Category Archives: Cultural

Simplification of Language with Increasing Civilization: A Result of Contact or Civilization Itself

Nice little comment here on an old post, Primitive People Have Primitive Languages and Other Nonsense? 

I would like to dedicate this post to my moronic field of study itself, Linguistics, which believes in many a silly thing as consensus that have never been proved and are either untrue or probably untrue.

One of the idiocies of my field is this belief that in some way or another, most human languages are pretty much the same. They believe that no language is inherently better or worse than any other language, which itself is quite a dubious proposition right there.

They also believe, incredibly, that no language is more complex or simple than any other language. Idiocy!

Another core belief is that each language is perfectly adapted for its speakers. This leads to their rejecting claims that some languages are unsuitable for the modern world due to lack of modern vocabulary. This common belief of many minority languages is obviously true. Drop a Papuan in Manhattan, and see what good his Torricelli tongue does him. He won’t have words for most of the things around him. He won’t even have verbs for most of the actions he sees around him. His language is nearly useless in this environment.

My field also despises notions that some languages are better suited to poetry, literature or say philosophy than others or that some languages are more or less concise or exact than others or that certain concepts or ways of thinking are better expressed in one language as opposed to another. However, this is a common belief among polyglots, and I would not be surprised if it was true.

The question we are dealing with below is based on the notion that many primitive languages are exceeding complex and the common sense observation that as languages acquire more speakers and civilization increases, one tends to see a simplification of language.

My field out and out rejects both statements.

They will tell you that primitive languages are no more complex than more civilized tongues and that there is no truth to the statement that languages simplify with greater numbers of speakers and increased civilization. However, I have shot these two rejected notions to many non-linguists, and they all felt that these statements had truth to them. Once again, my field violates common sense in the name of the abstract and abstruse “we can’t prove anything about anything” scientific nihilism so common in the intellectually degraded social sciences.

Indeed, some of the most wildly complex languages of all can be found among rather primitive peoples such as Aborigines, Papuans, Amerindians and even Africans. Most language isolates like Ket, Burashaski and Basque are pretty wild. The languages of the Caucasus are insanely complex, and that region doesn’t exactly look like Manhattan. Siberian languages are often maddeningly complex.

Even in China, in the remoter parts of China, language becomes highly differentiated and probably more complex. I know an American who was able to learn Cantonese and Mandarin who told me that at age 35, for an American to learn Hokkien was virtually impossible. He tried various schemes, but they all failed. He finally started to get a hold of the language with a strict eight hour a day study schedule. Anything less resulted in failure. Hokkien speakers that he spoke too said you needed to grow up speaking Hokkien to be able to speak the language well at all. By the way, this is another common sense notion that linguists reject. They say there are no languages so difficult that it is very hard to pick them up unless you grew up with them.

The implication here is that Min Nan is even more complex than the difficult Mandarin or even the forbidding Cantonese, which even many Mandarin speakers give up trying to learn because it is too hard.

Min Nan comes out Fujian Province, a land of forbiddingly high mountains where language differentiation is very high, and there is often difficult intelligibility even from village to village. In one area, fifteen years ago an American researcher decided to walk to a nearby village. It took him six very difficult hours over steep mountains. He could have taken the bus, but that was a four-day trip! A number of these areas had no vehicle roads until recently and others were crossed by vast rivers that had no bridges across them. Transportation was via foot. Obviously civilization in these parts of China is at a more primitive level, and it’s hard to develop Hong Kong-style cities in places with such isolating and rugged terrain.

It’s more like, “Oh, those people on the other side of the ridge? We never go there, but we heard that their language is a lot different from ours. It’s too hard to go over that range so we never go to that area.”

In the post, I theorized that as civilization increased, time becomes money, and there is a need to get one’s point across quickly, whereas more primitive peoples often spend no more than 3-4 hours a day working and the rest sitting around, playing  and relaxing. A former Linguistics professor told me that one theory is that primitive people, being highly intelligent humans (all humans are highly intelligent by default), are bored by their primitive lives, so they enjoy their wildly complex languages and like to relax, hang out and play language games with them to test each other on how well they know the structures. They also like to play tricky and maybe humorous language games with their complicated languages. In other words, these languages are a source of intellectual stimulation and entertainment in an intellectually impoverished area.

Of course, my field rejects this theory as laughably ridiculous, but no one has disproven it yet, and I doubt if the hypothesis has even been tested, hence it is an open question. My field even tends to reject the notion of open questions, preferring instead to say that anything not proven (or even tested for that matter) is demonstrably false. That’s completely anti-scientific, but that’s the trend nowadays across the board as scientistic thinking replaces scientific thinking.

Of course this is in line with the terrible conservative or reactionary trend in science where Science is promoted to a fundamentalist religion and scientists decide that various things are simply proven true or proven not true and attempts to change the consensus paradigm are regarded derisively or with out and out fury and rage and such attempts are rejected via endless moving of goalposts with the goal of making it never possible to prove the hypothesis. If you want to see an example of this in Linguistics, look at the debate around  Altaic. They have set it up so that no matter how much existing evidence we are able to gather for the theory, we will probably never be able to prove it as barriers to proof have been set up to make the question nearly unprovable.

It’s rather senseless to set up Great Wall of China-like barriers to proof in science because at some point,  you are hardly proving anything new, apparently because you don’t want to.

Fringe science is one of the most hated branches of science and many scientists refer to it as pseudoscience. Practitioners of fringe science have a very difficult time as the Scientific Establishment often persecutes them, for instance trying to get them fired from professorships. Yet this Establishment is historically illiterate because many of the most stunning findings in history were made by widely ridiculed fringe scientists.

The commenter below rejects my theory that increased civilization itself results in language simplification, as it gets more important to get your point across as quickly  as possible with increasing complexity and development of society. Instead he says civilization leads to increased contact between speakers of different dialects or language, and in such cases,  language must be simplified, often dramatically, in order for any decent communication to occur. Hence increased contact, not civilization in and of itself, is the driver of simplification.

I like this theory, and I think he may be onto something.

To me the simplification of languages of more ‘civilized’ people is mostly a product of language contact rather than of civilization itself. If the need arises to communicate with foreign people all of the time, for example in trade, then the language must become more simple in order to be able to be understood by more people.

Also population size matters a lot. It has been found that the greater the number of speakers, the greater the rate of language change. For example Polynesian languages, although having been isolated centuries or even millennia ago, still have only minor differences from one another.

In the case of many speakers, not all will be able to learn all the rules of a language, so they will tend to use the most common ones. And if the language is split in many dialects, then speakers of each dialect must find a compromise in order to communicate, which might come out as simple. If we add sociolects, specific registers for some occasions, sacred registers, slang etc, something that will arise in a big and stratified civilization, then the linguistic barriers people will need to overcome become greater. So it is just normal that after some centuries, this system to simplify.

We don’t need to look farther than Europe. Most languages of the western half being spoken in countries with strong trade links to one another and with much of the world later in history are quite analytic, but the languages of the more isolated eastern part are still like the older Indo-European languages. Basques, living in a small isolated pocket in the Iberian Peninsula, have kept a very complex language. Icelanders, also due to isolation, have kept a quite conservative Germanic language, whereas most modern Germanic languages are ridiculously simplified. No one can argue in his sane mind that Icelanders are primitives.

On the other hand, Romanian, being spoken in the more isolated Balkans, has retained more of the complex morphology of Latin compared to West Romance languages. And of course advance of civilization won’t automatically simplify the language, as Turkish and Russian, both quite complicated languages compared to the average European tongue, don’t seem to give up their complexity nowadays.

On the other hand, indigenous people were living in a much more isolated setting compared to the modern world, the number of speakers was comparatively low, and there was no need to change. Also, neighboring tribes were often hostile to one another, so each tribal group sought to make itself look special. That is the reason why places with much inter-tribal warfare like New Guinea have so many languages which are so different from one another. When these languages need to communicate, we get ridiculously simple contact languages like Hiri Motu.
So language simplification is more a result of language contact rather than civilization itself.


Filed under Aborigines, Altaic, Amerindians, Anthropology, Applied, Asia, Basque, Cantonese, Caucasus, China, Chinese language, Cultural, Dialectology, Europe, Germanic, Indo-European, Isolates, Language Families, Language Learning, Linguistics, Mandarin, Min Nan, Near East, Papuans, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Russian, Science, Siberian, Sinitic, Sino-Tibetan, Sociolinguistics, Turkic, Turkish

“‘Leaders’ and ‘Followers’ among Blacks,” by Phil

In my observations as both a researcher of native Blacks during the time periods of exploration and colonization as well as being a Black individual, I’ve happened to find a similar variation in terms of personality of “leaders” and “followers” when it comes to conformity amongst Blacks.

First, I will start with my thesis supported by my personal anecdotes, compare that with the anecdotes from my research on the pattern within a native environment, then state my concluding thoughts in the qualities of a “Leader” vs a “ Follower” in Black population.

Referring back to a previous article of my where I commented “I didn’t think I was Black,” I meant that I didn’t conform to Black groups or say common Black interest in way of social trends. With that said, while I haven’t met too many Blacks like me, I did notice considerable variation in personalities. Also, in addition, I will describe them in terms of phenotypes to guesstimate their ancestry ratios due to White ancestry possibly being a co-hypothesis in my thesis. Now, some will mention in the case of the Tutsis, that skin color alone isn’t very accurate in terms of determining ancestry. I agree, for my studies have shown that adding the variable of facial features or phenotype will reflect better results.

Number One would be a junior who I’ve met this year in my AP Calculus class named Cole. Cole, in terms of phenotypes, seemed more or less as admixed as I am. His eyes were seemed to have a similar distance from each other, though his lips weren’t as big as mine. His skin hue was overall browner (his being around “Earth 1,” and mine being closer to “Clay 2-3”) than mine, and our jaws were somewhat equally medium prognathous. Based on his head, he didn’t seem to have a receding forehead like other Blacks, which will be shown in other subjects.

In terms of personality and classwork, he was more industrious, calmer, and attentive. Overall, despite not really showing intellectual introvert characteristics like me, he was a better student than I was, thus is why he is still in the class, and I decided to leave. It wasn’t that I couldn’t understand the material, but for me I worked better with word problems because there was more to analyze, and there was a scenario for me to apply. Simple “solve” problems were too boring, and sadly, I became idle in my work.

Number Two will be a 2nd semester Medical Terminology classmate named Tyquan. He was overall darker and more prognathous than or Cole or I are and darker in hue (Earth 3), As far as his personality goes, he is, like Cole, calmer than me and overall a nice guy. His intellectual faculties didn’t come off as very strong, though he did seem like the type who would be obedient towards extra effort.

Number Three will be a first semester AP English student who I sadly didn’t catch the name of. Overall, he seemed as pure as a Black person gets in this country. He resembled a villager in many respects in terms of facial features, muscularity, and skin tone (about Earth 4) and was somewhat shorter than me. He, however, was not only calm like the others but particularly sweet in his manner and speech.

Number Four will be a General Biology classmate named Nehemiah. He had a similar Black phenotype to Tyquan or Number Three, third, yet his head and face were overall taller than theirs. Concerning hue, he was about an Earth 4 or 5. He was an extrovert, and thus was more disruptive and less calm than I am, though if were to compare us on aggressiveness, he was still aggressive than I am.

Number Five will be a boy named Marcus. In appearance he was similar to the previous subjects, particularly Tyquan, although he was notably overweight, and his skin seemed to be an Earth 6. In terms of personality, he projected more extroversion than Nehemiah, though he differed in lacked inhibition, being loud and less obedient. But he had the same humorous character as like Nehemiah.

Now we will move to a phenomenon taking place with West African Natives.

See here.

Here are details of personalities of various slaves, in particular some of whom were noted to have a decent temper.

As far as these types reacting to conformity, here’s what I found.

In the scope of cannibalism, being described as a major vice in the Calabar at the time, one man described his servant as of Eboe (being the slang for Calabar at the time, where true Ibo country was more to the west) origin, and describing the servant’s shame when he admitted to eating flesh during a cannibalistic ceremony.

Another one of similar origin wasn’t as embarrassed in doing this, for he explained that his tribe only did it to war enemies, and when asked, he said he wouldn’t eat his “Massa,” but he would eat his Master’s enemies. John Baker’s Race even shows near-individualist behavior in the Azande of Central Africa, a cannibal group of much fame at the time, where he mentions another man who refused to take part in the practice.

As far as I could tell, these types would meet either of two fates, being successful through conformity, or falling victim of beatings or even slavery due to their gentle nature.

The overall contrast between the Leaders and the Followers in these works seemed to be that the Followers were overall more gentle, sharing similar vices as the other Blacks but on a lesser scale. I don’t think I need to explain who the “Leaders” were. They were the main source of any mayhem or trouble. The Followers, though not all true individualists, were more likely to follow gruesome or horrific customs in lockstep fashion rather than actually embody the nature of them as the Leaders did.

This observation may tie into Robert’s posts about where line between the where the Ghetto Black begins and the “Good Blacks” ends and vice versa, but once we get to a subject like Marcus or perhaps Nehemiah, things get Fuzzy.


Filed under Africa, Anthropology, Blacks, Central Africa, Cultural, Guest Posts, Personality, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, West Africa

Africans Are Not “Stone Age” People

Now I am not defending the United States. It’s actually inferior to Canada, New Zealand or Australian white settler colonies in many ways.

But this is mostly because a great deal of stone-age people were imported as slaves or Spanish soldiers raped Red Women in the Southwest 5 times a day back in the 1700’s to create a vast Mixed underclass.

Please do not call African Blacks “Stone Age people.” That is how the White Nationalists talk. Africans had had agriculture for 12,000 years when they were imported to the US. Stone Age people don’t have agriculture. I get so tired of listening to White Nationalists call Africans Stone Age people.

Agriculture itself rose in Africa. Africans were probably the first humans to practice agriculture.

There was little if any breeding between Spaniards and Indians in the US Southwest. That was all happening south of the border.


Filed under Africa, African, Agricutlure, Amerindians, Anthropology, Blacks, Cultural, History, North America, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Spaniards, The Americas, USA, West, White Nationalism

The Bantus: Past and Present


Looks like a cool book. Apparently written some time around 1915-1920. Focus is apparently on the Bantus of South Africa. It is written by a Bantu himself, so it is probably quite accurate. This old ethnography stuff is probably better than the modern stuff because the old stuff probably told the truth about the people, warts and all, whereas the more modern stuff is probably whitewashed to Hell and back.

I know the idiot Cultural Left screams about these early books saying that the authors were racist, so they lied about those poor wonderful African Black people, but I doubt there was much of that going on. Anyway, they generally reported whatever they saw or whatever Africans told them was true. Most of it is probably quite solid stuff. Once you start getting multiple reports all saying the same thing, then the data gets better and better. Then you have to argue that all these evil White ethnographers somehow got together and made up the exact same lies about this particular group or that. It’s pretty implausible, but the Cultural Left is all about implausibility.

I was thinking Phil or jm8 in particular might like this stuff.


Filed under Africa, Anthropology, Blacks, Cultural, Cultural Marxists, Left, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, South Africa

“Self-Hate – Not Even an Option,” by Phil

Self-Hate – Not Even an Option

by Phil

Some people might wonder what type of research I do regarding HBD and Blacks. Well, I devote much of my studying towards old 19th century works on Blacks by European anthropologists, biologists, some missionaries, etc. The reason being that, aside from Global IQ, actually HBD work on Africans is minute, and the most variable studies regarding blacks are concentrated on US blacks.

What I’m really doing is comparing various case studies on different African groups, linking the replication of descriptions on similar groups through the passage of time and different authors, seeing how they hold up in modern times and thinking why certain traits aren’t apparent in modern days.

After a good deal of adjusting to the style in which they were described, the process becomes a nice hobby, though under the circumstances of why I do what I do, it’s an addiction. It doesn’t really bother me to see comments of inferiority regarding certain behavior or qualities, since I’ve already being exposed to the general facts regarding crime and overall achievement.

Though another reason, as I’ve mentioned before, is really the consistent credit these early writers present to be such judges. To the disbelief of others, their opinions varied a considerable amount regarding African tribes even within West Africa.

A good example would be one that I’ve been invested in for some months now,


On top of that, at least for Black standards, I consider myself tolerant towards criticism. However, whether it’s naive remarks or emotionally-driven ranting, I lose it over bashing.

When I see images of Black crime such as murder or rape, I am filled with worry. Not just for Blacks but more generally the fear that aware non-Blacks feel. When I see SAT score averages, SES averages, or any other statistic reflecting stability or function broken down by race, it fills me with anxiety. On a positive note though, I soon become anxious to find some path to a solution that’s applicable.

Sadly enough, in comes cases anxiousness is converted to rage when I stumble upon stuff like this:

As polite as I considered myself in my response, I honestly felt like saying something along the lines of those that Homer describes here being “on to something”.

It doesn’t help that of all the types of bashing, women-bashing is easily among the worst in my opinion. With that said, this could be a case where my feelings were misplaced, as I don’t believe actual malice was used with Homer’s words, but rather, he was just being blunt.

Outside of tribalism, there’s another reason I don’t like this form of commentary. In effect, it can have the ability to invoke self-hate. However, what I eventually learned after feeling close to self-hate many times at age 17 is I would be feeling sorry for myself for a long time if I started to feel this way all the time. Envisioning how wastefully pathetic a life like that would be, I couldn’t bear it a second after that realization. At that moment, I found that on an instinctual level I could reject self-hate.

With the above considered, I want it to be noted that this doesn’t translate to me being tribalistic towards Whites. On an outer level, I’m somewhat of an individualist, so if anything, I have overall appreciation for Whites. The only ones I dislike are SJWs or extremely tribal Whites that aren’t that different from other Internet ethnonuts. I respect them, give them credit where it’d due for their truth on racial matters and of course for promoting White pride especially in these times. However, under no circumstances, will this extend towards an automatic submission. That’s actually a topic for another day.


Filed under Africa, Anthropology, Blacks, Cultural, Guest Posts, Race Realism, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Whites

Race in Vietnamese Antiquity

Vietnam writes:

That’s wrong. Viets already looked very mongoloid (flat-faced) before the Chinese invaded their country ~ 2200 years ago. Anthropologists Mongoloid-looking people already appeared in Vietnam ~3800 years ago. After Viets broke free from China, they took Champa and Cambodia and absorded those peoples (less mongoloid-looking peoples).

Viets became much more diverse that you can see today. If you keep tracing back then every country in Asia was not mongoloid looking. Japan only started to looked mongoloid ~2500 whereas. Ainu people were roaming in northern Asia very early…Oldest mongoloid skull found in Asia is only about 7000 years old.

I do not agree with this in whole, but I do agree with it in part.

The Dabut Culture began ca. 8,000 YBP but developed from 5,000-6,500 YBP. This culture was found in the northern part of Middle Vietnam (provinces Nghe An and Ha Tinh). Radiocarbon dating for this culture gives dates from ~3,500-5,000 YBP.
Anthropological studies show that Australoid elements dominate in the skulls of Da But, Con Co Ngua, Quynh Van and Bau Du. They belong to Mongoloid-Australoid or Melanesian race.

Skulls of the Peinan culture on the southeast coast of Taiwan look very much like this and may be related. The Man Bac people were Austronesians. Man Bac skulls are classed as the Ancient SE Asians – the Indonesian race. Recently, a very important burial field of those people was excavated at the Ninh Binh (Northern Vietnam) site of Man Bac. A 14C-dating for this site is 3,530 YBP.

But the first human occupation here could have been as early as 4,000 YBP. It was the age of many late Neolithic, early metal age cultures such as Phung Nguyen, Hoa Loc, Ha Long and Go Ma Vuong. These people were living in real villages. Some of them had already developed an agricultural society as in the case of Phung Nguyen culture. A great deal of rice and rice artifacts were found in the late phase of this culture. They cultivated Oriza Sativa, a large developed type of this grain.

Growing rice established new cultural developments with lots of settlements with rich potsherd layers, many domestic animal bones and rice remains. The non-food productions of pottery, stone tools, and especially jade ornament artifacts showed that a surplus economy in food production had developed. For the Pre-Ðôngsonian culture (2,800-3,500 YBP), many big burial fields in the Delta of Ma River have been excavated.

Pre-Ðôngsonian skulls have strong elements of Australoid, but elements of Mongoloid are clearly increasing – Austronesians. The Quy Chu and Nui Nap people are identified with the Southeast Asian or Indonesian race. Ðôngsonian – or Ðông Son – Culture in Vietnam was regarded as the most developed culture in late prehistory of Vietnam. It began 2,700-2,800 YBP, and ended with the complete occupation by the Han Dynasty in 2,200 YBP.

The Ðông Son culture belonged to the Iron Age and is found mainly in North Vietnam, southward only to Da Nang (18N latitude) and northward to southern Kwangzi and Kwangtung of China. The Ðông Son are Tai. Anthropological research confirms increasing Mongoloid elements in the Ðông Son skulls. However, the Ðông Son peoples belonged to the Indonesian or Ancient Southeast Asian group – a Southern Mongoloid with strong Australoid elements (Cuong, 1996).

In summary, in response to the poster’s comment, I do not agree with him that Vietnamese were full Neomongoloids 3,800 YBP. This is just not correct.

3,800 YBP Vietnamese were part of the Dabut Culture. Dabut people were Mongoloid-Australoid transitionals or Paleomongoloids. Skulls from Man Bac 3,500 YBP show that the Man Bac people were ancient Austronesians possibly from the Peinan Culture in Southeastern Taiwan. These people are classed as the Ancient Southeast Asian Race which is today the Indonesian Race. So 3,500 YBP, Vietnamese looked like Indonesians. This race is a Southeast Mongoloid Race with strong Australoid elements.

From 2,800-3,500 YBP, the Pre-Ðôngsonian Culture existed in Vietnam. These would also be classified as the Indonesian Race, but Mongoloid elements are now increasing over the Australoid. These people were also classed as Austronesians, possibly once again from Taiwan. These would be Taiwanese aborigines.

By 2,200 YBP, there was a huge invasion of Vietnam by the Southern Chinese Han who conquered the entire nation. At this point the transition to modern Vietnamese began. Modern Vietnamese are best seen as a Southeast Mongoloid Race with some Australoid elements. They are probably best seen as Neomongoloids as opposed to Paleomongoloids.


Cuong, N.L. 1996. Anthropological Research on Ðôngsonian Skeletons (in Vietnamese). Hanoi.


Filed under Agricutlure, Anthropology, Asia, Asian, Asians, China, Chinese (Ethnic), Cultural, History, Indonesians, Melanesians, Oceanians, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asian, SE Asians, Taiwan, Taiwanese Aborigines, Vietnam, Vietnamese

Why “Rape Culture” Is Simply Normal Human Culture As It Has Always Existed

Tulio writes:

Logical fallacy. “Normal” does not equal good or acceptable. I’m not just talking rape, I mean anything. Slavery was also once normal too. Just sayin’.

Tulio: Let’s look at their definition of Rape Culture. Once we look at it, this Rape Culture thing is simply the way that all or nearly all human societies have functioned all through time. In other words, it’s normal. It’s not even pathological. It’s just the way people are.

In rape culture:

  • Men act masculine and practice obligatory masculinity. Normal.
  • Women act feminine and practice obligatory femininity. Normal.
  • Women are sexually objectified by men. Normal.
  • Women experience high levels of “sexual harassment” by men in the workplace and elsewhere. Normal.
  • “Sexual harassment” is seen by women as “just men being men.” Normal but possibly not even true in the West anymore.
  • Society is dominated by men. Normal or at least typical and de facto among humans. Possibly not even true in the West anymore.
  • Rape is an ever-present fear for women. Normal.
  • Rape is seen as something which can never be eradicated. Normal.
  • Men are expected to prove their manliness via masculinity. Normal.
  • Men prove their competence via masculinity. Normal.
  • Men are expected to suppress their feminine sides. Normal.
  • Women are expected to suppress their masculine sides. Normal.
  • Rape has an evolutionary basis, and males have an inborn tendency towards rape. Normal.
  • The onus is on women to avoid being raped. Normal.
  • The onus is not on men to control themselves and stop raping. Sadly normal in much of the world, but not the case in the West anymore.
  • Women take all sorts of extra precautions to avoid being raped. Sadly normal.
  • Women must treat every man they meet as a potential rapist. Sadly normal.
  • Patriarchy dominates society. Normal but not the case in the West anymore.
  • Men are supposed to be the protectors of women. Normal.
  • Although men are supposed to be the protectors of women, they do a rather lousy job of it. Sadly normal.

Do you see what these nutcases are doing? This horrible thing that they call rape culture that we are all supposed to be freaked out and upset and wringing our hands about is simply the natural, normal, probably biologically driven way that the vast majority of human societies on Earth have functioned as far back as we can tell.

In fact, societies used to be far worse with regard to this normal human rape culture. Human society at least in the West has gotten far less rapey in the modern era than it used to be. In fact, there are suggestions that among Pleistocene humans, rape may have been nearly continuous and the violent abuse of women was so common as to be typical. Look at the skeletons of humans from 12,000 years ago that have been found in Mexico. The people appear rude, crude and robust in terms of features, were very strong in terms of bone size, and most of the women were found to have suffered many injuries. Even teenage girls had suffered quite a few injuries.

The thinking is that these early Amerindians were an exceptionally brutal people for whom violence was the norm, the females of the society experienced a lot of serious violence from the men, and rape was probably the norm. To say that life was short, nasty and brutish was an understatement.

Worse, the feminuts say that unless we unravel the way human societies have always been, we will always have this Rape Culture bullshit. Well, I guess we will always have Rape Culture then because it doesn’t look like any of this is going away anytime soon.

Nor should it, I would argue.

Look, the feminists have already told us what their idea of a Nonrape Culture is. And it’s not a culture you would even want to live in unless you were a Cultural Left nut.

A Nonrape Culture is one in which:

  • Men do not act particularly masculine and women do not act particularly feminine. Granted we are already getting there, but is that a good thing? You want this? What sort of freakazoid society is that?
  • Men do not attempt to prove their masuclinity. Maybe not a bad idea, but it will probably never happen, one reason being that women themselves will not tolerate this as it is often women who try to force men to prove their masuclinity.
  • Men do not attempt to prove their competence by acting masculine. Ok, that sounds like a very bad idea and a recipe for mass incompetence.
  • Women are not sexually objectified by men. Granted we are already headed that way, but is that a good thing? Do you want to live in a society where you where if you try to be sexual in any way with a woman in public, even by looking at her, it is nearly illegal? Sucks or what?
  • “Sexual harassment” is removed from work and other public spaces. To feminists, sexual harassment means men looking at women, men flirting with women, men making sexual remarks to women, men acting seductively towards women, men asking women out, men asking women for their phone numbers, etc. Feminists apparently think this is evil or something, and they want to remove the ability of men to act sexual towards women in most public spaces. I agree that they might grant us active heterosexual scum special “pickup zones” that might look like bars, nightclubs, or special cafes, but they would resign this activity to those areas only and proscribe it everywhere else. Granted we are already halfway there, and it’s just about a firing offense to ask out any woman at your work, but is that a good thing? You want this?
  • The onus on women to avoid being raped is removed. This would be nice, but logically that would just result in women doing a lot of stupid and heedless things and probably a lot more women getting raped.
  • Rape is seen as something that could be wiped out if we only tried hard enough. It would be nice if we could have a society where rape was seen as something that could be wiped out, but logically that is probably not even possible, and it would just result in the sort of thing we are already experiencing: endless, vitriolic, pointless, irrational and poisonous “wars on rape” which would boil down to “wars on men,” more women hating men, more women turning into lesbian idiots, more insipid laws and rules like consent agreements on college campuses, and more men responding via reactionary movements. Sort of like the society we have now.
  • Men no longer feel that they have to protect women. Fine! We won’t protect you ingrate bitches anymore! See how you like it! Tell you what, men resign from protecting women, and the rates of violence and rape against women are going to go way up. That’s because contrary to Mary Edwards Walker (probably a dyke no man would protect anyway), men protect women from violence, rape and other harm every single day, possibly hundreds of times a day or more, often with considerable risk to themselves. But they want us to stop risking our asses for women? No problem! See how they like being even more defenseless!


Filed under Americas, Amerindians, Anthropology, Cultural, Feminism, Gender Studies, Latin America, Mexico, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Sane Pro-Woman, Social Problems, Sociology, Women

Repost: The Moriori and the Dangers of Pacifism

Repost from the old site. This is a popular post for some time on this site. I like this post a lot, as it shows the sheer folly and suicidal insanity of a philosophy of pure pacifism. At some point, you either wait for the enemy to come out and murder you, or you pick up a weapon so you can at least take some of them out in the process. It’s better than being murdered with your hands in the air. At least fighting back offers a dignified death.

The saga of Moriori is instructive.

The Maori have long been known as ferocious headhunters and cannibals who had one of the cruelest and evillest cultures on Earth. The Moriori seem to be a Maori split dating back to about 1500 or so when they left New Zealand and colonized the Chatham Islands. The Chatham Islands are small, very cold and isolated, and there is not a lot of food other than from the sea.

Moriori legend has it that initially, widespread tribal warfare, headhunting and cannibalism was practiced as the normative cruel Moriori culture. On such a small island, this savagery was disastrous, and soon the population plummeted to near-extinction. A leader arose among the Moriori, Nunuku-whenua, who preached a new doctrine of extreme pacifism, Nunuku’s Law. Nunuku’s Law was strictly adhered to 300 years.

Fighting was allowed between males, but it had to be conducted with each armed with a stick the width of a finger. At the first sign of blood, the duel was called off, and the dispute was considered settled. Homicide, rape and other crimes were reportedly rare to absent among the Moriori for centuries.

In 1835, the Chatham Islands were invaded by Maori warriors, who promptly proceeded to slaughter, cannibalize and enslave the Moriori. When the fighting began, the Moriori gathered for a meeting to decide whether or not to fight the invaders. Many young men argued for fighting back, but the elders decided that Nunuku’s Law could not be violated for any reason. The Moriori ran away and hid and were found and dealt with by the Maori.

From 1835-1862, the population declined from 1,600 to 100. Those not murdered and eaten were enslaved. Moriori slaves were forbidden to marry each other, and Moriori women were forced to marry Maori men. It was a true genocide.  Tommy Solomon, the last pure Moriori, died in 1933.

Tommy Solomon on his yearly visit to Christchurch. He was definitely a big fellow! He married a Maori woman, so his descendants are technically not pure Moriori.


Although popular myth says the Moriori were exterminated by the Maori, several thousand mixed-race Moriori still exist today. The Moriori language is extinct, but efforts are being made to raise it from the dead.

Rightwingers have used this episode to exemplify the folly of pacifism.

The saga of the Moriori gives the lie to the notion that race is destiny, at least among Polynesians.

It is commonly thought that Polynesians selected for extreme aggression on their long sea voyages to colonize distant islands. Food may have run low on these voyages, and the survivors may have killed others and cannibalized them to survive. Perhaps the biggest and strongest were the ones most likely to survive the voyages, and this explains the huge size of Polynesians, probably the largest race on Earth, and possibly their high levels aggression and outrageous cruelty.

In modern Westernized societies, Polynesians characteristically become an Underclass with high crime, violence, gang membership and general pathology. In traditional societies, they often do well.

Whatever Polynesian genes look like, the saga of the Moriori shows that they are not doomed to high crime rates or Underclass pathology.

Genetics is the clay, culture is the sculptor.


Filed under Anthropology, Cultural, Maori, Moriori, Oceanians, Pacific, Philosophy, Polynesians, Race/Ethnicity, Regional

Gedalia Braun’s Piece on Africans

Sam: A possible explanation for Black behavior.

“…common understanding among blacks of what morality is: not something internalized but something others enforce from the outside…”

Tulio: Interesting article. But I’d like to examine multiple perspectives on this topic before I draw any conclusions. I’ve never been to Africa to observe her findings first hand, and given that the author writes for Amren, this individual has an obvious predisposition.

For example she speaks of cruelty and torture in Africa, but that has existed among whites as well. I’ve seen some of the torture devices used during Europe’s middle period. Even looking at them was unbearable. Even in this country witches were burned at the stake. Blacks were hung from trees on false accusations while whites stood around and cheered.

I don’t like her conclusion that blacks have some inherent flaw that makes them incapable of being moral or having any abstract thoughts. Google a list of African proverbs and they contradict everything she just said.

First of all, Gedalia Braun is a man, not a woman. No idea what that first name is all about.

I actually think he is onto something, especially as he lived in various African countries for many years. That was always one of my favorite articles on Amren. The odd thing about that article is that while is not real flattering towards Africans, the author doesn’t seem to hate Africans at all. In fact, it seems that he is rather fond of them despite it all.

I don’t think just writing for Amren should disqualify you as biased. One of the truly disturbing things about Amren that I learned from hanging out there a very long time is that so much of what those articles say is flat out true. That is hard to swallow. However, the site is dishonest and biased as it only reports the downside to Blacks and never says anything good about them, while I know some of you will be amazed, but there are actually quite a few good things you can say about US Blacks if you are looking to write good things about them.

The Black love of cruelty and sadism does seem to be a part of the race. Yes any culture can become extremely cruel and sadistic, even the “highest” races of all which can become downright genocidal under the right conditions of Organized Violence.  Not long ago, two of the “highest” races of all, the Germans and Japanese, engaged in some spectacular cruelty, sadism, out and out evil and even horrific genocide. And yes, European White did use to be quite sadistic and cruel as the torture devices indicate. However, under normal peacetime conditions, most European Whites in Europe and the West demonstrate remarkably little sadism and cruelty, while with Blacks, even US Blacks, it just seems to go on unabated.

I should note that cruelty and sadism are not Black traits. They are human traits! Humans are naturally cruel, sadistic and downright evil, at least at times. Most human societies and most humans have it in them to be sadistic and cruel. I was a pretty vicious little boy, but all my friends were too, so I just figure that boys are just naturally rather evil. But you grow out of it. I still have cruelty and sadism in me of course, but I try to keep it locked up in a cage inside of me and hope it never comes out. My argument is going to be that Blacks are more susceptible to the normal human tendencies than say Whites or Northeast Asians are, not that Blacks are evil and sadistic and White people are real nice. Screw that.

Some of those things may not be race-dependent. For instance, even if Blacks are bad at abstract thinking as a race, if you push their IQ up, their capacity for abstract thinking ought to grow quite a bit. African Americans appear to be dramatically more intelligent that Africans for whatever reason. One standard deviation is nothing to shake your finger at. Hence, even if US Blacks are have some inherent issue with abstract thinking, pushing that IQ up to one SD is going to make US Blacks a Hell of a lot more abstract than Africans.

I should also note that a number of the other downsides to Africans that he writes about – childlikeness, love of cruelty and sadism, needing morality imposed from the outside rather than from within

A lot of that has been said before. Albert Schweitzer wrote much the same things after working for years as a do-gooder in Africa. The fact that he was such a do-gooder makes his remarks particularly potent, as I do not see how a man with that much of a kind heart would deliberately make up a bunch of evil things about Blacks. In fact, if you study so called racist literature down through the years, you will find many of these things that Braun talks about repeated many times. Much early anthropological writings on Blacks are now called racist because they were pretty blunt about the race, whereas now the field is very PC.

For instance, the thing about Blacks being “childlike.” Childlike is not the same thing as childish. Childlike is not a bad thing really. I would love to be childlike in some ways and I hope I am, actually.

Early American writings including I think Thomas Jefferson noted the same thing: they also said that Blacks were childlike.

The morality thing sort of makes sense. In situations where brute force enforces morality, Blacks do pretty well. I heard they do pretty well under Communism. Supposedly you could walk from one end to the other of Maputo in the middle of the night and no one would bother you. Maputo is the capital of Mozambique.

That was under the Communist like government of Samora Machel, who is actually one of my heroes. Havana is the safest large city in the Americas and it is very Black. Blacks also do well under Islam. Reporters have gone to the parts of West Africa that are under Islam and they say that things are a lot smoother, less chaotic and far less crime ridden than in the non-Muslim countries like Sierra Leone and Liberia to the south.

I hear there are also many Blacks in Yemen, maybe up to 40%. They are light-skinned, but there is a lot of discrimination against them. Racially they look like Ethiopians, which is maybe what they are. They commit almost zero crime, even property crime.

Under both Islam and Communism, morality is for sure imposed from the outside in a pretty heavy handed way. It was similar in the typical African village or villages that was ruled by a king. I have heard that pre-1960, Nigeria was mostly a country of small rural villages. There was almost no crime in these villages.

Not only was law enforcement pretty brutal, there was also a heavy shame factor involved similar to what we see with the Northeast Asians, who do not want to commit crimes or even do bad things in general because it will bring shame unto their families. Amazingly rural Africa was able to operate under the same shame-based morality as the Northeast Asians, yet the NE Asians are usually thought to be a “higher” race than Africans. So it looks like some of those things that make these “higher” races higher can actually be imported and be used by the “lower” races, which seems counterintuitive but is also hopeful.

The notion that Black genes make societies inherently unstable is belied by the fact that North Africa (13% Black by genes) and the Gulf (17-21% Black by genes) are remarkable stable places under normal peacetime conditions.

Also Ancient Egypt was 13% Black by genes and it was one of the greatest countries in the history of the world. So Caucasians having a certain amount of Black genes is not the end of the world.


Filed under Africa, Anthropology, Antiquity, Asians, Blacks, Cultural, Egypt, Ethics, Europeans, History, Intelligence, Islam, Left, Marxism, Middle East, Mozambique, Nigeria, North Africa, Northeast Asians, Philosophy, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, South Africa, West Africa, Whites, Yemen

The Basque-Caucasian Hypothesis

I have gotten a lot of crap from my enemies for being on the site in the first place, but really anyone can join.

The following was posted by one of the reviewers in an Academia session by one of the leading lights of the Basque-Caucasian theory. As you can see, the mythological and multiple lines of genetic evidence are starting to pile up pretty nicely too. This is neat stuff if you are interested in the Basque-Caucasian link in addition to work going on into the remains of the Neolithic Farmers who were subsumed in the Indo-European waves. It turns out there is quite a bit left in different parts of Europe, especially in terms of Neolithic Farmer mythology.

From a discussion among academics and independent scholars on a paper on the Basque-Caucasian Theory in Historical Linguistics during a session in on Academia:

I am not a linguist but interested in the topic as it proposes a linguistic correlation between Caucasic languages and Basque, as it parallels my own current research on reconstructing European Paleolithic mythologies using ethnographic analogies constrained by on archaeogenetics and language macrofamily correlations.

Tuite (2006, 2004, 1998, 1997) has pointed out the hunter-gatherer beliefs and myth motifs shared across a ‘macro-Caucasic’ area to the Hindu Kush and into Western Europe. Basque deities Mari, Sugaar, and Ama Lurra and their associated mythologems have striking similarities to the macro-Caucasic hunter mythologies (not found in Finno-Ugric or Middle Eastern ancient mythologies.)

I am currently writing a paper identifying many examples of Southern/Western Gravettian art in Italy, Spain, southern France that appear to depict imagery only explicable by analogy to Macro-Caucasic religious myth and ritual.

With respect to mtDNA fossil genetics, three skeleton samples are from Paglicci Cave, Italy, ~25 cal BP: one is macro-N-mtDNA (homeland Caucasus/Caspian/Iran; currently highest frequencies Caucasus, Arabia), and two skeletons, RO/HV-mtDNA (homeland northern Middle East; currently highest frequencies, Basque, Syria, Gilaki, Daghestan).

During the later Magdalenian another diffusion occurs apparently by a similar route: HV4-mtDNA emerges in Belarus-Ukraine (~14±2 ka) and under Late Glacial Maximum HV4a (~13.5 ka) moves south and splits in the three refugia: southern Italy, southern Russia (HV4a1, ~10 ka), the Middle East (HV4a2, ~9 ka), and Basque area (HV4a1a, ~5 ka, suggesting full emergence of distinct Basque culture and language), (Gómez-Carballa, Olivieri et al 2012).

These studies further support the existence of a Macro-Basque-Caucasic mythological stratum as well as shared language substrate.

The cutting-edge liberal theory is that Basque (and some other odd far-flung languages) is part of the Caucasian language family. In other words, at one time, the Basques and the peoples of the Caucasus like Chechens were all one people.

What this probably represents is the ancient Neolithic farmers who covered Europe before the Indo-European invasion replaced almost all of the languages of Europe. All that is left is Basque and the peoples of the Caucasus. Everything in between got taken by IE except for some late movements by Uralic and Turkic speakers. Up in the north, the Lapp Uralic speakers are, like Basques, the last remains of the Neolithic farmers. The Sardinians also an ancient remaining group of these people, but their language has been surmounted recently by a Latinate tongue.

As it turns out, the Basques and Caucasians also share a number of cultural similarities. There are also some similar placenames. And there is some good genetic evidence connecting the Basques with the Caucasian speakers.

It’s all there, but the conservatives are balking, to put it mildly, about linking Basque with the Caucasian languages.

I have long believed in this theory.

I read a book over 20 years ago comparing Basque to the Caucasian languages and a few other distant tongues and thought the case was proved even via overkill by the book. And recent work is so super that one wonders why the conservatives are still winning. I feel that the link between Basque and the Caucasus languages is now proven to an obvious and detailed degree.


Filed under Anthropology, Antiquity, Art, Asia, Basque, Belarus, Caucasus, Cultural, Eurasia, Europe, France, Genetics, History, Iran, Isolates, Italy, Language Families, Linguistics, Middle East, Near East, Regional, Russia, Spain, Turkic, Ukraine