Monthly Archives: July 2012

Lots of Photos of Me


This was originally posted two years ago, but due to popular request, I am relinking it.

Enjoy. Or print out and use as dart board, bird cage liner or whatever. However you are inclined.


Filed under Vanity

Double Standards for Men and Women?

Beatrix asks:

I am curious, you’ve openly bragged on this blog about having had sex with over a hundred women, yet when women choose a similar lifestyle you refer to them as ‘cavewomen’? What’s up with that?

I haven’t openly bragged about that. I’ve been rather discreet about it. I only bring it up when idiots suggest that I am a virgin.

There are always a few men who don’t marry or are players and whatnot. There have always been those types. But society won’t work if most guys act like I do or did. Most men need to become betas, settle down, marry and lead somewhat stable lives not like my own.

I don’t particularly care how women choose to live their lives, and anyway, I am not complaining; after all, I have had it pretty good under this system.

I could care less about whores and sluts. After all, I have had some of my most fun with them. That said, men seem to screw around a lot better than women do. Promiscuity in women so many times seems to damage the woman at some base core. It seems to almost damage their souls. I don’t know why that is, but maybe women were just not meant to live that way.

I am just sitting back and looking at what’s going on in society. The MRA and PUA sites are noting that there is a situation where female hypergamy exists to an extreme degree (guys like me benefited from this in the old days, but it was not as extreme), a few “Alphas” are monopolizing most of the best women, there mass shaming and shunning of beta males, and omegas are simply left out of the equation altogether.

There are millions of guys complaining that they are not getting any. Some are picking up guns and shooting people. After women have their fun with bad boys all through their 20’s, they try to settle down with a beta whom they secretly despise. The marriage or relationship is often not very happy.

Women don’t seem to be particularly happy. There is a tidal wave of very amoral female behavior vis a vis men that I have described. Tens of millions of women are “acting crazy,” acting out in ways my Mom’s generation would describe as “being a crazy woman.” There seems to be an epidemic of borderline personality disorder.

Women assault men, often physically, threaten them, threaten to kill them. Attacks on men’s masculinity seem to be so routine they are taken for granted. The “creeper” epidemic seems to be driven by the notion that female society feels that there are millions of men who simply should not have sex or even attempt to have sex at all. Men are attacked in public for so much as looking at women, not to mention asking them out.

Women are frankly completely out of control, and I don’t see what good has come of all this shit.

It strikes me that there is something wrong with this picture. I am just sitting back and commenting on the state of affairs. I am echoing Roissy and others that I don’t think this state of affairs is sustainable in the long run.



Filed under Gender Studies, Man World, Masculinism, Social Problems, Sociology, Women

Anatoly Karlin on Female Hypergamy, Game, Betas and Alphas, Etc.

Anatoly Karlin writes:

Betas are the builders of civilization. You just can’t do without them. If their interests aren’t catered for society devolves into a tribalistic jungle.

Due to various factors, betas are now taken for granted by women. Omegas need not apply. This is what happens when traditional mores, i.e. the masculine rules that underpin civilization, collapse, and female hypergamy is unleashed, leading to soft polygamy.

Becoming a player, or PUA, is a natural adaptation of the rational beta to his environment. To remain in the sexual market he is going to mimic alpha traits, which is really what “game” is all about. The reason self-proclaimed alpha women (not that they actually exist LOL) like Beatrix consider players to be “creeps” is because game is a form of reproductive cheating.

This is completely natural and to be expected. Of course one should not blame or resent women for following their misplaced instincts. It’s not something they have any control over and doing so would just be omega. The alpha response would be to just learn game and go a-banging.

Arguably, the very survival of civilization depends on more betas doing that, to avoid the dystopian outcomes that a surfeit of alphas and “independent women” inevitably leads to.

Everything he says here is correct.

AK: This is what happens when traditional mores, i.e. the masculine rules that underpin civilization, collapse, and female hypergamy is unleashed, leading to soft polygamy.

This is precisely what has occurred. We can argue about why this has happened and who is to blame. Many blame feminism, but this is uncertain. At any rate, what we see now is not occurring in traditional patriarchal societies. When traditional patriarchal society breaks down, you end up with this jungle like scenario that Karlin refers to.

I refer to modern women as “cavewomen” and I say that feminism created a nation full of cavewomen. This was not what I signed up for when I enlisted in the Women’s Liberation movement. There’s nothing liberating about a nation full of cavewomen living in a concrete jungle. It’s a Darwinian, Hobbesian Hell any way you cut it.

AK: Becoming a player, or PUA, is a natural adaptation of the rational beta to his environment. To remain in the sexual market he is going to mimic alpha traits, which is really what “game” is all about.

Exactly. Game is simply a male adaptation to a nation of cavewomen living in a concrete and glass jungle. What else is a guy to do? Life gives you lemons, you make lemonade.

AK: This is completely natural and to be expected. Of course one should not blame or resent women for following their misplaced instincts.

Precisely. We have simply unleashed women to follow their genetic and evolutionary instincts, which is to act like a cavewoman. On the other hand, I’m not sure that blindly following their cavewoman nature is best for either women or society.

AK: Arguably, the very survival of civilization depends on more betas doing that, to avoid the dystopian outcomes that a surfeit of alphas and “independent women” inevitably leads to.

The Alphas and independent women scenario is precisely what the folks in the Manosphere are either discussing or complaining about. And it really is a dystopia for anyone who cares about living in an advanced modern civilization.

Betas are the civilization builders, as Karlin argues. And society shuns them at its peril.

Another commenter pointed to the Black Ghetto as an example of what happens when all of the civilizational controls go off of a sector of society. Whether or not this is a good example is uncertain, but possibly it is.


Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Social Problems, Sociology, Women

South Indians Are Basically Caucasians

A commenter writes:

It seems you are trying to force a connection between “South Indians” and Caucasians because many people especially from Kerala have very European features.

Kerala has witnessed a lot of migration from Syria and other places, because of the ancient civilization of peaceful people there who welcomed migrants that were probably ostracized from their previous communities because they adopted certain beliefs and practices that were exported by Dravidian spiritualists.

Whatever the reason for their migration, it is known that the western part of South India has seen a lot of migration of Caucasians since antiquity. But purebred Dravidians have no Caucasian connection except that they are a most ancient race closely linked with Negrito/Aboriginal peoples, therefore many of the races that were birthed later naturally carry that connection.

The branch gives birth to the fruit but the fruit doesn’t have much of the branch in it, if you know what I mean.

Tamils, who are often considered to be synonymous with the term “South Indians” have little or no Caucasian in them (in terms of later mixing through Caucasian/Aryan migration), likewise most Keralites have little or no Caucasian in them, except for those families who at some point mixed with Caucasian merchants or explorers that journeyed to South India for its spices and various other specialties.

The pictures you see of South Indian women with European-looking features are usually of models or actresses – those who are in professions where fair skin and European features are preferred whether due to bias or its more global appeal. But if you actually visit South India you will see how little resemblance there is to Caucasians and how much greater is their similarity to Negrito/Aboriginal people.

Yet, you resist the strongly evidenced connection between South Indians and Negroid peoples, while trying to force a connection between South Indians (Dravidians) and Caucasians. I smell a fish. 🙂

There is overwhelming evidence that out of Africa came the father of all the races, and so you can’t get too far by excluding any race from the African link. Anyway, I believe there is only one race…the human race. At least that we can be certain is not based on speculation but truth. Peace!

The truth is that even South Indians are part of the Caucasian race. This is clear on any genetic chart. Cavalli-Sforza’s charts make it clear that South Indians are Caucasians.

Other charts show Indians are partway between Asians and Caucasians, but closer to Caucasians. This is probably about right.

No genetic chart shows the South Indians as closer to Australoids. The only Australoids on genetic charts are Melanesians, Papuans and Aborigines, and South Indians are nowhere near any of those. Negritos do not appear on genetic charts in general as they tend to group with whomever they live with. Filipino Negritos group with Filipinos; Thai Negritos group with Thais, etc.

It is true that on skulls, Tamils do group with Australoids, but on genes, they are just typical South Indians, more or less Caucasoids. But most South Indians have Caucasoid skulls.

This commenter, an Afrocentrist, makes the typical mistake of conflating Caucasian with White or European. But there are many non-White or non-European Caucasoids out there.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.


Filed under Anthropology, Asians, East Indians, Negritos, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, SE Asians, South Asians

Female Rule: An Example

A male feminist commenter, who has now been banned, writes:

Wait a minute…there are actual people who don’t realize that asking co-workers for sex at work is incredibly inappropriate and grounds for sexual harassment?

This site his HILARIOUS!!!

What happened was that a man asked out a woman at work. He did so privately, but the woman was such an insane cunt that she told all of the women in the office. The women all pretty much hated the guy, but the guys couldn’t really care less about him. The women considered him undesirable – a creep. There was a huge uproar because this guy asked a chick out. Big deal!

The supervisor suggested that it was sexual harassment for any employee to ask out any other employee. There had already been several high profile relationships among the workforce.

First of all, sexual harassment has to do with higher ups demanding sex from those under their employ as a condition of further work. You either sleep with me or a fire you. It was recently expanded to the point where a man is persistently bothering a woman and won’t knock it off. Well, that is maybe sexual harassment, but I doubt it. The woman has to make it clear to the guy that he needs to knock it off. then if he continues, there’s a problem. What sort of a problem, I am not sure. Perhaps he will be fired.

For all intents and purposes, sexual harassment does not exist among co-workers at the same work level.

It is certainly not sexual harassment for a male coworker to ask out a female coworker. It never has been. It’s not even sexual harassment to flirt with coworker.

People are spending more and more time at work, and many coworkers start dating each other. It happens all the time. No one is going to stop it or do anything about it.

This is a clear example of Female Rule. The commenter, who supports Female Rule, feels that all relationships among coworkers should be banned. It should be sexual harassment for any man to ask out any female coworker. If women ran the world according to female rules, this is exactly the sort of law or rule that would be put into place.


Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Man World, Mass Hysterias

Woman As Guerrilla Fighter: Why Men Make Rules and Women Break Them

Steve writes:

You are accusing woman in general of being immoral or amoral in certain ways. You are portraying them as vindictive and opportunistic, using rules to get their own way. You are questioning the moral integrity of woman in general.

This is exactly what I am doing. By the way, Alpha agrees with me on this. And you know who told me, “Man make rules. Women break them.”? My own mother! She knows her own gender very, very well. Now, neither my mother nor Alpha are inclined to use rules as tools like that, but they understand that the basically conniving nature of women means that many will.

There is a good reason why women do this. Men are strong. We are stronger. Rules favor the strong and disfavor the weak. The weaker people will use rules as tools to be used to their advantage however. The stronger will demand that everyone play by the rules.

An example is the rules of war. Strong states like the US and the Zionist entity demand that their opponents play by the rules of war. However, those fighting the US, Israel and any other huge state would get completely creamed if they played by the rules of war.

So guerrillas and any weaker force fighting any stronger force will always bend the rules and break the rules and use guerrilla warfare, deception, sneak attacks, suicide bombings, spies, no uniforms, hiding behind civilians, waving surrender and then dropping their flags and shooting and other pussy bullshit when fighting the stronger force. It’s the only way they have a chance.

Women don’t really stand a chance going one on one against men. That’s why they use subterfuge, spying, conniving, rule-breaking, deception and other “guerrilla war” tactics when fighting men and others in general .

Guerrilla war and deceptive, non-rules based war are essentially feminine warfare tactics. The US and Israel demanding that everyone fight fair and square is a masculine mode of warfare. The way women see it, demanding that they fight fair and square is bullshit. Men are stronger, so men will always win.


Filed under Gender Studies, Man World, War, Women

Someone is *Going* to Rule – Either Men or Women, Take Your Pick

Beatrix writes:

I’m still wondering why it has to be either ‘men rule’ or ‘women rule’? Seems the best of both would be a better idea.

Steve doesn’t seem to understand. It’s not a matter of what is better or worse, or what moral or not. One sex or the other is going to rule the other. Either men rule women, or, if they don’t, women will rule men. There is no and will never be equality in the sexual realm. One must dominate, and the other must be submissive.

I reached that conclusion painfully. I long felt, as a feminist and one who came of age in the various Liberation movements, that the world would be better if ruled by women than by men. I now realize that that is wrong.

Male rule is natural and normal and produces functional societies. It is unfortunate that women are often treated poorly in these societies, but at least they work on some level.

And my observation is that in patriarchal societies, both males and females are very happy in their respective roles. This is because men want to be masculine and women want to be feminine.

This is the natural order, and people are happiest when obeying the dictates of nature as their bodies and minds are cognitively, culturally and evolutionarily evolved to be happiest in the natural order. Violations of the natural order will feel unnatural to most humans on some level and will result in mass unhappiness.

Further, violations of nature cause chaos. Commenter Justin said that male rule is natural and female rule only causes chaos. This is my position. Female rule, whatever it’s moral or theoretical benefits, simply doesn’t work. The end result is some sort of chaos.

It is this chaos that people are talking about so much in the Manosphere and on the MRA and PUA blogs. The PUA are attempting to make lemonade out of the sour lemons of this chaos. The others are bitching and complaining, probably to no avail in the long run.

What do I mean by Female Rule and Male Rule? I mean the views, ways of thinking, world view and sexual philosophy of each group will come to dominate society. In Female Rule, those views and philosophies are the female way of thinking. In Male Rule, those thinking modes and opinions are the male way of thinking.

A commenter named Richard Smothers wrote a long piece about a crazy woman, a girlfriend he was living with. She threw him out of the home without giving him 30 days or even 30 seconds to get his stuff. When he tried to get back in to retrieve his stuff, she said he had hit her. He had not, and he had never hit her the whole time he had been with her. Then she got a restraining order against him.

The cops told him that if he went back in the house, they would have to arrest him as she said he had hit her. Those were the rules. The cops also that they were dealing with a tidal wave of women abusing the new rules about domestic violence with false claims of men hitting them.

The case went to court and the judge forced them into arbitration. Once again, the court was dealing with extreme abuse by women of restraining orders against men who had never harmed them in any way.

We are also seeing a tidal wave or false reports of child molestation filed by women against ex-husbands and ex-lovers. The women say that the men abused their children. In a huge percentage of the cases, the charges are simply false.

The problem here is that I have heard stories like Richard’s so many times that I can’t even count all of them.

Women bait men into hitting them. Women invite two men they are involved with over at the same time to try to bait them into a physical altercation, in which case she will call the police. Women wrestle with their sons of the floor, all for the purpose of getting little bruises all over them, then when the man comes over, try to bait him into hitting her (and using the bruises as evidence of the attack) or claim he was the one who caused the bruises.

All of this is an example of female thinking ruling society.

As I said before, men make rules and women break them. To women rules are tools to be bent in wichever way they want to bend them towards whatever ends she needs to use them for, morality be damned. Men think that rules are hard and fast and not to be violated. To women, rules are potential tools and even weapons in their arsenals, to be possibly used if the day arises.

In a recent case, a man had falsely paid child support for years for a child that was not his. He finally went to court and got a lab to prove it was not his. The court argued that the man had to keep paying child support for the child until the child was 18 because this was “in the best interest of the child.” The real father had to pay nothing. This is an example of female thinking ruling society.

We are also dealing with epidemics of false sexual harassment charges, mostly against men who women feel are undesirable or “creepy.” Creepy just means that the guy is omega or maybe even beta in some way. If an undesirable guy shows interest in a woman, that’s “creepy.” I know guys who have been accused of this for merely checking out young women. If you’re a “creepy” omega or even beta, you don’t even have a right to look at women anymore.

I know another guy who got accused of sexual harassment for asking out a woman at work. That’s all he did. He asked her out. She didn’t really respond, and he dropped the matter.

This is also female thinking. The notion that undesirable guys have no right to have sex or even attempt to have sex or even look at a woman is a female notion. That millions of males, otherwise harmless, are “creeps” simply because females don’t like them is female thinking.

There is more to write on this subject but I will save it for another post.


Filed under Gender Studies, Law, Masculinism, Social Problems, Sociology, Women

On “Momma’s Boys”

Steve writes:

I think the mama’s boy thing is a bit of a non-issue to men. Most men are perfectly comfortable with loving their mum.

The only girls to ever tease me in that way were Mauritian Hindu girls. It did annoy me. Not because I was ashamed of being close to my mum but because they were dissing my masculinity. At the same time I felt that the implication wasn’t true that being close to your mum detracts from your masculinity. I thought ‘yeah I love my mum, so what?’

Men know deep down that their mum is the one who really loves them unconditionally and it matters to them. Often men’s mums have helped them through a lot too. I remember a tough guy ex drug dealer, who was described to me as an animal when it came to fighting, told me that his dad was a bastard who mistreated him but him mum was his ‘angel’.

You get black thugs and gangsters who are fiercely devoted to their mothers who brought them up alone. Also, Lennox Lewis, the ex heavyweight champion of the world (baddest man on the planet), was always seen with his mum and known to be close to her.

Drop the mama’s boy thing girls. We don’t care. Jealous or something?

I guess its supposed to imply a a little boy who goes crying to his mum or something but we are men and we love our mum. Get over it. It doesn’t mean shit about shit. 😀

The whole “Momma’s boy” thing is a huge issue to girls and women, but it’s basically a non-issue to men and boys. Men and boys don’t really care whether some guy is a “Momma’s boy” or not. It’s not important. What’s more important is the question, “Is he masculine or not?”

Let’s give the example of prison inmates. These are some of the hardest, toughest, baddest guys in the whole country. No argument there. They are off the charts in terms of masculinity. The vast majority of them have “Mom” tattooed somewhere on their bodies. They all love their Mommas. The vast majority of them also hate their fathers. Clearly loving your mother and hating your father doesn’t turn you gay!

However, the extent that hating your father is a problem, many criminals and antisocial types do indeed hate their fathers. Gay men don’t have a great relationship with them either because the son’s effeminate behavior probably bothered the father. Many to most of my friends hated their fathers. Not one of them was gay. A recent survey should that 37% of all men dislike their fathers.

A much more serious problem than men loving their mothers is men hating their mothers. I do not like to be pessimistic, but a man who hates is mother is not in a good place psychologically. I believe it is possible to hate your mother and still end up in good shape psychologically. However, many men who hate their mothers also end up hating or disliking women in general. A very large percentage or rapists and serial killers who target women hate their mothers.

It’s possible for a man to be overly attached to his mother, this is true. Many masculine men who love their mothers don’t necessarily listen to everything they say or obey them. Surely the prisoners above don’t listen to their mothers all that much. Obviously their mothers don’t approve of their behavior, but the men don’t care much whether she approves or not.

Many mothers try to inhibit their sons’ masculinity in various ways. In particular, they dislike it when their sons (especially their young sons) begin having sex. It’s important for boys and men to not listen to their mothers when their mothers try in various ways to stop them from having sex. Most players and womanizers have mothers who disapprove of their behavior. The players love their mothers, but they don’t listen to them when it comes to sex.

The truth is that the vast majority of mothers are going to love you anyway no matter what your sex life is like or how many or how few women you sleep with.

My own mother pretty much told us not to be Momma’s boys. She gave the example of Karl Menninger, who she spitefully called a Momma’s boy. This man, one of the top psychiatrists in the country, called up his mother to ask her whether he and his wife should have a baby. My Mom made it clear that no grown man should be asking his mother’s permission to such a thing.

So really the best mothers should love you unconditionally as the best mothers do but at the same time should discourage men from being a Momma’s boy. Momma’s boys do not reflect well on either the son or the mother.

Yes, I have been called this, especially by women. Why, I don’t know. For a while there, quite a few people thought I was gay. Even women did. Even women I was dating did. Even women who I was having tons of sex with all the time did. Go figure.

I remember this one bitch, I was at her place. I mentioned my mother and she spitefully laughed, “Your mother!” Some asshole guys joined in the cackling. I was actually sleeping with this bitch at the time. I am not sure what she was trying to say, either that I was unmasculine or that I was gay, I don’t know.

Another time I was 20 and had a 16 year old girlfriend. We were having sex all the time, and my Mom didn’t dig it. She said she was too young, and it was illegal. Well, she was right. Nowadays guys doing this get arrested of child molestation charges, get called pedophiles, get sentenced to 10 years in prison and have to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives. But back then things were saner. I told my teenage girlfriend my mother didn’t approve, and she went ballistic on me.

Females in general are hung up on the Momma’s boy bullshit for psychological reasons. The females you are involved with feel they are competing with the mother for the attention of the man.

In most of the world, this is no big deal as it is considered normal for the son to be very close to the mother (see Mediterranean Europe, Latin America, the Arab World, South Asia, Southeast Asia and Northeast Asia for example).

However, in the West, wives and girlfriends see the mother as a competitor for affection. If they think he listens to her too much or likes her more than he likes them, they get pretty nutty. At that point, the man becomes a “Momma’s boy” which is really an attack on his masculinity. Verbally, your woman is kicking you in the nuts and saying you’re not a man.

Western (Jewish) psychiatry – primarily heavily Jewish psychoanalysis – made a huge deal about “Mommism” and how it supposedly fucked up men. Considering that Jewish guys are about the biggest Momma’s boys on Earth, this obsession is curious and smacks at some sort of denial and projection defense mechanism.

Truth is that in nations like Italy who have whole countries full of millions of Momma’s boys of all ages. Italian men are extremely virile and masculine, and there is little evidence that “Mommism” has had any detrimental effects whatsoever there. Truth is that there is little empirical psychological data that “Mommism” along Italian lines (which is also practiced in much of the world) is harmful to men in any way.


Filed under Culture, Gender Studies, Man World, Psychology, Romantic Relationships

Single, Male and Adult: Should You Live At Home or Move Out?

I don’t think men should live with their parents for a long time after they are considerably into adulthood unless they have an excellent reason for doing so. Not that I think there is anything all that wrong with it, but in our society, you are just going to bring a shitload of abuse down on you if you keep living with your parents too long. It’s wrongly seen as “living with your mother” even if your Dad and siblings live there too!

I lived at home while I got my BA because I didn’t have the money to move out, and I was a fulltime student. I got tons of grief the whole time at university for doing this. I did move out for 9 months or so on a student loan, but the money ran out and I had to move back home.

After I graduated, I kept living at home for another 9 months or so until I moved out again. During this time, I endured a mountain of abuse for living at home at age 23 after I had graduated from college. I did move out for 6 weeks during this time for what was only a short-term deal, but then I moved back. Truth be told, I was saving up money to move out after I graduated!

The overwhelming majority of idiots pouring it on me on this issue had not gone to college. They were working class folks who moved out soon after high school. During this period, I got fired from a job for no apparent reason other than the guy just didn’t like me. One of the stated reasons for firing me was that I was still living at home. He was utterly furious about that.

I got a new job a long ways from home that required me to move. I was very coy about my previous arrangements, but the new boss guessed that I had moved from my parental home to my new apartment at age 24. He was extremely disgusted about that and went on and on about how at age 19, he was living on a fucking houseboat in Amsterdam with a girlfriend. Of course, he hadn’t gone to college.

In the interim, I moved back home a couple of times for post graduate education, once to get a teaching credential and another time to get a Masters Degree. If you are living at home past age 23 for any reason, even a post-grad degree, you are really going to get the heat poured on you.

During those periods when I moved home to get post-grad degrees, I met many women. Quite a few of them were stark raving furious that I was living at home, even for a good reason. I still dated a lot, but it was a difficult situation. American women are simply insane on this question.

Even now, though I live 33 miles away from my Mom, I catch grief about that, always from a woman. Apparently I haven’t moved far enough away! She’s still within driving distance. Horrors! Actually, more than one woman has explicitly told me that I live way too close to my Mom and I need to move farther away from her. The implication is that I’m still a Momma’s boy because she’s an hour away by car.

I see her maybe once or twice a week, and I admit that I take my laundry up there to get it done. So I guess I am still a Momma’s boy at my advanced age then.

I think the American fetish with moving out as soon as you hit 18 and moving the maximum number of 1000 miles away from your family and seeing them as rarely as possible is a bit extreme. It’s a Nordic thing based on radical individualism. Most of the rest of the world is much more family oriented for better or for worse.

Nevertheless, as long as society is this nutty about this stuff, I think it’s better for men to move out if they are single. Ultimately it helps you mature more as an individual, and you have much more of a potential for a sex life living away from home. Sometimes you just have to cave in to society’s demands.


Filed under American, Culture, Gender Studies, Man World

How Close are Southeast Asians Related to Southern Chinese?

Tyler Lee (apparently a Chinese male) writes:

I think it is only applicable to about 10-15% of city dweller Filipinos when suggested that they are related to Southern Chinese. I have been to quite a few places in the Philippines and most Filipinos look like native Malaysians & Indonesians, and their native cultures and languages are almost alike.

The ones that look like Southern Chinese are most likely to be mixed descendants of earlier Chinese immigrants from centuries ago. Another supporting fact is that although they have been a democratic nation for longer than nearly all Asian countries, Philippines is still dirt poor, and Filipino IQ, as a whole nation, is no where near that of Southern Chinese.

However, I do see similarity with Fujianese/ Cantonese and Vietnamese, based on the look, culture and relatively high academic/professional performance among these in the U.S.

Filipinos are very close to Southern Chinese. However, Thais, Lao and Vietnamese are also very close to Southern Chinese.

As far as why Thais, Lao, and Filipinos do not particularly look like Southern Chinese, that is because they are heavily admixed with native SE Asian or native Filipino. In Filipinos, the male line is Ami from Taiwan, but the female line is ancient island SE Asian related to proto-Tai from 10-20,000 YBP. This was basically an Australoid or Melanesian type grouping. The male line via Taiwan aborigine is not related to more recent infusions of Chinese genes in Filipinos over the past ~1000 years.

It is well known that Vietnamese were predominantly Australoid (Melanesian) until ~2,000 YBP. At that time, there was a huge infusion of genes from Southern China (Cantonese region) and they transitioned from Australoid to Mongoloid (SE Asian type). They had already been transitioning this way for ~2,000 years, but the mass infusion of Chinese genes helped them along.

With the Thai and Lao, they are mostly Southern Chinese. A huge infusion of Southern Chinese genes poured in from Yunnan about 900 years ago and admixed with native SE Asian (probably Melanesian/Australoid type). This admixture created the modern Thai or Lao people.

Closely related groups can have dramatically different IQ’s. We can see this by looking at SE Asian IQ’s.

                  IQ     Genetic distance*

Southern Chinese  105    -
Northern Chinese  105    Very far
Vietnamese         99.5  Very close  
Thai               98.5  Close
Lao                89    Close
Filipinos          86    Close

*Genetic distance compared to Southern Chinese.

1. Thai, Lao and Filipinos are about equidistant from
Southern Chinese


Filed under Anthropology, Asia, Asians, China, Chinese (Ethnic), Filipinos, Intelligence, Lao, Physical, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asians, Thai, Vietnamese