most Chinese-looking people outside of China proper.

Classic Vietnamese types – young women.

The young Vietnamese woman below has heavy Chinese or Cantonese genetics. Note light skin color. There are many Chinese in Vietnam and many Vietnamese have varying amounts of Chinese genes in them. Nevertheless, many ethnic Vietnamese hate Chinese people, and many Viet Chinese complain of discrimination from the Viets. Many fled after the Communist takeover because they ran businesses in the South.

A Vietnamese woman with heavy Chinese (Cantonese) admixture. There are many Chinese in Vietnam.

Muong, who speak a language very close to Vietnamese, have a very Cantonese appearance. They probably have similar origins with the Vietnamese – a mix of recent Cantonese invaders plus native SE Asian “montagnard” types. The Cantonese invaded about 2,200 years ago.

The Muong, a group in Vietnam that is very closely related to the Viets. Note the strong Cantonese appearance.

Dark skinned Tai girls from northern Vietnam. They speak a Tai language. Related to the Thais of Thailand but not the same group.

The Tai minority of Vietnam. This is not the same group as the Thai of Thailand, but they speak a related language. Groups include Black Tai, Red Tai, etc. They live in the north. Note dark skin.

Palaung, a Mon-Khmer group from Burma, Yunnan and Thailand. Skin is dark. Probably an aboriginal SE Asian group native to the region.

Palaung, a group from southern China and Thailand. Note resemblance to Tai.

The Nung live in Vietnam. This Thai-speaking group has a strong Yunnanese South Chinese appearance. This group is part of Zhuang of Southern China (Yunnan). The Tai peoples came from Fujian and Guangdong long ago.

The Nung, a group from Vietnam. Very strong Southern Chinese (Yunnanese) appearance.

The Bai, a Tibeto-Burman group of Yunnan, may have origins in the north. Note Korean-looking faces and very North Mongoloid appearance.

The Bai, a Tibeto-Burman group from Southern China. Note rounded cheekbones similar to Koreans.

The Yi or Lolo of Yunnan, Vietnam and Thailand, a Tibeto-Burman group. Beautiful women. The language is very close to Burman. Probably genetically related to Tibetans. Origin possibly in far northeastern Tibet.

The Yi or Lolo, a Tibeto-Burman group from Yunnan.

A Tibeto-Burman speaking Akha tribal woman from the north of Thailand. They live in Thailand, Burma, Yunnan and Laos. Origins are apparently in Yunnan. They left around 1650 after a Ming Dynasty invasion. Very closely related to the Lolo-Yi. This group uses opium heavily.

An Akha tribal woman from northern Thailand. Basically a Yunnanese grouping.

Very Malay-appearing Cham Muslims of Cambodia.

Chams, Muslims from Cambodia. Note strong Malay appearance.

More Chams below, these with a more typical SE Asian look.

More Chams. These women have a more typical SE Asian appearance.

The Whites of Asia – The Uighurs

The Uighurs are a mixed Caucasian-Asian Muslim group that live in Xinjiang, China. They have been agitating for independence for some time now. China has responded to these calls by flooding Xinjiang with Han Chinese immigrant invaders who have taken most of the good jobs. In addition, China has downplayed the Uighur language in schools and has forced Uighurs into a pure Mandarin education system. The Uighurs are strangers in their own homeland which is being colonized by imperialist, racist Han Chinese. The Hans go on periodic Nazi-like Kristallnacht style pogroms against the Uighurs, burning down their businesses, beating them, murdering them. The police join in and the Uighurs have nowhere to hide.

Some Uighurs look very White. Some White Uighurs are below:

First, a red haired Uighur.

A very White looking, in fact, red-haired, Uighur child, who could easily be an Irish kid.

Next, we have a Slavic appearing Uighur.

A very White looking Uighur boy. To me, he looks somewhat Russian or East Slavic, does he not?

Next, a very White looking Uighur woman. The phenotype is very exotic, and the only thing I have seen close to this is from the Kalash of northwest Pakistan.

This is a very White looking Uighur woman. Note the tall, angular, thin nose. I am not sure what European type she resembles. Any guesses?

Most Uighur women look more Asiatic like these women, although the woman on the far right looks rather exotic and somewhat resembles the beauty above in phenotype. Note the tall, thin angular nose on both women.

More typical Asian Uighur women are seen here.

US Conservatives Are Not Evil; They Are Insane

I really don’t think most US conservatives are evil or bad. I just think they are wrong. Actually I do not think they are wrong. I know they are wrong. Almost everything they say and believe is simply wrong. For the most part, what they believe are lies, nonsense, crap, idiocy and bullshit. If we know a human being whose beliefs are all nonsensical, we usually won’t say he is evil. We might be charitable and just say he is a nutcase.

Almost all of the problems with US conservatives are because they are ludicrously partisan. To be partisan is one thing, but a conservative will never admit he is partisan.

Let us look at some examples:

Benghazi Embassy scandal: There was no scandal. Al Qaeda is waging a global war on us, and they will attack our troops and embassies any chance they can get. The Administration tried their hardest to fortify the embassy, as hard as any other administration would have tried. The diplomatic aspect of the state in the State Department is nonpartisan. Embassy personnel are staffed via the Pentagon and the CIA and contractors. Under any administration, priority will be on protecting the lives of diplomatic personnel and the integrity of US embassies.

Democratic administrations are not so stupid as to scrimp on security overseas, and there is no evidence that Republicans protect embassies any better than Democrats. One of the worst attacks ever on a US embassy occurred in 1983 when Hezbollah hit the US Embassy in Beirut. Almost all the American “civilians” killed were working for the CIA, but don’t let that bother you.

As sometimes happens, our enemies got the best of us one day in Libya. This would never have happened under Gaddafi, but we overthrew him and put Al Qaeda in charge of Libya, so that’s why our embassy got overrun.

Truth be told, wasn’t the 9-11 attack on the US far worse than the Benghazi attack in which one ambassador was killed? On 9-11, 3,000 Americans were killed, on our own soil nonetheless. But somehow to conservatives this is not a failure to protect the US homeland and citizens, but an attack that kills one ambassador is? That’s just partisan bullshit; it’s nothing more and nothing less.

If the Benghazi attack occurred under a Republican President, conservatives would not have said a word. Security failures only occur under Democratic Presidents, never under Republican Presidents. If 9-11 would have occurred under a Democratic President, conservatives would still be screaming about how “the liberals let Al Qaeda attack us.” But since it happened under a Republican, you will never hear a word of this. This makes no sense. 9-11 was either a security failure or it was not. It can’t be the case that it would have been a security failure under a Democrat, but since it occurred under a Republican, it could not possibly be one.

Lie: Obama represents something called “Chicago-style politics.” The implication here is that Obama is corrupt to the core, a representative of corrupt Chicago Democratic Party-labor union machine politics going back decades. The truth is that that corrupt machine got dismantled quite some time ago. It is true that Democratic politics in Chicago used to be very corrupt, especially under Mayor Daley. Corrupt elections were the norm, and dead people voted early and often.

Corrupt Democratic crooks in Chicago stole so many votes in Chicago in 1960 that they probably gave John F. Kennedy the election. So JFK no doubt stole his way into office. The dead have not voted in Chicago in quite some time, and federal RICO prosecutions and raids have pretty much shut down the overtly corrupt aspect of Chicago politics. To my knowledge, Chicago politics nowadays is no more corrupt than the politics of any other large US city.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that Obama is part of any Chicago corrupt Daley-style machine. That machine was made up of old style ethnic Whites, and the new Democratic politics in Chicago is much more progressive, even radical, and clean. It’s true that Penny Pritzger, Rahm Emanuel and Bill Ayers were part of the local politics scene, but neither one is corrupt. In fact Ayers and other radical types would be very against that sort of thing. Emanuel and and Pritzger come out of US finance capital and are as corrupt or non-corrupt as anyone tied at the hip to Wall Street as almost 100% of the Republican Party is.

How about Obama since he has been in office? There is no evidence that the Obama Administration is particularly corrupt as an Executive Branch. Sure, they take lots of corporate money, but the Republicans take way more, and that’s all legal anyway. There have been very few serious corruption cases under Obama.

The truth is that corruption in the US reached an all-time recent high under Ronald Reagan. It was also very high under George Bush Jr. The more capitalist the political party is, the more corrupt it is. The Democrats are not so wedded to US big business and multinational corporations as Republicans are, hence you see a lot less corruption. Any political party with profound ties to Big Capital will almost always be extremely corrupt. This fact can even be shown on a worldwide scale. Parties that are more socialist or populist and less tied to the rich and Big Capital will tend to be less corrupt since there is less Big Money to go around and they at least pay lip service to the lower 80% of the population.

Conclusion: There is no “Chicago-style politics” anymore, and even if there is, Obama is not representative of it. The old machine is dead and gone, possibly never to be revived. That Obama is some corrupt, vote-stealing, bribe-taking, brutal Daley style machine crook is simply nonsense.

Lie: Obama is killing the Keystone XL pipeline because he has ties to the Waltons, heirs to the Walmart fortune, who will lose big money if the pipeline goes through. Truth is that Obama, corporatist that he is, largely supports the Keystone XL, but he is under huge pressure from environmentalists to cave in. So Obama the corporatist is caught between his Big Money backers in Big Oil (Obama is a strong supporter of Big Oil) and the environmentalists on the Left of his party.

Obama, being a rightwing corporate capitalist whore, is inclined to support the pipeline because his corporate pimps demand it of him. However, he is pressured from the Left to kill the pipeline. So he is caught in a bind. The only wavering he is doing at all is because he is under pressure from environmentalists. If he stops Keystone XL, it will be because the environmentalists convinced him.

Conclusion: Obama has no position on Keystone XL, but is inclined to support it. But he is under pressure from his Left to kill it. The verdict is up to him.

Lie: Environmental organizations lie about the environment because they are paid many millions of dollars to lie about it. This is simply not true. Environmental groups are not corrupt, and there is no money in protecting the environment. There are no rich or business interests paying off environmental activists to do this or that. The entire environmental movement really is anti-capitalist.

Its goal is to shut down or regulate various capitalist enterprises so they can not make any money at all since they are not allowed to start up or because their operations are shut down. In other cases, it seeks to regulate capitalist enterprises in such a way as to limit the profits of Capital. The capitalists are the ones with money in capitalist societies. Since the goals of environmentalists’ projects are to limit or in some cases to disallow capitalists’ profits, no capitalist will ever support this movement.

It is certainly possible that there are rich people somewhere dishing out millions of dollars to environmental groups in order to lie about environmental problems, but there is no evidence that this is occurring. Anyway, US environmental problems are bad enough that there is no need to lie about anything; the truth is bad enough as it is. I have been following this movement for decades now and I have never uncovered a single case of environmentalists inventing nonexistent problems or even exaggerating current ones. There’s no need to do so. If projects are environment-friendly, environmentalists are content to let them go forward.

Conclusion: There are no environmental groups lying about environmental problems as the truth is bad enough. 100% of the lying is on the side of the capitalist destroyers and polluters who obviously have huge pecuniary interest in lying. No one is giving millions of $ to environmentalists to make up lies, and there is no evidence that no one ever has.

Lie: China and India are causing the majority of global warming, so we needn’t worry about global warming here in the US. Pollute away!

The truth is that China and India together cause ~8% of global warming in the world. Sure it is on the rise, but that is the current figure. Most global warming is coming out of the West.

Conclusion: The West is causing global warming, not the rest of the world.

Lie: Barack Obama, radical Islamist Kenyan born Muslim, is supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The MB are radical Al Qaeda style terrorists who hate the US and Israel. It is true that the MB are radical Islamists and they are pretty nasty. But a Republican administration would probably also support the MB regime in Egypt. Egypt gets that $2-3 billion/year as a payoff for making peace with Israel back in 1979.

So all those billions are not going for the radical Islamist MB in Egypt, instead it is going for a bunch of Jews squatting in Palestine. It’s a payoff to the Jews, nothing more, nothing less. If you’re upset about it, head on over to Hymietown, find yourself a deli, and complain to anyone who will listen to you.

Truth is that due to geopolitics, a Republican administration would probably have to support the MB to the tune of $2-3 billion a year too. If you cut off all that aid, Egypt might just tear up that peace treaty with Israel, and we can’t have that. So the aid stays, no matter which administration is in charge.

Besides, there is not a whole lot of evidence that the Egyptian MB is any more radical Islamist than the radical Sunni Islamist regimes in the Gulf. Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Yemen are all run by radical Islamist regimes. In fact, the Egyptian MB has very deep ties to the Wahhabi clergy in Saudi Arabia, and it was the emigration of many MB Islamists to Saudi Arabia due to persecution by secular regimes that helped fuel Al Qaeda in the first place.

What created Al Qaeda? Al Qaeda was created when large numbers of MB activists from Egypt and then later from Syria migrated to Saudi Arabia due to persecution by secular regimes in Egypt and Syria. The Wahhabi clerics had been rather quietist up until this point. But the MB cadres were radicalized by persecution and torture in their homelands, and they riled up the locals, turning up the heat on the quietist Wahhabi clergy. It was out of this union of Mediterranean MB activists with Saudi Wahhabi clergy that Al Qaeda itself was born.

Conclusion: Obama probably doesn’t like the Egyptian MB regime any more than any Republican would. But the rules of geopolitics are that Egypt must be supported as a consequence of US support for Israel. As with so many things in the Middle East, all roads lead back to Jerusalem.

A Capitalist World is a World of Crime, Corruption and Wars of Agression

Dota says:

I think Roger Hill is onto something here. Robert mistakes capitalism for opportunism and sociopathic behaviour in general. As I’ve pointed out before, we’ve seen exploitation in non-capitalist societies during various periods of history. Feudalism and Caste immediately come to mind.

Lee Kwan Yew once said that in order to spread the wealth around, a society must first create it. Capitalism is a good engine for wealth creation. Historically, its egalitarian societies that have been expansionist. The Arabs and Mongols come to mind. They were expansionist because they failed to create any wealth for themselves. Once they acquired wealth through conquest, they divided it amongst themselves equally (more or less).

It’s obvious that the Rockerfellers/Fords etc. represent a ‘capitalism’ that is alien to Smith’s wealth of nations. Capitalism is merely privately owned factors of production. The elites mentioned above represent plutocratic sociopathic insanity at its highest degree.

Under capitalism, all manner and degrees of opportunism, corruption, lying, cheating, stealing and sociopathic behavior becomes positively epidemic.

That is because in pursuit of money, humans will do just about anything: lie, cheat, steal, become opportunists or corrupt, and behave sociopathically in every manner and degree possible. They will also commit tons of crime and will tend to abuse women in all sorts of ways.

We saw much less of this behavior in the socialist societies of the last century. When these socieites such as Eastern Europe, the USSR and China went to capitalism, the crime rate went through the roof, entire nations became corrupt to the core, and the abuse of women increased dramatically. In fact, some socieites were almost completely taken over by organized crime. Russia to this day is significantly controlled by Organized Crime. Organized crime elements run Russia and rule it via the state.

In the past century, the most egalitarian societies committed little aggression, started few wars and committed few acts of conquest in order to obtain more land and acquire new markets and resources. On the contrary, almost all aggression in the past century was committed by unequal capitalist (and imperialist) countries trying to conquer new lands and peoples for new markets and to steal their resources for the capitalists.

In fact a world regime of capitalism virtually guarantees almost continuous wars among capitalist countries over dividing markets and resources. Capitalist countries will always fight each other over markets and resources.  This is almost guaranteed under capitalism, and there does not seem to be any way around it. A world of capitalism is a world of constant war with no way out.

Under more socialist systems, crime, corruption, abuse of women, wars of aggression, homelessness, hunger and preventive disease are dramatically reduced, as is all manner of egoistic sociopathic behavior.

As those societies transition to a capitalist model, crime, corruption, abuse of women, aggressive (imperialist) wars, homelessness, hunger and deaths due to preventive disease often skyrocket.

Bottom line is capitalism is bad for your health.

Civil War in Balochistan

Fascinating documentary on the Baloch civil war in Pakistan. The Balochis never agreed to be part of Pakistan. One year after Pakistan was formed, a referendum was held, and Balochistan voted to be a separate country. Pakistan’s army then invaded Balochistan, conquered it and made it a part of Pakistan.

A similar thing happened in India. On the eve of India’s independence, India was actually about 3,000 princely states. These states voted on whether to become part of India or not. Almost all of them voted to be part of India, but a few did not. Every state that voted to not join India was immediately attacked by Indian army. Many people were killed in these battles to force these states at gunpoint to join India. All of the Northeast did not want to be part of India.The Northeast was attacked and forced to join India at gunpoint.

Kashmir did not want to be part of India. The Indian army invaded Kashmir and forced Kashmir to join India. The UN ruled that India had to allow Kashmir to vote on whether they want to join India, join Pakistan or be independent, but India never allowed the vote. Almost 100% of Indians you meet, if you ask them about this UN vote and they know about it, will get very agitated and angry, start pounding the table, raise their voice and get threatening and arrogantly bellow that India will never allow this vote to occur.

As you can see, your average Indian is a fanatical nationalist (an Indian fascist if you will), as malign and horrific as the fanatical nationalists in Palestine (the Zionists or Jewish fascists) or any other fascist like nationalists everywhere on Earth. So not only do Indians follow an amoral, cruel, backwards pagan religion that belongs back in 1,500 BC, apparently most of them are fascist-like ultranationalists.

These two reactionary poisons come together in Indian nationalism or the Hindutvadi movement, which are two separate things but in practice merge together. I note that they are separate because one of the worst Indian nationalists on this board was an Indian Muslim! And in my town, we have many Sikhs. One thing I have noticed about them is that support for Punjabi independence is about nil in this group, and most of them are now very strong Indian nationalists, sort of like Hindutvadis minus the Hindu element.

The fact that India thumbs its nose at the UN means that India is an outlaw state, a scofflaw state, a pariah among the world’s nations.

Really, Pakistani nationalists are not much better than Indian nationalists, and Pakistan as a nation is not much better than India.

The Pakistanis do not have the best interests of Kashmir at stake either. They invaded Kashmir back in 1947 because they wanted to annex the place! Just like Indian wanted to annex it to her state.

The truth is that whatever Kashmiris wanted back in the late 1940′s, right now, if they want anything, they want to be independent. Only 6% of Kashmiris want to join Pakistan. Most Kashmiris simply want an independent state. A fair number of them want to stay with India now, but one wonders where those figures came from, since 15 years ago, about 90% of Kashmiris wanted to leave India. Now the number wanting to stay in India is much higher. I would guess that many years of war and 70,000 dead has convinced many Kashmiris that India is never giving up the place, so they may as will quit fighting and agitating for an independence that will never happen.

Back to the Balochis. The Balochis have been fighting for their independence off and on ever since the late 1940′s. The war continues to this very day. Balochi independence has huge support inside Balochistan, surely it has majority support. Only a few Balochis support the Pakistani state, but those are the Balochis who run the Balochi regional government, who most Balochis consider to be a bunch of traitors.

The Balochis point out that the Pakistani state hardly spends one nickel on Balochistan. Almost no money for schools, hospitals, water, sewage systems, roads, infrastructure projects, jobs, nothing, nothing, nothing. In that sense the Pakistani state is like the Indian state in that it cares nothing about its people and only serves a tiny elite. In the case of Pakistan, this elite is made up of a feudal landowning group and addition to a military officer corps group.

Balochistan has a deep water part at Gwadar. This is Pakistan’s only deep water port and it is doubtful that they will give it up. Almost zero jobs at this port have gone to local Balochis. The locals have a very high unemployment rate. Most of the jobs were given to outsiders imported from other parts of Pakistan. So though the Pakistani state has sunk a lot of money into this port, almost none of it has gone to the locals.

Pakistan feels that both China, India and the US are its enemies and are out to screw it over in a geopolitical sense. One of the prizes is this port. To give up Gwadar, the Pakistani state feels it would be handing a victory to its Chinese, Indian and American enemies. Ain’t going to happen.

At the end of the day, the Pakistani state is as backwards, evil and monstrous as the scofflaw state of India. Its criminality approaches the Jewish fascist state in Palestine. One wonders if it is the nature of a state to be essentially criminal in nature.

Some Saturday Thoughts on the Jews

A Jewish visitor writes:

Robert:

I’ve read a lot on your blog and I appreciate that you can talk about race, ethnicity, Jewishness, and Zionism without necessarily being racist and anti-Semitic. I think one of the reasons why there is no discourse on Israeli policies in the U.S. is because, as you pointed out, the people who tend to be anti-Zionist also tend to have outright anti-Semitic views, which to us Jews is frightening.

But a few thoughts: when you say “holocaust porn” that’s a little bit offensive. It’s one thing to claim that we still perpetuate a victim mentality despite being successful, but out of respect to the survives and the 5.7 million slain and those who survived, you shouldn’t make a joke of what happened.

When you talk about the influence of Jews in the politico-economic and media spheres, I think what you have to say isn’t too far off, but that the “tribal mentality” and “ethnocentrism” happens on an individual level rather than a group conspiracy. I know a lot of prominent Jews and I can swear there are no secret synagogue meetings in which we malevolently plot to hurt gentiles.

It’s just that from a young age we’ve been taught that yes, we consider ourselves special, and that as a people, we should look out for one another. This may be a form of ethnocentrism, but as you yourself as stated, you take pride in being white, so why shouldn’t we take pride in being Jewish?

I also wonder what your theories as to Jews’ relatedness to the rest of the Caucasian population. Jews suppress white nationalism because it often turns populations against us, and until ’48, we had no place to go.

Ashkenazic Jews look white and resemble their European populations because of intermarriage. But we were told we were “Semitic” and “non-Aryan” and thus non-desirable to White nationalists. Yet recent DNA tests have shown that the Y-chromosomes of Ashkenazic Jews (these lines were generally unbroken) are closest genetically to Greeks and Italians, which maybe hints that we share a common pre-Indo-European (maybe Hittite?) ancestor.

Does this make any sense, and would this mean that Jews should stop advancing our own interests and instead join forces with our fellow white populations? I do think that the sense of Jewish victim mentality is calming with my generation and that besides intermarrying, we’re much cooler-headed on other Jewish issues.

I also read somewhere (maybe on the Occidental Observer) that the Jewish drive and Protestant work ethic have converged in America so that we find ourselves fighting on the same side as our Caucasian brethren against radical Islam and China. So maybe perhaps there is hope for Western Civilization, and perhaps some of that hope lies with the Jews.

First of all, welcome to the site! Jews are always welcome to this website.

As far as his first sentence goes, that’s one of the main things I am trying to do on this site.

Jewish ethnocentrism becomes a problem when they discriminate against non-Jews in hiring, promoting and whatnot. That’s not ok. It’s also pretty sickening that the Jews who helped write the Civil Rights Act tried to make it so Jews could continue to discriminate without running afoul of the Act.

There are some anti-Zionists who are not anti-Semitic, but as they get deeper and deeper into it, many anti-Zionists just get worse and worse that way. Also, anti-Semitic stuff is always infiltrating anti-Zionist sites in all sorts of ways. Of course, the Zionist folks who are acting like such bastards over there are indeed a bunch of Jews, and their crappy behavior is all wrapped up in Judaism and Jewish culture.

Nevertheless, US Jews are not stealing Palestinian land, beating up their kids and whatnot, so why not let them off the hook? Any chance I can get to take the non anti-Semitic side, I will gladly do that. We can blame US Jews for supporting Israel to the hilt, but then many Gentiles are supporting them to the hilt too, so it’s not fair to single out US Jews for this abuse.

Truth is that a lot of countries around the world act just as shitty as Israel, and a lot of their co-ethnics in the US support the crappy behavior of their co-ethnics abroad, so there’s nothing unusual about Jews and their ethnocentrism and tribalism.

One problem with Jewish ethnocentrism is that, in a word, that is what all the horrors of Zionism are all about. Zionism is simply Jewish ethnocentrism writ large and encompassed in an entire state and society. It’s Jewish ethnocentrism on steroids. And the most ethnocentric of US Jews are also the “Jewiest” (the most unpleasant to us Gentiles in their stereotypical ways) and also, surprise, surprise, they are also the most Zionist!

The Y-DNA probably comes from the early migrations of the Israelites after the fall of the temple in 0-500 AD. The first places they went to after leaving Israel were places like Greece and Italy.

My understanding is that there is a also a strong line in the Ashk Jews that is related to Kurds, Turks and Armenians. These are probably the ancient roots of the Jewish people, a Semitic people from northern Iraq. Semitic in language, Anatolian in genes. If you look at Armenian people, you will often notice that they look a lot like Ashk Jews. Look at them closely!

Joining forces with your fellow Whites is probably a good idea. Jews always oppose White interests because they think it will lead to some form of White nationalism or White ethnic nationalism which historically turns on the Jews as aliens and non-Whites or non-ethnics. Certainly Jewish movements against White interests dredge up a whole lot of antisemitism among a certain segment of the population. But one might argue that the type of White who gets so upset about these Jewish behaviors doesn’t like Jews much anyway, and even if Jews stopped their nonsense tomorrow, these ethnocentric Whites would just fish around and find some other reason to hate the Jews.

I really believe that these folks need to hate the Jews for some reason, and I am not sure that there is anything that Jewish people can do to win your favor. At some point, you just have to write certain folks off as lost causes.

The new generation of young Jews is ok. I don’t mind them too much. The problem once again is anti-Semitism. As soon as any significant anti-Semitism gets riled up in US society, those very well-behaved Jews will quickly become the Jewiest Jews you have ever met. Besides being anti-humane, anti-Semitism is bad for the Jews in other ways. It tends to bring out the worst most stereotypical behaviors in Jews, which of course causes even more anti-Semitism, which makes Jews act even Jewier, which causes more anti-Semitism, well, you get the picture. You probably know how this story ends, too, and it’s not a pretty picture.

True the Jews are lining up with White interests somewhat against China and against radical Islam. However, most Jews don’t care about China. Only Jewish neocons want to fight China. And I don’t think most Whites care about China either. Yes there is a marriage of interests against Islam or against radical Islam as you put it, between the Jews and the rest of US Whites. This is not a very pretty marriage though. A lot these folks make no distinction between Islam and radical Islam. To them, all Muslims are radical.

Gandhi Versus Mao

Gandhi versus Mao. Mao wins!

Hinduism versus Maoism. Maoism wins!

Creaders, one of my finest commenters, hails from Singapore. He absolutely hates Indians. He has pointed out the utterly insane hatred that your average Indian Hindu has of China. I have noticed this too. All I had to do was mention the word “China” and a typical Indian nationalist Hindutvadi Brahmin I knew would nearly fly into utter conniptions of rage. He didn’t even want to hear the word China and any attempts to compare India with China left him sputtering.

I recently met and Indian fellow outside the local Shop for Less or whatever they call the Cheapo Supermarket out here. For some reason, the conversation slipped around to China, and then this Hindu started going off on a tangent. Apparently he was an Indian military vet, and he could not stop talking about something called the India-China War. This war took place in the early 1960′s and China whooped India’s ass very quickly. Most all Indians are still sputtering and out for blood due to this humiliation. How did the war start? India attacked China! Why? Who knows! Most Indian nationalists are itching to re-fight this war with China.

China bests India on almost every variable, and they were nearly equivalent on every developmental milestone in 1949.

Development of Agriculture Around the World

Objectivity writes:

Actually agriculture was independently discovered in 6 regions of the world:

1)The Fertile Crescent 11,000 YBP (non-white Caucasoids who prior to the malnutrition of agriculture, had a mean IQ around 90). From the Fertile crescent it spread in 3 main directions: (a) to Egypt (8,000 YBP) and Ethiopia and then the rest of Africa, (b) into Antonia/Europe, and (c) into Iran and India.

2) Yangtze River Basin in Central China about 9,000 YBP (Mongoloid: IQ 105) From there it spread to Southeast Asia, India, the Philippines and Indonesia.

3) Mesoamerica (primitive form of Mongoloid)

4) South America (primitive form of Mongoloid)

5) Eastern United States (primitive form of Mongoloid)

6) New Guinea highlands (hybridized Mongoloids (southeast Asians who had settled the coastal regions))

So as you can see, almost every region of the world where agriculture was independently discovered was populated by some type of Mongoloid. The only reason Mongoloids were not the first to independently discover it, was they didn’t exist until about 10,000 years ago.

Objectivity, an HBD’er who is deeply invested in the superior race-inferior race theory of profoundly flawed HBD theory, posits the above. The reason he has to have Mongoloids developing agriculture is because he thinks that they are the superior race. However, no has any idea what anyone’s IQ was 9,000 YBP. It’s simply insane to posit the IQ of any race going back more than 1-2,000 years. Really all we know is the IQ’s of various races now. We don’t know when those races developed their various IQ’s.

Let us look at this part by part here:

1)The Fertile Crescent 11,000 YBP (non-white Caucasoids who prior to the malnutrition of agriculture, had a mean IQ around 90). From the Fertile crescent it spread in 3 main directions: (a) to Egypt (8,000 YBP) and Ethiopia and then the rest of Africa, (b) into Antonia/Europe, and (c) into Iran and India.

No one knows what Iraqis’ IQ’s were 9,000 YBP and it’s ridiculous to speculate. Currently, their IQ’s are 87, which is not particularly high. Further, see this post for how agriculture was developed in Africa right around the time or possibly prior to being developed on any other continent 8-12,000 YBP. If agriculture was first developed in the Guinea highlands and then spread to southern Mali, southern Burkina Faso and southern Niger 12,000 YBP, then Africans may have been the first agriculturalists on Earth.

2) Yangtze River Basin in Central China about 9,000 YBP (Mongoloid: IQ 105) From there it spread to Southeast Asia, India, the Philippines and Indonesia.

These probably were the first Mongoloids, but no one has any idea what their IQ’s were.

3) Mesoamerica (primitive form of Mongoloid)

4) South America (primitive form of Mongoloid)

5) Eastern United States (primitive form of Mongoloid)

This group has a present day IQ of 87, not particularly high. And 9,000 YBP, Mesoamerican Amerindians were more Australoid than Mongoloid.

6) New Guinea highlands (hybridized Mongoloids (southeast Asians who had settled the coastal regions))

Actually, agriculture was innovated by Papuan Australoids 9,000 YBP, and the Taiwanese Lapita people did not show up until 3-4,000 YBP, and they only settled the coast anyway, not the highlands. Papuans presently have an IQ of ~64.

Groups that innovated agriculture:

Group           Present IQ
Africans        75
Egyptians       84
Chinese         105
Mesoamericans   87
South Americans 87
North Americans 87
Papuans         64

As you can see, it doesn’t take a particularly high IQ to innovate agriculture. HBD theory is so weak in so many ways, based on present day IQ’s. No one knows what any group’s IQ was in the past.

Bigfoot News December 8, 2012

Rick Dyer’s Tent Bigfoot Video was witnessed by a British documentary film crew. Morgan Matthews, a director with Minnow Films in the UK, has been following several US Bigfoot researchers around for several years now for a documentary called Of Monsters and Men.

Dyer himself shot the 1.2 second Tent Video with his cellphone. The film crew witnessed the shooting of the video in the next tent over. The two BBC camera were rolling away both before and after Dyer’s cellphone clip.

Rick Dyer is one of the researchers that they have been following around. In early September, they were on a 10-day expedition with Dyer’s crew near San Antonio, Texas. During this time, on September 6, 2012, the film crew filmed 3 minutes of a male Bigfoot eating meat from a bait station in a tree. The Bigfoot is then filmed reacting to the film crew emerging from their tent. Two shoulder-mounted cameras were running the whole time.  These are excellent state of the art film production cameras, which is why the film quality is so good.

The quality is quite a bit better than the camcorder that Sissy, the female owner of the Crittenden, Kentucky property was using when she filmed Matilda at the habituation site in 2005. This footage became part of the Adrian Erickson Project’s documentary which is probably now owned by Dr. Melba Ketchum.

The documentary is slated to be shown at the Tribeca Film Festival in April 2013, but some members of the Bigfoot community are urging Minnow to issue a pre-release of this footage or at least a teaser of it.

There is a possibility that Dyer’s team hoaxed the film production crew with a man in a costume, but that seems highly dubious to me. I always thought that this footage was genuine.

Initial leak from Dr. Brian Sykes parallel Bigfoot study looks good for believers and bad for scofftics. I have a tantalizing leak from the Sykes study out of Britain. Reports state that his initial findings agree with the results of Ketchum’s Bigfoot DNA study, but differ in terms of interpretation of those results. Unfortunately, I do not have the foggiest idea of what that means! It looks like he may be agreeing that there is an existing relict hominid called Bigfoot roaming about, but he may differ with Ketchum on what the exact nature of this relict hominid is. The source of the information is someone who is very close to the Ketchum study.

Sykes is still taking samples for his study. It is said that he stopped taking samples for his study a while back, but that’s not true. There are samples that are on their way to him right now. And indeed, a piece of the Bigfoot steak from the Sierra Kills will be part of the Sykes study.

Ketchum DNA study may still be in peer review at a US journal. There is much controversy over the recent revelation by Dr. Igor Burtsev of Russia who stated that Ketchum’s study had failed peer review at US journals, and hence he was going to publish it at a journal in Russia. That may or may not be true. This was followed by a flurry of pessimistic and Ketchum-bashing posts on how she had failed, etc.

My information from sources close to the Ketchum camp is that the paper is indeed still in review at a major US journal. In fact, I have received some comments from one of the peer reviewers themselves! The peer reviewers are simply holding to a very strict standard of science; they do not believe some of the allegations in the paper, and sensibly so. That’s all the hangup is all about. Just good, hard science.

One of the hangups was that the journal refuses to believe that real DNA evidence of an existing creature could exist without any good photos or videos of this creature. To them, that makes no sense whatsoever, so the paper has been held up for about the last six months while Melba’s team runs hither and thither trying to come up with any and all decent video and photo footage that they can find. There is another hangup that I will detail below.

Burtsev revelation was due to a leak on Ketchum’s team. A member of Ketchum’s study leaked some of the results to Burtsev in Russia, and then Burtsev went forward with his leak. The Ketchum team thought it was not Burtsev’s fault and instead it was the fault of the team member who leaked to Burtsev. The team member was subsequently dismissed. Ketchum then felt that she needed to clarify Burtsev’s leak with a public statement. It’s true that she is violating journal rules by doing this, and I don’t have any explanation for her behavior. Maybe the journal has given her the go-ahead to make some pre-releases about her paper.

I also feel that Ketchum is trying to force the journal’s hand by forcing them to finish up the peer review, pass the paper and publish it soon. If the journal doesn’t publish it in a month or so, the Ketchum team is threatening to go to Russia with the paper and publish it there, where it is sure to pass review.

Comments from a female peer reviewer on Ketchum’s paper. One of my commenters is friends with a man who knows a woman who is on the peer review team that is looking at Ketchum’s paper. According to the man, the woman was holding up the paper because she refused to believe that if Bigfoots were created in Ice Age SW Europe 15,000, then they could have somehow ended up in North America possibly soon afterwards.

The birth of Bigfoot would have to be somewhere in Asia, possibly Siberia or the Far East, for the Bigfoots to follow the Amerindians into the Americas. This is all based on the assumption that Bigfoots followed the Amerindians across the Bering Strait into the Americas. The Bigfoots would have had to have been in Siberia to do that. So how do the Bigfoots get from SW Europe to Siberia? To the reviewer, this made no sense, and Ketchum had no explanation for it either.

However, a recent study confirming what I had always suspected – that Europeans from 15-20,000 YBP are genetically close to Amerindians – apparently strengthens Ketchum’s case. Apparently the ancient Europeans and paleo Amerindians share a common ancestor in ancient Europe and ancient Siberia.

As you can see, there is apparently nothing wrong with the paper’s science itself; instead, it is questions like this that is holding up the paper.

The female reviewer also stated that people do tend to see patterns where none exist, and it was the concern of this reviewer that this is what Ketchum was doing with her paper.

The reviewer also stated dramatically in reference to Ketchum’s paper and proving the existence of Bigfoot, “This won’t be the end of the debate. It will only be the beginning.”

Ketchum’s sequencing of three whole Bigfoot nuclear DNA genomes prompted a major rewrite of her paper. That’s correct. Sequencing those genomes changed the whole ballgame and necessitated a humongous rewrite of the whole paper.

Sally Ramey, Ketchum’s former spokesperson, reportedly paid a visit to a dying Bigfoot friend to say goodbye to him. If you have read the incredible book, 50 Years with Bigfoot, by Janice Carter Coy and Mary Green, you know the unbelievable story that is told in that book. I won’t reiterate it, but the author discusses how she has been habituating with Bigfoots for most of her life. A male Bigfoot named “Fox” plays a large role in the story.

Janice’s grandfather rescued Fox when he was a baby. A tree fell on him and pinned him under it. The grandfather rescued the baby Bigfoot and nursed it back to health in his shed. The grandfather and the Bigfoot formed a lifetime bond. The grandfather is said to have taught the Fox some words of English and in return, Fox taught the grandfather some words of the Bigfoot language, whatever the heck that is. The family then fed Fox and the various members of his Bigfoot family for many years. At one point, when Janice was a 15 year old girl, Fox charged her when she was riding her horse. He knocked her off her horse, and she broke her leg.

There is much more to the Fox story, but I will let you read the book to figure that out.

At some point a while back, Fox was getting very old and nearing the end of his life. Apparently he sent for Janice and some of her friends to come visit him at the place where he was dying in the forest. Janice Coy, Sally Ramey and possibly other persons went out to the place in the woods where Fox was dying. They visited him there and paid their last respects to him. Fox apparently died about one week later.

Well, that’s a pretty incredible story, no? And this is Ketchum’s main spokesperson we are talking about now.

Erickson Project homepage updated. Since the release of Ketchum’s press release, the EP page has been updated. Erickson appears to be trying to get some recognition for being one of the first people to discover Bigfoot. This is also Ketchum’s goal, and David Paulides seems to be working the same angle. I think Adrian will deserve a lot of credit when the species is recognized, which should be soon.

Erickson notes that his early MtDNA studies of suspected Bigfoot samples kept coming back “East European.” The labs kept insisting that the samples were all human or contaminated by humans, but Adrian and Dennis Pfohl did not believe those findings. They also thought it was very suspicious that the samples were all coming back “East European.” Didn’t make a lot of sense.

It was then that Adrian contacted Melba Ketchum to do further DNA testing on his samples. Why was Ketchum chosen? Because she was the only one who would work with Erickson’s samples! Erickson asked quite a few other scientists to work on it, but they all refused because they thought Bigfoot was ridiculous. So they went with Ketchum. She was not their first choice!

Ketchum says she has HD video of Bigfoots that she will release with her paper. I have been saying for some time now that I think that Erickson sold out his documentary footage to Melba Ketchum. Ketchum is probably referring to Erickson’s footage when she talks about HD video. I believe that Wally Hersom gave her the money to buy out Erickson about one year ago. The footage then went to Hollywood for post-production work. Hence, Erickson’s video and Ketchum’s paper are no longer connected by NDA as they were before.

Erickson Project’s Matilda footage was shot from 40 feet away. The much publicized “Matilda” footage of an adolescent female Bigfoot shot on video by a woman named Sissy at Crittenden, Kentucky in 2005 was shot from only 40 feet away. Depending on who you talk to, it’s either the greatest thing since sliced bread, or it’s not even very impressive. 40 feet is about 10-15 yards away. The footage includes footage of the Bigfoot’s face from that distance. At some point in the video, the Bigfoot is alerted to the videographer’s presence and Matilda takes off running down the hill. Sissy and her husband were bow hunters, and Sissy was decked out in full camo gear when she shot the footage.

Bigfoot is apparently Homo heidelbergensis. David Claerr, one of the finest Bigfoot researchers in the field today, has informed me that he thinks that the Bigfoots are Homo heidelbergensis. Claerr has somehow managed to look at bones, skeletons and skulls of purported Bigfoots in both museums and private collections (How in the heck did he ever get a chance to view those things!?). He then compared what he saw with the existing fossil record. What he saw lines up best with Homo heidelbergensis, a rather primitive and ape-like ancestor of us, Homo sapiens sapiens.

Heidelbergensis appears to be a link between late Homo erectus and early Homo sapiens. Early Sapiens types would include Denisovans and Neandertals. Neandertal goes back about 500,000 YBP and Denisovans may go back as far as 700,000 YBP or more. Ketchum has stated that Bigfoot DNA on the NuDNA side goes back quite a bit further than either Denisovans or Neandertals. This would line up well with the notion that Bigfoot NuDNA is from either Erectus or some sort of a derived Erectus such as Heidelbergensis. Jeff Meldrum says that a skull of a purported Heidelbergensis specimen in China was dated to only 12,000 YBP.

Argument that there were no other Homos living with Homo sapiens sapiens (us or H.s.s.) 30,000 YBP, and therefore the premise of Ketchum’s study is nonsense. This is one of the arguments that the scofftics are using to dismiss the findings of the study.

However, Neandertal is known to have survived up until 10-15,000 YBP in Russia’s very far north. In addition, Homo floresiensis (which is indeed a valid species) survived until 12,000 YBP and possibly until the late 1800′s if local stories about Ebu Gogo are to be believed. In addition, Meldrum states that a Homo heidelbergensis skull is known from China 12,000 YBP. In addition, Solo Man (very late Erectus?) is known from Indonesia 27,000 YBP. A bit further out, Denisovans are known from Siberia 39,000 YBP. In addition, the recent Red Deer Cave People from China, thought to be a new species of Homo, are known from 11-14,000 YBP.

Red Deer Cave People may be Bigfoots. Looking at the drawings of the recent Red Deer Cave People discovered in China with a date of 11-14,000 YBP, I was struck at how much the skulls looked like the facial profile in Larry Surface’s Ohio Bigfoot video (proven by DNA via Ketchum). One of my commenters now feels that Red Deer Cave Man is Homo heidelbergensis. What she bases that on, I do not know. There is now a lot of argument about whether or not the Red Deer Cave People are a new species or an odd type of H.s.s. Assuming that the Red Deer Cave People are Heidelbergensis, they may indeed be good candidates for the Bigfoots.

Heidelbergensis DNA may be present in modern day Africans. There were headlines recently when geneticists reported that all modern members of the African race harbor a significant amount of ancient, non H.s.s. DNA in their genome. It’s not known what DNA this is, but it is said to be more ancient than either Denisovan or Neandertal. This means that African H.s.s. bred in with some relict hominid types in Africa at some point. I have noticed that recent references in paleontology on the web are referring to this African relict hominid DNA as “Heidelbergensis.” How or why they think that is what it is, I have no idea.

Questions of Meritocracy under Capitalism and Socialism

Galton, an HBD type, writes:

First, there is nothing wrong with inequality, join in the same country a population heterogeneously cognitive and you will never be able to achieve equality and social justice, really.

You do not really know what you’re saying, Chile seems a great country, much better than mine, Brazil. Venezuela and Brazil believe in education, but it does not work miracles. If you have a population stupid not believe that with education they will become intelligent or politicized. Education can polish a rough diamond, but never an ordinary stone.

Socialism, Trotskyite style, is the death of meritocracy and all its qualities.

This is a socialist blog. We don’t believe in extremes of inequality such as you see in Chile, Brazil and the US. It’s just wrong! And inequality is actually a catastrophe. It’s bad for society in countless ways. It’s even bad for the individual on the medical health level.

The truth is that there are no Trotskyite projects happening in any nation anywhere on Earth. There aren’t even many Soviet-style Marxist programs. That project had so many problems that the truth is that no one wants to copy that model anymore. And that’s what my Leftist, Marxist-sympathetic friends tell me.

Even Cuba,which has copied the Soviet model, has a model that no one wants to copy anymore. Cuba itself is probably going to copy the Vietnamese doi moi market socialism model. The Cuban project as it stands has not been able to overcome the problems of the Soviet model “We pretend to work; they pretend to pay us.” Overcrowded housing with a huge backlog. Shortages in state stores. Lousy state products. Low productivity on state farms. Mass theft from state institutions.

North Korea has removed all statues of Marx and Lenin. Market socialism is alive and well in Vietnam and Laos.

So the specter of Marxism is basically an idiotic boogeyman raised by the Right.

The modern socialist projects look a lot like what is happening with the Leftist governments in Latin America who are instituting a variety of Leftist and socialist type projects. These are occurring in Cuba,Venezuela, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. There is talk of one in Peru, but it may not materialize. Leftist projects were overthrown by US-backed coups in Paraguay and Honduras.

I never liked the socialist model whereby a doctor doesn’t make much more than a ditch-digger. Why go to school for all those years to be a doctor then. Under a proper socialist society, I think there should be a graded pay scale, say 1-8

Let us say that Scale 1 is the minimum wage in the US of 14,250 year.

Grade 1 (lowest level workers): $14,250/year.

Grade 3 (Bachelors Degree) $42,750/year.

Grade 4 (highly skilled blue collar workers such as mechanics, tool and die, welders, plumbers, electricians) $ $57,000/year.

Grade 6 (Master’s Degree or Secondary Degree like Teaching Credential) – $85,500/year.

Grade 10 (highest level workers at the doctorate level – physicians, professors, vets, pharmacists, professors, physical therapists, dentists) – $142,000/year.

There is your meritocracy right there. Education = IQ. I don’t see why society should pay you a whole lot more than that Grade 10 though. Why should we?

Now, if we allow a market to exist, maybe you could go try your hand in the market and see what you can make. Despite the nonsense of free market idiots, successful businessmen are not necessarily the best and brightest at all, and many only have average IQ’s.

There’s nothing meritocratic about capitalism in the market sense as far as entrepreneurs go. Sure, a few inventors get rich, and now there is a “brains capitalism” whereby smart, nerdy types set up companies, often in IT and the like, using the cognitive talents to make money as entrepreneurs.

But businessmen in general all down through history have simply had good people smarts, a lot of ruthlessness, extroversion and mostly a lot of luck. Capitalism is hardly a meritocracy!

Anyway, states like China, the USSR and Cuba did have relatively equalized wages without great differentials for persons of radically different intelligences, so it’s certainly possible to set up a society on that basis.

join in the same country a population heterogeneously cognitive and you will never be able to achieve equality and social justice, really.

So the comment above is just not correct.