Daily Archives: February 2, 2018

Domesticated and Feral Strains of Many Mammals Can Differ Starkly in Behavior

I have heard that there are breeds of dogs who are very intelligent and others that are almost as dumb as rocks. Surely they are all the same species. Intelligence and behavioral differences are no matter. Dogs and wolves and dogs and coyotes are pretty much the same species. Dogs can and do breed with wolves and coyotes both. So what? Take a domesticated dog breed and put it in your house and what does it do? Probably makes itself at home and becomes your best friend. Now capture a wolf or coyote, drug it, put it in a cage, take it to your house, and open it up. When the coyote or wolf wakes up, what will it try to do? It will run out the cage, run around your house, tear stuff up, make a huge racket, and in a lot of cases, it would even try to attack you.

I am not going to make an analogy between Whites and Blacks and dogs and wolves here, but racists are free to draw their obvious conclusions.

Just for starters, say I find an unconscious Black human somewhere, and for some reason, the best thing to do would be to take the person to my house and take care of them for a bit. I lie them down on the couch. They wake up after a while like the wolf woke up in the cage.

Now is this Black person going to rampage around my house, make a huge racket, destroy a lot of stuff, and probably attack me? Well, not immediately for sure, and that’s true for even the worst ones. But some of the bad ones, if you keep them around a bit though…you get the picture.

A Black human is less feral and far more domesticated than a wolf is. Between wolf and dog the difference between feral and domesticated nature is stark and even frightening. Between an average Black and White human, the difference between a wilder human and more domesticated human is dramatically less stark. Black people are not feral humans in the sense of a wolf to a dog. A true feral human would be like those Wild Children that have been raised in the woods by wolves or bears. A Black human is orders of magnitude more domesticated than that.

Black humans, as you can see, after all are quite domesticated as far as mammals go. But are they still a bit more wild than Whites and Asians? Well, maybe so.

Saying that intelligence and behavioral differences between Blacks and Whites – well-documented – are prima facie evidence of two different species is utter madness. A more feral and more domesticated strain of any mammal can show marked differences in all sorts of behavioral and cognitive variables.

The domesticated and feral strains of all sorts of species are dramatically different. Even domesticated cats gone feral are often impossible to properly tame, and they are from a genetically domesticated line!

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

6 Comments

Filed under Animals, Blacks, Canids, Carnivores, Dogs, Domestic, Mammals, Race/Ethnicity, Whites, Wild, Wolves

Humans New and Old Are a Lot More Sexually Conservative Than You Think

Trash: However later Yankee arrivals post-Civil war included many sluts and prostitutes and this is why white Italian and German and Irish girls from the East Coast will suck your cock on the first date.

Whereas Mexican girls prefer gangbangs because that race got started when Indian women entered Haciendas where Charlie Sheen type degenerate Spanish nobleman were entertaining their sleazed-out fellow Spaniards.

Dude! Two things.

First of all, I have never met even one single White person who had White sluts or prostitutes as ancestors, and know people who do a lot of genealogy.  Yes there were prostitutes in the 1800’s, but there were not many of them,  and most Whites do not have prostitutes in their lineage. Nor do they have sluts. Whites were very conservative sexually in the late 1800’s-early 1900’s. Most women were virgins when they got married. Extramarital sex by women was not common. Even in parents’ generation, I was told that if you wanted to get laid as a man, you had to get married because as a single man it was too hard to find sluts who would screw you out of wedlock. My mother told me that her generation was told, don’t give it up (don’t have sex with) any man unless you get something in return, preferably a wedding ring.

I am not sure at all that most modern girls or women fuck on the first date. Your average US woman has only three sex partners in her entire lifetime. If all women were fucking on the first date, you think they would only end up with three sex partners in a lifetime? Come on. Also, I talk to men young and old all the time, and what I hear is that even young women do not necessarily put out or even do much of anything on a first date. You don’t even necessarily get a kiss.

Also, most men are having sex with lots of women either. Your average man in the US has a grand total of six sex partners in his entire life! Six! That’s all. Only 6% of men have had sex with over 100 females. Players are serious outliers statistically. If all women were giving it away as easily as you say, many men could easily accumulate high numbers of sex partners. That your average man has a mere six sex partners in his life means  that there is no way that every woman is screwing you on the first date. Just forget it.

In fact, I routinely meet single women on dating sites and  other places, never married and divorced, who tell me that they are not interested in having sex outside of marriage. A lot are divorced but say they’re not having sex until they get married again. I hear this all the time. Most divorced women I meet tell me they are not getting fucked at all. A lot of them tell me that their morals are the cause of them having no sex. They say things  like, “I would love to be getting fucked all the time and I need it real bad of course, but my damned morals get in the way. I just can’t live like that.”

And I routinely meet single and even divorced women who tell me they are not even looking to date. What are they looking for? They are looking for a husband, looking to get married. They’re single women looking for a new husband. Dating isn’t even in the equation. I hear this all the time. As a matter of fact, on a lot of those sites, if you say you are just looking for women to date, a lot of them will take off because they are only looking for men who are looking for a wife, looking to get married.

Second, Mexican women do not prefer gangbangs due to some racialized past. First of all, we have no idea if Indian women were gangbanged. I seriously doubt if they were as people were not that perverse back then. There were few Spaniards and many Indian women. It may have been 10,000-1 woman to man ratios. With ratios like 10,000 women for every man, you are not going to see a lot of women getting gangbanged by 10 guys. If anything, you might see reverse gangbangs, but even that did not happen. Spaniards simply took an Indian wife or maybe later another one. Some men were players. I heard about a Brazilian White man who was shared by 60 different Indian women over a lifetime.

We have no evidence that either Indian cultures or European Spaniard cultures engaged routine group sex of any kind, much less gangbangs. People were pretty conservative back then. Group sex is a new thing in the West except for a few outliers like Rome. If you study the rest of the world, there’s not a lot of group sex going on in any tribal cultures or traditional cultures anywhere on Earth. Group sex, swinging, gangbangs, etc. are a product in the West of the Cultural Revolution in the 1960’s and the Sexual Revolution that accompanied it.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

8 Comments

Filed under Amerindians, Culture, Europeans, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Hispanics, Mexicans, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Romantic Relationships, Sex, Sociology, Spaniards, Women

No Way Are Italians As Bad As Blacks

I know I am a biased German-American from the US/Canadian border but the Romans described your own Scottish ancestors (If you are that writer from Central West Virginia) and the Jewish tribes (Zealots) and everyone outside of Rome the same way.

Now today if you were to compare North New Jersey with say, Minneapolis (German/Nordic) or Central West Virginia, which area has the most homicides/disappearances with presumed homicides of known “wiseguys”, corrupted public officials, governors under taxpayer lifetime protection because they “took down” a “crew”?

White people always say thing like White trash is worse than Ghetto Blacks or Italians are as bad as Ghetto Blacks, but it’s never true. Mostly these are nervous White liberals who are saying these things in a desperate attempt to not be racist. That is laudable, and I understand the noble motivation. But it’s just not true.

There is no way on Earth that Italians are as bad as Blacks. What’s the Italian homicide rate? What’s the violent crime rate? What about all the other rates of lousy things? There’s no comparison. Black homicide and violence and crime in general is far worse than Italians. I doubt if the Italian ethnic group has a homicide or violent crime rate much above ordinary US Whites.

Ever heard anyone say they are moving out of a neighborhood because too many Italians are moving in?

The schools are going downhill because there’s too many Italian students now?

Just give it up, man.

There’s no need to cover for the Black race, The statistics speak for themselves. Of course, many Blacks are not a part of that mess in the slightest, but that does not mean that the race as a group performs very poorly on so many variables. Why cover for bad Black behavior? It’s on them. They own their behavior. They need to answer for it.

I would love to live in a city full of Italians. I would not even mind if the Mafia were present. What’s going to happen? Is the Mafia going to kill me?

On the other hand, do I want to live in a city full of Blacks? Are you nuts?

Let me give you an example. This city here used to be a majority White city, and the Whites were mostly Italians. So you could say that this was in effect a basically Italian city as they were the major group here major ethnic group here. It has since transitioned from a White/Italian city to an Hispanic/Mexican city. The transition has been noticeable for anyone with eyes.

Everybody says this city was far better back in the White/Italian days. No sane person says it is better now because objectively, it’s just not. I have said this before but I will say it again. When a locale goes White -> Hispanic, it’s pretty much a downgrade. I would live to see one city in this land where a city went White -> Hispanic and the result was an upgrade over the White version. Hispanic downgrades are rather moderate, and you can still live there. White -> Black downgrades of cities are so extreme that you don’t even want to live there. I sure wouldn’t.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

70 Comments

Filed under Blacks, Crime, Hispanics, Italians, Liberalism, Political Science, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Sociology, Urban Decay, Urban Studies, Whites

Mexicans Are Mestizos and Mexican-American Culture Is Barrio Culture

Zeke writes: If Americans are part Indian (Native American) , they should be called Meztizos? I think not, so don’t label Mexicans as Meztizos. They are Mexicans, not a sub-group. Is that too complicated?

Also, don’t equate Chicanos or Mexican Americans with lowriders. That’s like equating Italians to the Mafia or white people, their culture, to motorcycle gangs.

Thanks, and I do enjoy your postings — at least you are honest!

Zeke is apparently a cultural liberal.  Sigh.

Mexicans are in fact mestizos. Only 12% of Mexicans are White. In fact, the government presents a notion of mestizaje as the mystical essence of the Mexican people. Mexicans are overwhelmingly mestizos. In fact, in Mexico, you are White if you are 75-85%+ White. They say this because even Mexican Whites typically have some Indian in them. And Mexican Indians are often not pure Indian. Many have some White in them.

Mexicans as a mestizo people is simply fact.

I am not even aware that lowrider culture exists anymore. But the people who identified as Chicanos in the 1970’s – their culture was typically lowrider or barrio culture. If you went to East LA in the 1970’s, you would see barrio culture and lowrider culture everywhere you looked. Gang culture was not too much in essence yet, but East LA Chicanos were not a very assimilated bunch and most of us, including my assimilated Chicano friends, absolutely hated them and wanted nothing to do with them.

At the time, the Chicanos who did not identify as such (in fact, they hated the word) generally were quite assimilated and did not act much different from ordinary 1970’s White Californians. They had nothing to do with anything that could be called Chicano culture. They were part of what could easily called White culture or Ordinary American Culture. These people were outside of Chicano culture.

Right now, Chicano culture is barrio culture. It is also gang culture. Big time. If you go to East LA, gangs are everywhere. East LA is the largest self-identified Chicano neighborhood in LA. it is the essence of Chicano-hood.

Low-rider culture in the 1970’s was really not that bad. They were not even very violent in my opinion. The lowriders at my school caused zero problems. Chicano culture and barrio culture has turned catastrophically worse since the 1970’s.

Once again, the Chicanos who do not identify as such are often seriously assimilated to White Culture or Ordinary White Culture. They are outside of Chicano Culture, barrio culture, and gang culture. A lot of times you never even know they are Mexican-Americans until you make some dumb remark and they get idiotically pissed. Like I tell people I live in [name of city] Mexico, since this part of California is for all intents and purposes a somewhat upgraded version of Mexico.

A lot of assimilated Mexican-Americans, typically 3rd generation, get mad when I say that. But they won’t live in my city! They refuse to live here, and they live with White people instead! They are hypocrites. If Mexican-Americans are so great, why do so many assimilated Mexican-Americans refuse to live in their cities? When Mexican-Americans get some money, the first thing many of them do is leave that Mexican-American city as fast as they can. They head right to the nearest White town. In California, even Mexicans don’t want to live with Mexicans!

Why do they do this? Reason: Mexican-Americans are not that great as a group, and when a city or town in California goes from White to Mexican, trust me, it’s always a downgrade. Not a real serious downgrade, but it’s a downgrade nonetheless. It is nothing at all like the catastrophic downgrade that typically occurs when a city goes from White to Black, but you can sense the decline. You feel it in your bones.

Really there are two Chicano cultures in California.

It is true that there are people, often 2nd or 3rd Generation, who identify with Mexican-American Culture, and the culture they live is not crap. It’s a decent enough culture, and you could call it a Chicano culture. Thing is it is just not for me.

They are wildly anti-intellectual, often frighteningly ignorant, and typically what I would call “not real smart.” They’re not stupid by any means, and they have whatever pragmatic intelligence it takes to succeed in Modern America. But they are not book-smart. They almost never read a book. If you show them a book, they examine it as if they were looking at some strange curio from a museum. In Mexico, your typical mestizo has never read a book in his life. They bring this anti-book culture with them to the US.

Also they have very traditional sex roles. The men have to be extremely masculine and the women only like very masculine men. I do not do well with Mexican-American or Mexican women. They probably think I’m gay. And some of the men say that I act gay. White people almost never say that anymore. They set the bar a lot higher for heterosexual male masculinity than California middle-class Whites do nowadays.

I would say that there are many positive aspects to this culture. It’s what I would call decent enough. But it’s just not for me. I have never felt at home there.

4 Comments

Filed under American, Amerindians, California, Culture, Gender Studies, Hispanics, Latin America, Mestizos, Mexicans, Mexico, Mixed Race, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Sociology, USA, West, Whites

Interesting Racial Arguments: Blacks As Less Domesticated Humans, and Whites and Asians as Domesticated “Slave Races”

Great comment from Francis Melville. 

African Blacks are humans, period.

The main mistake about that by those who see them as a parallel species closer to apes than man relies upon the infamous argument of neoteny: evolution from ape to man (so as devolution from man to ape as some religious fundamentalists postulate) is supposed to have happened through greater and greater retention at adult age of traits only the primitive species’ infants shows before losing them at adult age.

But that argument, however seducing it seems, is fallacious the way it is used: clearly, for instance, dogs as we know them are descendants of the wild dog, which is a parallel species of wolves to the point only zoologists can distinguish them from other wolves. And from that lupine ancestry, dogs have evolved far more than humans are supposed to have evolved from more primitive men, they have kept infantile traits at a degree humans themselves never went to…yet they remain dogs and show no sign of turning into a kind of speaking intelligent species capable of writing with all fours.

Though they cannot survive outside an apartment and require the same care as a human infant or even more, they still bark and bite each one according to its capacity. Neoteny produces domestic or more domesticable animals out of wild ones and nothing beyond. Neoteny alone cannot make a lineage change of species, nothing of that kind of phenomenon has ever been observed under any microscope or otherwise through paleontological history. You could still invent more and more puppy-like races of dogs under the pressure of lawmakers prohibiting Rottweilers, none of these new races would end up being human-like or humanoid-like in any way, none of these dogs would suddenly learn to speak like Pluto, though they may look like cartoon dogs more and more.

African Blacks show many traits (though not all) of less or no neoteny compared to the mean European and even more compared to East Asians (for instance African babies learn to sit and adopt various other adult postures at an earlier age than other humans), but that may make an African a wilder human, NOT a lesser human…in the very same way Sub-Saharan Africa seems to be by its ecological vocation the conservatory of the wilder versions of so many other species, like the wild dogs, the wild asses (which include the zebra as well as countless other onagres), the wild buffaloes, and the famed wild elephants.

African elephants, for being wild and having never been domesticated, are not less elephantine than the ones used in India and Indochina as beast of burden or transportation, in the same way the wild African buffaloes are by no means less bovine than the domestic buffaloes used in India to till the soil: quite the contrary, anybody would qualify the African elephant as more elephant-like by its spectacular bodily features than its more modestly-looking Indian far cousin, for the same reason wild bulls and buffaloes have always symbolized the epitome of bovine nature with far more intensity and sacredness than domestic oxen.

Europeans are not more human than Africans, they are more domesticable and amenable to so-called civilized life, actually it is a more polite expression to say they are easier to enslave and put to hard work by neurological programming rather than by mere physical shackles only.

Some say among Haitian and Benin voodoo practitioners that Whites and Asians were the first species reduced to a more fragile and specialized one but far easier to put to useful work by the process of trans-generational domestication and bodily modification by the first animal tamers: according to them, non-Blacks are born out of the will of malevolent sorcerers to dispose of population of dependent slaves by birth. That is probably a short caricature, but there seems to be something real about it.

So many proverbs from so many cultures are wont to say laughter is what really makes humans human, animals being so serious in comparison of the most serious humans. Do Black Africans laugh less?

21 Comments

Filed under Africa, Animals, Anthropology, Asia, Asians, Blacks, Canids, Carnivores, Cows, Cultural, Dogs, Domestic, Europeans, Herbivores, India, Mammals, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, South Asia, Wild, Wolves