Monthly Archives: April 2015

A Major Contradiction in HBD Theory

Tulio writes:

I’ve found a paradox about HBD’ers. First off they really hate blacks. Take a guy like Jew Among You. I’ve read some of his stuff. I can tell this guy can’t stand blacks at the visceral level. They will say that the reason for crime and pathology is because blacks are less evolved. They will justify their hatred of blacks by their behavior.

It only makes sense to hate blacks for their behavior if you think it’s caused by choice. On one hand, they will claim that crime is part of “black nature” no matter blacks reside. Well if this is an inborn trait, then what sense does it make to hate them? Nobody hates sharks for attacking surfers. That’s just what they do, they’re sharks. There’s no shark hate movement based around shark violence. So if it’s inborn, then you must drop the hatred. Hatred is only justified when these traits aren’t inborn but are willfully chosen, in which case that undermines the HBD argument about black nature.

This is exactly how I feel.

I will tell you something else. The liberal explanation for Black behavior is rather insulting. In roundabout way, it seems to be saying that Black people are just like me and my White family except they have Black skin. Other than that, they are just like White people in any important way. Now you have to explain all this pathology, crime, bad behavior.

The liberals say that Blacks are poor, helpless swaddling babes who apparently completely lack agency! Black people simply are not capable of making choices about much of anything. They are weather vanes that are spun around this way and that by forces completely outside their control. Something mysterious is actually forcing them to act bad. To act bad against their will, I would assume.

I don’t believe racism makes or forces anyone to do much of anything. And if someone told me I had no sense of agency, I would be angry. I am not a marionette. I am a human. Most things I do are by choice, and sometimes I am sad to say that because it’s embarrassing.

Now we have to say that Blacks do have a sense of agency and they are not puppets who are manipuated against their will by mysterious vapor-like essences like “structural racism” that apparently cannot even be seen or described (I guess structural racism is like subatomic particles, with the only difference being that those particles actually exist). And what sorry conclusion does this lead us to?

We would then have to conclude that Black people are engaging in all of this pathology, devastation, destruction, crime and violence out of their own free will. They are simply choosing to act like complete scumbags. They could choose to act like you or me anytime they want to, but they just feel like being bastards, maybe because it’s fun or perhaps they are wicked and simply don’t care about others.

Now if Blacks were doing all of this out of their own freely chosen will, just to be jackasses, I would hate them. And they would deserve to be hated. And I would keep on hating them until they knocked it off. If you can change your behavior but won’t, you have no one to blame but yourself.

But honestly, I do feel that the poor dears can’t really help a lot of their behaviors, and they seem to be driven towards this behavior biologically. Not that it is destiny, but Mother Nature is probably behind more of this bad behavior than you think. And if that’s the case, and I suspect it is, then I refuse to hate Blacks. I will not hate a group of people for behaviors that can’t really be helped and are maybe not even really their fault.

The HBD’ers and all White racists want to have their cake and eat it too. They all say Blacks are biologically driven to these ends, but then they hate the Blacks for fulfilling their God-given destiny. That’s like screaming at a guy in a wheelchair to get up and walk and then throwing his chair down in the gutter and smashing it and yelling at the guy to walk home. It is so wrong I cannot put it into words. It is flat out immoral and if you feel that way, shame on you.


Filed under Blacks, Liberalism, Political Science, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Social Problems, Sociology

Where the HBD Folks Get It All Wrong

Oxide writes:

My impression of doctrinaire HBD conservatives:

Group A has a high average IQ. Group B has a low average IQ. Group A cleverly swindles Group B out of most of its wealth. Group A is now very wealthy, while Group B is very poor. IQ differences perfectly predict the wealth disparity of the two groups, so we can simply ignore the criminal actions of Group A in trying to understand that disparity.

Yes, this is a caricature, but what I see is race realists/HBD’ers often putting all the emphasis on IQ, while ignoring very real exploitation or other historical factors that need to be considered. Even if knowing the IQ of different populations alone were to consistently produce accurate social and economic predictions, it wouldn’t necessarily mean that it is the only cause that needs to be looked at, at least from a moral or political standpoint.

I agree with this completely, and this is just the beginning of my complaints against the HBD’ers. Now mind you, my complaints against the HBD’ers are not that they are wrong. Unfortunately, I think they are correct a lot of the time. But their attitude and mindset is just ugly. There’s a hardness, coldness, callousness and almost gleeful meanness about them that is very hard to take. They don’t seem like particularly nice people. They remind me a lot of the cold engineers who were the fathers of many of my friends growing up as a boy.

HBD is frankly anti-Black propaganda. It’s an anti-Black movement. That is a large part of what it is all about. And they are quite forthcoming about this aspect of themselves.

HBD’ers seem to discount environmental of sociopolitical (see above) forces and factors altogether, which is frankly insane.

If the facts of HBD are what I think they are, to me as a liberal that is horribly depressing and discouraging. I think it would be depressing to any humanistic minded person.

HBD’ers seem to take great joy in the facts of HBD as they see them. That is because HBD’ers are almost all from the “winner” races. Of course the are delighted that they are among the “winner” races and the races they dislike (and they do dislike them) are among the “loser races.” Setting aside for a moment the crowing about who won the IQ Horse Race, the truth is that the facts of HBD are nothing to be cheered.

And I am not just saying that as a liberal either. Because what flows from the truths of HBD are things like the events in Ferguson and Baltimore and the shape that those cities are in in the first place, the vast numbers of Blacks in the criminal justice system, and massive Black failure in the school system – all of this ugliness flows from HBD.

The crime, often horrible violent crime sometimes directed at Whites themselves that HBD’ers are always screaming about flows from HBD. That’s right. All those White girls and White women murdered, sometimes in awful ways, by Black men. All those typically young White men murdered, sometimes sadistically, by Black men. These are the things that HBD’ers rant about day in and day out, but all of this awfulness in terms of behavior and outcomes flows directly from the HBD facts that the HBD’ers crow and chortle about as they swagger along.

You follow me? HBD’ers are busy acting like this is a football game (and by the way that is very immature and undignified of them to do that). Their team/race (race) is winning! Yay! Go Team White! The other team/race is losing! Yay! Down with Team Black!

They’re so busy cheering for themselves and their dubious and unearned victories that they do not realize that they are at the same time cheering for all of the awful things that flow out of HBD truths that I discussed above.

Sure, your team is winning. Good for you. I congratulate you on doing an excellent job in choosing your parents! But that rival team that you are beating – they are not losing like gentlemen. Along with their loss flows an incredible amount of destruction, violence, failure, devastation and extreme pathology that effects all of us who have to live in this country. So really when the HBD’ers cheer for their worldview, they are cheering for those Black men who raped and murdered little girls, who stabbed a White mother and her son to death with 50 knife thrusts. They are cheering for Detroit, Ferguson and Baltimore, the Knockout Game and flash-mobs.

I’ve got some news for you cocky HBD’ers.

HBD is nothing to cheer about.


Filed under Blacks, Crime, Race Realism, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Social Problems, Sociology, White Racism

Melanesians, Berbers and Proto-Europeans

Peabody writes:

If Melanesians diverged so early on (40,000 YBP), shouldn’t they be considered their own race? They’re about as old as Caucasoids.

Also, how long ago did Berbers diverge from other Caucasians?

Melanesians are a separate race. But genetically, they are not particularly distinct. They line up pretty well with the Oceanians and the rest of the Asians. The Aborigines and the Papuans are much more genetically divergent than the Melanesians.

I do not know about Berbers, but they appear to be along with the Sami the remains of the ancient Europeans. The Sami go back 11,000 YBP, and the Berbers seem to have links to the Sami. One wonders if the Berbers are the remains of ancient Southern Europeans. Berbers are also one of the oldest Caucasoid races. Caucasians split off 42,000 YBP, and after that there were quite a few movements of proto-Caucasians back and forth in a few areas – North Africa, the Caucasus and India. So these three places really do seem to be where the Caucasian race actually took shape.

There is a very odd looking Berber group called Mozabites who I suspect may be ancient Caucasians. They are not Black, and they look quite strange, but they are closer to Caucasians than anything else.

The Uighurs also seem to be an ancient race of some sort, perhaps having something to do with the birth of NE Asians and Caucasians.

Another ancient Caucasian group is the Orkney Islanders. They do not look different, but their DNA is very strange and shows links a long time ago to Siberians of all people.

Peabody responds, expanding on my answer:

Uyghurs are probably a mix between the “ANE” (Ancient Northeast Asians) and Mongols.

The group which birthed the Saami had been in Europe since 35 – 40k YBP. They likely admixed with Siberians.

Orkney Islanders are similar in that they’re mostly, if not entirely, of that old race (explaining the similarity). Most Europeans are mixed with newer Caucasoid types that brought agriculture (and later, the Indo-European languages), with the Sami being an exception.

I suspect Berbers split off ~30k YBP, but there’s a lot of weird data regarding mtDNA with them. Probably several migrations.

1 Comment

Filed under Aborigines, Anthropology, Asians, Berbers, Europeans, Melanesians, North Africans, Oceanians, Papuans, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Siberians, Uighurs

A Baffling Recent Murder Case in the Northeast


That case is weird as Hell.


Filed under Crime, Murders, Northeast, Regional, Republicans, USA, Vietnam War, Weirdness

When Did the White Genes Come Into American Blacks?

Tulio writes:

One thing to consider too is that the white DNA injected into the black gene pool wasn’t random. It was from wealthy white land owners who probably had above average IQ’s. So the white genes that ended up in the black gene pool may have been amongst the best and that 15% white might have caused a greater boost than you’d expect if given by random intermarriage.

Actually most of the White-Black breeding in the US took place after the First Liberation in 1865. I believe that at Liberation, something like 80% of Blacks were pure Black. The White genes went in afterwards. Also the White genes that went in during slavery often came from Whites who were working the fields for pay alongside the Blacks toward the end of the Slavery Era. There were many poor Whites out there doing paid labor next to the Blacks and apparently there was a fair amount of interbreeding between these two groups. Everyone likes to talk about slave owners making babies with their Black slaves, but honestly it did not happen very often.


Filed under Blacks, History, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Sociology, US, USA, Whites

What Race Are the Solomon Islanders?

Jason Y writes:

The islands close to the Philippines, the Solomon Islands in particular, are black, so it’s fair to say they might be part black. However, Filipinos are very prejudiced against black people, or maybe just US blacks. But then again, I think some snobbery exists among lighter skinned blacks vs darker ones. The Haitian elite, for instance, are mulatto.

The Solomon Islanders are not Black in any way, shape or form. They are Melanesians. Melanesians are Australoids related distantly to Papuans and Aborigines. Solomon Islander skulls look like Ainu, Senoi, Tamil, Vedda, Negrito, Papuan and Aborigine skulls. However, genetically, Melanesians are very far from Papuans or Aborigines and probably cannot be considered to be Australoid by genes.

Genetically, they look more like Polynesians and Micronesians. This makes sense, as both Polynesians and Micronesians have a strong Melanesian component. Melanesians are an ancient people dating all way back to 40,000 YBP and they are a very internally diverse race. They are probably newer, more progressive and less archaic than Papuans and Aborigines.

It is a common misconception that Melanesians are Black people. A lot of them do look superficially like Black people.


Filed under Anthropology, Melanesians, Micronesians, Oceanians, Physical, Polynesians, Race/Ethnicity

Should You Ask If a Man Is Gay?

Gay but don’t know writes:

I really like your information but i think that if u work hard enough to hide your sexuality it will work. This is a known fact by me because i do it all the time with my friends and family. The truly people who u should trust about your homosexuality is really your BFF who should probably be a girl. This is my opinion of how to hide your sexuality.

There are some guys that I know are gay but of course I am never going to say that to them. Why should I? What’s there to say? “Hey dude I think you’re a fag!” I mean there’s nothing to talk about. I think it’s rude to talk about someone’s homosexuality that way anyway. Maybe he doesn’t want to be so out.

On the other hand, when I meet people I assume are straight, I often figure that out right away and comment something along those lines if he is going to be my friend. “Well I can see you like girls…” I would never ask someone if they were gay. What a rude thing to ask!

Even if I had a friend who I suspected, well, this would never happen because gay men simply do not befriend me. I am basically a maniacal pussy hound, so most men who befriend me do so in the context of frequent conversations about women and sex. Gay men never talk about women and having sex with them and I’ve never met a gay men who pretended to be straight, although I met some pretty funny bisexual guys who seemed to have beards. But both of those guys never looked at a woman, never talked about women ever, never talked about sex with women, and they both gave off the most massive gay vibes like you could not believe. If they were pretending to be straight, they sure were doing a lousy job of it.

I just assume that any guy who is hanging around with me is straight. Every now and then I confirm the obvious just to make sure. But I am not worried about, “What if this guy I am hanging around with is a fag oh noes!” If he’s gay, he’s probably going to hit on me almost immediately. I have befriended many gay and bisexual men, and almost all of them came onto me or started flirting with me almost immediately. I assume that’s just what they do. If I’ve been hanging around with him for a while, he hasn’t hit on me yet and he seems to be really into chicks, I am not going to worry about it.

Even if I befriend a gay guy and he hits on me, it’s not the end of the world, and I have been through this so many times anyway. Just turn them down and don’t freak out. They’re not going to rape you or anything like that. I don’t know why straight guys are all worried, “Whoa dude is that guy a fag man!? I would not want to hang around with him. He seems like a fag!” It’s just a dumb thing to worry about.

Now if you are a woman, you may have other reasons for asking a question like that.

But if you have been involved with a man for a while and he is always looking at you in a sexual way, always looking at women, always talking about women and sex and trying to engage in sexual activities with you a lot of the time, I would assume he’s certainly not gay.

Gay men typically have rather strange and cold relationships with the women they date as beards or covers.

Often the women involved with these men say they seldom if ever look at them in a sexual way, never look at women, never talk about women, seem to be excessively interested in men, male bodies and male activities, have some rather hazy and suspicious male friends, and don’t like to have sex much and when they do, they often like doggy style from the rear (I assume so they can fantasize they are with a man).

They often display a strong aversion to cunnilingus. Often they will have a lot of posters of men on their walls of magazines full of pictures of men such as body builders, male athletes, etc. They often spend far too much time with and seem to be far too close to some of their suspicious male friends. In a number of cases, gay men are frequently impotent during sex with their woman.

If you are a woman who is involved with a man and you have a reasonable suspicion that he is gay or bisexual, you really ought to know that for a lot of reasons. Honestly though, this stuff isn’t rocket science, and it’s insipid to ask men with obviously strong drives towards women if they are gay. It is almost the dumbest question you could possibly ask and it is very insulting.

The real problem is bisexual men. Even though I don’t swing that way, I have known quite a few of these men, and all the rules go out the window with them. They often act no more gay than you, me or any other man. They can be shockingly masculine. They can hide it quite well. I think in a lot of cases, it might be very hard for a woman to detect a man who is a strong bisexual or a straight-leaning bisexual. And the vast majority of men with bisexual interests lean straight, often dramatically so.

A real problem here is that bisexual men are typically notorious liars with the women they are involved with. They figure, probably correctly, that if they identify as bisexual, few women will want to be involved with them. They want to continue having sex with women, and they figure being open is sexual suicide. So they typically lie and lead double lives.


Filed under Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Man World, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Sex

Who Were the Ancient South Indians?

Peabody writes:

Would the ancestral South Indian population be genetically Australoid, per this study?

Exactly. Skulls from 25-40,000 YBP in the north of India look like Aborigines. The basic Indian type is a Veddoid or even a Negrito like the Andaman Islands. India was Australoid until 8,000 YBP when it started transitioning towards Caucasoids. I am not sure where these Caucasoids came from, but they may be the ancestors of the Dravidians, who may have come from Western Iran. This group may have been the Elamites. The Elamites may have moved out of Western Iran and moved to India to become the Dravidians starting 8,000 YBP.

The Aborigines of Australia seem to be composed of two main groups. First the Murrayans arrived 15-20,000 YBP, possibly from the north. These may have been a proto-Ainuid group similar to the proto-Jomon Ainuids living in Thailand 16,000 YBP. Later another group moved in called Carpinterians. They seem to have come from Southern India. Both the Murrayans and Carpinterians had to arrive by boats.

The mixture of Murrayans and Carpinterians produced the modern Aborigines. Prior to 17,000 YBP, Aborigines may have looked quite different. So the fact that some South Indians look like Aborigines is because they were ancestral to Aborigines, not the other way around.


Filed under Aborigines, Anthropology, Asia, Australia, East Indians, India, Iran, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, South Asia, South Asians, Thailand

What Does the Filipino Genome Look Like?

Julian Localboy:

I’m also interested in knowing more about the Iraya people. I’m guessing that for some (if not many) Filipinos, around one-fourth of their genome is Iraya-like.

My reasoning for this is that I’ve found forums online where people post their ethnic admixture results from some online ethnicity calculator they used, and for something listed as “4 populations approximation,” quite a few Filipino posters had Iraya as one of their four components (the other three components were commonly Austronesian, Southern Chinese and/or Indochinese groups, as expected).

You grouped the Iraya with the Ati but said they aren’t Negrito and are different from most Filipinos. Do you know who they are? I did some online research of my own but didn’t find much, except that some sources say they resemble Veddoids. Could they be the group that you mentioned moved in and looked Ainuid?

I am going to have to go look them up now! Thank you very much! Yes Veddoids are proto-Mongoloids. They are like the Negritos somewhat. The Senoi are a Vedda like ancient group in Thailand. I think maybe these Iraya may be related to those ancient Malays like the Senoi. That group is also in India. Veddoids are archaic.

So the other three are:

  1. Southern Chinese
  2. Austronesian (Taiwan aborigine)
  3. Indochinese (I wonder how)
  4. Iraya

Iraya must be the ancient proto-Mongoloid component in the Filipinos that is found on the maternal side. It goes back 20-30,000 YBP and the remains of it may be these Iraya types. That is probably an Australoid component.

Vedda types are not Ainuids but proto-Ainuids from Thailand may have gone on to become the Senoi and other proto-Malay. These same proto-Ainuids left Thailand 16,000 YBP and went to Japan. They arrived at Japan 13,000 YBP and become the Jomon people. It seems reasonable that on this long boat voyage probably around coasts, they may have stopped by the Philippines. Perhaps the remains of this proto-Ainuid group are the Iraya. We do not know what proto-Ainuids 16,000 YBP in Thailand, but skulls from Thailand 25,000 YBP are said to look like aborigines.

This Iraya component may also be related to the “proto-Dai” who moved into Indonesia during massive flooding associated with melting glaciers 19-20,000 YBP. They may have moved out from Southern China, down into Indochina and then down into Indonesia. These people probably looked like Melanesians. The descendants of these proto-Dai make up most of the genome of present-day Indonesians.


Filed under Anthropology, Asia, Asians, China, Filipinos, India, Indonesia, Indonesians, Japan, Malays, NE Asia, Philippines, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asians, South Asia, Thailand

Black Cop Kills Unarmed White Man!

No wait, that didn’t happen.



Filed under Humor