Daily Archives: February 12, 2018

Race in India: An Anthropological View

I have had lots of East Indians coming to my site lately for some reason. They are looking at a few pieces, especially The Major and Minor Races of Man, The Peopling of India and The Birth of the Caucasian Race.

They’ve mostly been females, possibly young females. They are interested in a few questions. First, what race are East Indians? Caucasians (Whites), Africans (Blacks), Asians or Australoids? These are the four macro races of man, though honestly, there may be more than that. They’ve been subjected to a lot of Afrocentric propaganda that says that East Indians are Black people. Truth is, East Indians don’t have a speck of Black in them. Your average group of Germans has more Black in them than a group of East Indians.

There are some other theories about East Indians suggesting that they are Asians. In my work The Major and Minor Races of Man, which I worked on for many months, I dealt with this question a lot. True, some charts show East Indians just outside of Caucasians proper. But those same charts don’t really show them in Asians either. They are floating in between both groups.

But most other charts seem to show them in Caucasians. Truth is that even those charts show them right on the border of the two groups. But if we look at the charts from a great enough distance and look at the group as a whole, they are clearly in Caucasians. In these cases, we have to go by what they look like. Do East Indians look like Asians? Of course not.

East Indians are part of a cline running from Turkey up to the Chukchi Peninsula that rides right on the border between Asian and Caucasian. Some groups are almost literally 50-50. The cline includes Jews, Armenians, Turks, Iranians, people of the Caucasus, Kurds, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uighurs, Mongolians, Altai, Shor, Buryats, Koreans, East Indians, Punjabis, Pakistanis, NE Chinese, Manchus, up to the Chukchi. On one chart, the Chukchi, bizarrely enough, are over with Caucasians. But if you look at them, they look like Eskimos. So into Asians they go.

With East Indians, we go by appearance. What do they look like, Caucasians or Asians? All or almost all East Asians have an epicanthic eyefold, lacking in most Indians. What about Asian genes? Asian genes are found up to a maximum of 10-15% in NW Indians around Punjab.

They look like Caucasians, lack an eyefold, and have few Asian genes, so into Caucasians they go.

The fact that Caucasians are also referred to as Whites is confusing to some. Blacks get upset when Whites claim East Indians. “Those people are not White!” They exclaim angrily. White is just shorthand for Caucasians. A lot of White folks, or Caucasians, can have skins that are anywhere from slightly to very dark.

So genetically and based on simple appearance, we can put all East Indians into Caucasians. The problem arises in that a paper has found that Tamils have skulls that link them, phenotypically but not genetically, to the Australoid race. Who are the Australoids?

Genetically, they are Aborigines, Melanesians, and Papuans.

Phenotypically, they are Tamils and some other South Indians, Senoi (a tribe in Thailand that resemble Veddoids), Semang (a Negrito group in Thailand), Negritos, Papuans, Melanesians and Aborigines.

Hema Malini, a very White-looking Indian.

Hema Malini, a very White looking Indian. Caucasian by phenotype and genes. She could easily be a Spaniard or Italian.

The question arises about which South Indians are also Australoids phenotypically? So far, only Tamils have been proven to be Australoid by skulls. However, any other South Indian group that looks a lot like Tamils is probably also Australoid, such as the Telegu.

Raju, Bishop N John S D classic dravidian

Bishop N John S D Raju, an Indian Christian and a classic Dravidian type. Possible Australoid phenotype.

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.

4 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Anthropology, Armenians, Asia, Asians, Caucasus, Chinese (Ethnic), East Indians, Europe, Europeans, Kazakhs, Koreans, Kurds, Melanesians, Mongolians, Near East, Near Easterners, Negritos, Northeast Asians, Oceanians, Pakistanis, Papuans, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asians, South Asia, South Asians, Tajiks, Turkey, Turks, Uighurs, Uzbeks, Whites

There Is a Whole World Out There That Is Outside of the Realm of Science

Steve: Besides, it seems like most of what is presented as “science” in discussions is not actually scientific praxis but philosophical theory: scientism and materialism. The insistence that science alone can answer all questions about the nature of reality—often paired with materialism—is actually scientism, a type of quasi-religious faith that holds scientific knowledge as the only viable knowledge.

My mother and my best friend in my whole life have seen ghosts. Science tells me that they are lying, full of shit, hallucinating, or insane. I do not believe that are any of those things. They told me flat out that they saw them with their very own eyes as real as day as if you were standing here next to me as I write this.

My mother has also had some telepathy and clairvoyant experiences. Science tells me my mother is full of it.

People’s pets will often run to the telephone just before the master calls home. Science says this doesn’t happen or it’s just chance.

People go on vacations for a long time and on the day they come back, the cat goes outside and sits by the sidewalk waiting for them. Science says this doesn’t happen or it’s just chance that the cat sat outside.

They have done actual experiments that prove that people can sense when someone is watching them even when they cannot even see the person who is watching them. These studies are well done and have been replicated numerous times.

But Science refuses to accept these studies, with endless complaints about poor design, chance, lack of controls, selection bias, etc.. The truth is that the studies are never going to be good enough. For science to agree that humans can sense that someone is watching them even when they cannot see anyone watching them would mean that we have some sort of psi skills outside of the five senses. There is nothing that Science hates more than the idea of Psi Abilities. They probably hate that more than anything else. Because they hate it so much, they will never believe it. Their minds are already made up. They will reject every study showing that psi is real because it’s coming up with the wrong conclusions.

Science says that all of the psi evidence above is laughable bullshit, and anyone who believes it is an idiot or a kook or both.

I think science is wrong about all of the psi-type things described above, but on the other hand, most of this sort of thing is probably not provable by the scientific method anyway. The truth is that a whole huge hunk of the world is simply outside of the world of science. Science can prove, disprove or explain many things. But for a big slice of life, science has nothing to do with it, nor should it. Science needs to butt out of the whole part of the world that is outside of its realm in the first place.

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.

3 Comments

Filed under Metaphysics, Philosophy, Psychology, Science

An Example of Scientism

This is an example of scientistic nonsense.

There are many more.

One of my articles shows via a number of, yes, scientific studies, that all adult heterosexual men are attracted to minor females, especially 13-17, but also as many people refuse to believe, age 12-below. The number of adult males attracted to females below age 12 differs across the studies. I recall figures of 100%, 90% and 50%. One study showed a steady decline in attraction towards girls with the decline beginning at age 15 with 90% of max arousal and then steadily declining down to 12-below, where all men were experiencing arousal, but at a lesser and lesser level as the girls got younger. The study bottomed out at age 7.

That all men are attracted to teenage girls is self-evident. The only men who aren’t turned on by jailbaits of JB’s are dead men and gay men. So if you are a straight man who says teenage girls don’t turn you on, you’re either lying or you’re gay. Sure, men can be maximally turned to females 16+ and  turned on, but a lower level, decreasing with age, as girls get younger. In other words, yes, young girls 12-under turn on men, but they don’t turn them on very much. It ends up being a “meh” moment. But no, everything has to be all or nothing. We can’t even have 1% arousal to a girl. That throws you out of the normals and into the sicko pedophile category.

This is because most idiotic humans in our modern era believe that the only normal men are men who experience:

100% arousal to adult women

0% arousal to girls under the age of 18.

This is the only way to be normal. If that bottom figure creeps even into 1%, you go out of the Normal category and into some species of Pedophile category. Of course this goes against everything that sexologists have learned about male sexuality since the field began, but humans are quick to reject science when it doesn’t come up with the right conclusions.

I have no idea why this is so controversial.

Anyway, someone posted this over in some incel forum.  Although the article pointed out that adult men were turned on girls age 7-12 but only at a much lower level, that finding was disregarded. Instead, the findings about JB’s were the source of the conflict. The study found that men were aroused by girls age:

15: 90% of max

14: 80% of max

13: 70% of max

Other studies have found that all normal males react at a maximal level to females age 13+. It is the findings on girls age 2-12 that are so controversial. The teenage girls aren’t even up for grabs. Everyone knows how men feel about them.

Well, the forum went into a wild frenzy. “Scientistic” types began demanding to see good studies documenting this obvious fact that men are turned on by teenage girls. When the studies were presented, the scientistic people immediately began tearing them apart, saying they were poorly done, not controlled, had selection bias, etc. Then there were not enough studies. We needed replication.

The completely retarded thing about this whole discussion was that the question that they were demanding endless replicated and perfectly conducted studies to decide was one that shouldn’t even need a lab. The only reason it got tested at all, I assume, is because people are idiots. The question is:

Are normal adult men turned on by teenage girls?

Answer:

Well of course they are!

I arrived at this conclusion independent of any science whatsoever. I don’t scientific studies to live my normal day to day life. To me, this is simply the obvious truth based on years, nay decades of observation of adult males. Of course it’s true! Obviously it’s true! How could it not be true? Over 95% of the things I and probably you believe in our day to day lives were arrived at via this simple method. Observation, hypothesis making, hypothesis testing (call it real life reality testing), and conclusion. We are all (hopefully) engaging in this mini empiricism with and endless variety of objects and ideas about our lives and our world. Most of the things we believe derive from the following principle,  which is after all, the very first principle in science:

Observation

Back when science was first getting off the ground, it was soon agreed that the first step in any scientific study was simply observation. The scientist simply observes some interesting natural phenomenon. He then makes some sort of a hypothesis about this phenomenon – either its nature, etiology, or purpose. He decides if it is a temporary phenomenon that means not much or if it is part of some overall pattern. If it is part of a pattern, he conducts studies to try to show what that pattern is.

This is precisely what you, me, and every other thinking human does day in and day out every single day. We know so many things we know because we have observed them a number of times so that we have made a hypothesis about what is going on. We have decided what is true and what is not true, and what is partially true, and when, where, why, and how?

My point is that that is Scientism taken to its most idiotic form.

First humans deny the obvious for sociological reasons – in this case, a preposterous Western society that has decided that any adult man who is aroused by a teenage girls is a pedophile. Of course this goes against the wisdom of our elders and surely the views of over 95% of tribal groups ever studied.

In fact, I would love to see one tribal group anywhere that decided that adult men getting aroused by girls under 18 was anything but 100% normal. Sociological beliefs come with enforcement: social sanction, employment sanction, and possibly even legal sanction. Many sociological beliefs are blatantly false, yet societies continue to believe in them anyway.

This is incidentally true for most tribal societies, who believed crazy things not just because they lacked the science to know that they were wrong but because their societies told them certain things were facts. Society is by its nature conforming, and for good reason. You can hardly have a society of nonconformists. The pressure to believe society’s Lies Du Jour is profound. Your social life, your livelihood, your sanity and even your status as a free man may well depend on it. You defy society’s lies at your own peril.

The very idea that such an obvious fact of human existence like adult men’s arousal to teenage girls would even have to be scientifically tested at all is the worst sort of Scientism. Why in God’s name would anyone test such an obvious thing.

Well, for one, they might test it because society tells them that what they know to be true is actually false.

And this study and its reactions show just how stupid scientistic types are. Not only do they preposterously ask for a scientific test of one of the most obvious truths of mankind – but they reject the obvious conclusion (which lines up with millenia of accumulated cultural wisdom) demanding more tests, better tests, replication, more controls, better selection of subjects, on and on.

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.

4 Comments

Filed under Gender Studies, Girls, Heterosexuality, Jailbait, Lolitas, Man World, Mass Hysterias, Pedophile Mass Hysteria, Science, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology

Species and Subspecies in Current Races of Homo sapiens sapiens

We already dealt with the racist nonsense about Black people being a different species than the rest of us. By the way, this is just another way of saying, “Niggers aren’t human,” which is exactly what a lot of anti-Black racists say about Black people in precisely those words.

I hate to break it to these guys, but Black people are as human as the rest of us. We are all one species.

I did a lot of research on the question the other day because I wanted to see if there was anything to the racist argument. The overwhelming opinion, based on multiple lines of excellent evidence is that all races of human are part of a single species. I won’t go into the lines of evidence here, but you can go look them up if you want. And it’s good science too, not junk science.

One of the lines is that no human race has any particular type of DNA that is particular to its own race. In different species, the new evidence is that all species have areas of DNA that are specific to just them. This is true even in species that can and do interbreed.

In studying two types of butterflies in the Amazon that readily interbreed, it was found that one area of DNA in each species never transferred to the other. Obviously when you mate two different lines, you end with each line contributing a lot of its DNA to the offspring. This is the DNA that carries over so to speak in interbreeding. The areas of DNA that never carried over or transferred in interbreeding were two areas: one that gave it its blue flavor and another that deals with how the blue butterfly is able to recognize others of its kind. In the orange butterfly, the non-transferring DNA was also for orange color and for how the species recognizes its own species. This is where we get the notion that “species breed true.”

Another is that humans can readily interbreed with other humans. For an example of what happens when humans breed with other hominid species, we can look at the evidence of human-Neandertal breeding.

Human-Neandertal breeding was very difficult and most of the offspring did not survive for some reason. Neandertal males mating with human females was rarely successful. However, human males mating with Neandertal females apparently worked sometimes.

The example given that species can interbreed is dog and wolves. However, science now says that dogs and wolves are one species. From my study of birds, when two different bird species start interbreeding a lot, after a while, they usually merge them into one species on the basis that they interbreed.

Crossbreeds of different species often produce sterile offspring. Yes, a horse can breed with a mule but the offspring is a donkey and donkeys are sterile. I believe that ligers, the offspring of lions and tigers, are also sterile. There are other species that can interbreed, however the offspring are weak, sickly and fail to thrive.

If any human races were separate species, we would expect to see something like the results of the human-Neandertal interbreeding and we don’t see that. Blacks and Whites can interbreed just fine, immaculately, in fact.

The question then boils down to whether any races could be said to be subspecies. The German Wikipedia has done some work on that and they have concluded that based on geographic separation, Negritos, Aborigines and Khoisan (Bushmen/Hottentots) could probably be seen as subspecies. On looking at their work, I think the writers on the German Wiki are basing their argument on good, solid science.

I would also argue that these three could be seen as subspecies based on genetic distance. The genetic line of Negroid Africans specifically does not go back all that far. They are a new race that only arose 9,000 YBP.

However, the Khoisan are one of the oldest people on Earth with a specific line going back 53,000 years.

Previously, a type of Negrito Australoid in Thailand, the Orang Asli, had been found to be the oldest race of living race with a line going back 72,000 years.

The Aborigine of course are very ancient. They are quite distant from all other humans. In fact the two races with the greatest distance between them are Aborigines and African Negroids. If anyone would have a hard time interbreeding it would be them, but there’s no evidence of any problems. On the other hand, few if any of them have bred at all. African Negroids and European Whites are dramatically closer to each other than Africans and Aborigines. If Africans and Aborigines are one species, how could Africans and Whites be two species? Makes no sense.

It is important to note that by their nature, all subspecies can interbreed. They are only called subspecies because for whatever reason, they only live in a restricted geographical area. In addition, there are some anatomical and genetic differences in all subspecies. At some genetic and anatomical difference level, two types of a species are said to be separate subspecies. Since no humans are restricted to any separate geographical areas, we cannot use that metric for setting aside human subspecies. However, I would no problem with setting aside Aborigines, Negritos and Khoisan as human subspecies. There’s nothing derogatory or racist about that statement, at least to any rational person, which leaves out all SJW’s.

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.

5 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Africa, Animals, Anthropology, Asia, Asians, Australia, Birds, Blacks, Canids, Carnivores, Dogs, Domestic, Genetics, Horses, Khoisan, Mammals, Negritos, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asians, Thailand, White Racism, Whites, Wild, Wolves

Fact: Psychics Have Solved or Helped Solve a Number of High Profile Criminal Cases

Psychic visions are not typically detailed. Usually it is more that they see a picture in their minds, for instance, they see a river or a young woman’s body being fished out of a river.

The following is from a murder case that was solved by a good psychic:

A young boy disappeared in his neighborhood one afternoon. He had not been found. Not sure how much time went on, but a psychic was either brought in or offered her services. She said she saw a boy on the ground, dead. He has one red shoe on. He’s underneath something. She could not narrow it down any further.

They drove her around town seeing if she could get a peg on where he might be. Finally they came to an area that she felt was “hot” and she narrowed it down to a 12 square block area. Not sure what happened next. I guess they searched homes in the area. Underneath one partially built home in the crawlspace under the house was the dead boy. He was wearing red shoes, but only one of the shoes was on. The other shoe was off and over in the dirt somewhere.

This was a documented case. Read it on the Net, but I can’t find it for you. This is not the only case that psychics have helped solve.

The rationalist or skeptic community of professional scientistic people state that there is no evidence that psychics are useful in solving crimes or that they have ever solved any crime. Nevertheless, detectives are known to use them at times. If they didn’t work at all, you wonder why detectives would ever use them at all. There have been a number of well documented cases like the above in which psychics solved or helped solve the case. How the skeptics explain this away is beyond me.

That said, psychics are all over the place, and a lot of them are just flat out wrong. Only a few of them hit it only some of the time. But when they do, there doesn’t seem to be any way that they could have figured it out unless they were at the murder.

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.

Leave a comment

Filed under Crime, Criminology, Law enforcement, Psychology, Sociology

Scientism: Anatomy of a Modern Fundamentalist Religion

Most scientists nowadays do not even practice scientific thinking anymore. Instead, they are scientistic.

Scientism is where one states that the only things we can even know or pretend to know in this world are those things that have been proven by science, preferably in endless double blind studies with much replication. Even there, they pick and choose. Studies that show what “science” does not want to believe is true are dismissed by scientistic types, and the findings are derided as pseudoscience. Granted pseudoscience is a thing, but it is not nearly as much of a thing as the scientistic types say it is, and a number of things that are supposedly pseudoscience are not pseudoscience at all. Instead, they are simply true.

You can’t go through your life only believing those things that science has told you are true.

For instance, in any given day, I am constantly making generalizations about my environment. These generalizations are treated as facts by me. I also believe many things that, as far as I am concerned, are not beliefs at all. Instead they are simply true, at least as far as I am concerned.

True, a number of these beliefs-as-facts will later turn out to be false, but I regard them as true for now because they are based on the evidence available to me. Later when I get new evidence that disproves my previous beliefs, I junk my previous belief and pick up the new one instead. I am always changing my mind like this, which is one of the Net criticisms of me that I am not consistent, I am all over the place, I change my mind all the time. All of these things are true, but none of them are bad things. There’s a word for people who never change their mind: rigid. There’s another word: foolish.

A good 95% of the things that I accept as flat out truths or generalizations that are basically true in my day to day living have never been proven by science. I am sure that quite a few things that I believe would be called pseudoscience by scientistic types.

Scientism is a form of idiocy masquerading as genius, competence, and rationality. It is none of these things, and in fact it is more the opposite. It is science as a form of religious fundamentalism.

It’s also pussy.

These people believe in what I call Mommy Science. Remember when you were a little boy or little girl and you were always running to Mommy asking her if such and such was true or not? Mommy was literally your principal source for facts about your existence and the world around you, and what she said was golden, 100% truth that could not be challenged.

Well, scientistic types are five years old for the rest of their lives.

Adults don’t need science or Mommy or anyone else to tell them what to believe and what are the facts of the world around them. They simply observe the world around them repeatedly, draw up logical patterns, and label those patterns as facts. They don’t need to test their day to day theories about life with Mommy. And they don’t need to test them with science either, or Mommy Science as it is.

Scientistic types are babies until they die. They can’t make up their own minds about what’s true or not because like 5 year old’s, they are too scared to come up with their own answers. So they have to run to Mommy Science whenever there’s any question about anything. These are people who need to be told what to believe because they are too weak to figure out any facts on their own. And Mommy Science is just like Mommy when you were five years old. Mommy Science is always right. She’s never wrong.

These are pitiful people because they don’t trust their own senses to tell them what’s true and what’s not. Instead they have to run to some damned scientific journal to find out just about anything true about life and the world we live in.

The problem is that Science is not always correct. Many things are unprovable by science. Others are untestable. Others will never be tested. Others are untrue for now but will be proven true in the future, so in these cases, science is actually flat out wrong and those that have figured this out are simply ahead of the curve. Many other things are stated by science to be false because Science has become a fundamentalist religion that has decided that certain things are false forever and will never be proven true. No matter how much evidence you throw at them, they insist that these facts of existence are pseudoscience simply because they do not want to believe they are true.

If you could only trust or believe those things that were proven by science, you would not be able to live as a modern human being. You might not even be able to get out of bed.

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.

4 Comments

Filed under Metaphysics, Philosophy, Science

The Reality of Anal Sex in the USA in 2018

Trash: ROBERT

Personal Confession

Am I the only straight male here who finds heterosexual anal sex awkward?

I don’t think there is nearly as much of this type of sex going on as you might think. You look at porn and the women are getting fucked in the ass all the time like it’s as normal as the missionary position, but that does not seem to represent reality.

One of my best friends is a former porn star, and he told me that he doesn’t like anal sex – it’s not his thing.

A lot of guys have never even done it.

I have had sex with more women and girls than 95% of men, and I’ve only done it once! It was ok, but she made me go really slow, and I could not get off.

I have stuck a finger in woman’s asses before, once by accident. I was with a girlfriend who was an anal sex freak who had probably done it 2,000 times. I went to put my finger in her pussy and I put it in her ass instead, just like all those Asian “Wong ho!” jokes! I guess a lot of anal changes your ass because that finger went right in like it was nothing. The whole finger went in, no problem at all.

I have had women stick their fingers in my ass. But the last time that happened, she pulled her finger out and it was covered with blood. I have hemorrhoids, so maybe that is the problem. Also women need to trim their nails or wear a glove if they are going to do that. I am not sure if I am going to do that act again. I will probably just bleed again.

I recently had a date with a woman, and even before the first date, she reeled off her sexual repertoire like she was bragging or competing with other women. I hadn’t even been talking to her all that long and she rattled out her skills, “Ok, this is what I do: deep throat, anal, you can tie me up, and you can handcuff me. I’m a nympho, and I want to do it all the time, up to 3-4 times a day.” She was 50 years old too!

I met her on a dating site. I was actually shocked. I don’t know if this is a thing with younger women too, but it seems like older women are trying to compete for men by out-whoring each other and trying to be a better fuck than the competition. Of course I encourage this trend.

On the first date, we talked about what kind of sex we would have once we got around to it (she wanted to wait a bit). We ended up talking about anal sex.

She said, “You’re going to get shit on your dick.”

I said, “Nope, don’t think so, you’re going to do an enema, baby!”

She said, “I refuse to do an enema!”

I said, “Fine, no anal.”

She insisted that in anal sex it was completely normal for the guy to get shit on his dick. That leaves me out I guess. I am not getting shit on my dick. If she cleans herself out before I might do it though.

I’ve met an awful lot of women who told me they’re not into it. It’s pretty common for women to not want to do that act.

However, a lot of them have never tried it and are curious about it though. I remember one wanted me to break her in and show her how to do it. We were just talking though, never got around to actual dating. It’s amazing how dirty women talk nowadays before you’ve even had one date with them! Of course I encourage this trend.

So yes, a lot of women are curious anal virgins. I’ve run into that quite a bit with women I was talking to and even women I dated. I just never took any of them up on it. The whole idea that there are all these women out there who love anal sex so much they practically demand it seems absurd. Porn is an alternate universe.

Considering I have only done it once and I am 60 years old, I may well never do it again,  which is fine by me.

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.

.

2 Comments

Filed under Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Man World, Pornography, Sex