Category Archives: Ancient Greece

America Has Never Been a Democracy, Nor Was It Ever Intended to Be One

Another wonderful comment by the great Francis Miville!

There is a problem with American identity: its founding mythology, its Constitution which is supposed to be the result of an Enlightenment-Inspired humanistic democratic republican revolution against a colonial empire. This can be understandable in as much as most scholars tend not to know too much was the real Enlightenment movement was: a movement of the filthy rich of their times who wanted first and foremost to do away with the various particular and limited rights many rather modest or middle-rank people had inherited from the Christian Middle Ages on a caste-basis most of the times.

American-style slavery was the epitome of the ideals of Enlightenment as applied to political economy, and if you care to have a look, you will see that the bulk of the clientele of those ideologues were the slaving classes on both sides of the Atlantic. But the problem now is that the truth about 18th-century Enlightenment cannot be sold due to popular hope worldwide.

Another big identification problem stems from the very word “democracy”: in ancient Greek, it did not mean at all the modern ideal (not the reality) of a government held in check by the commoners’ right to depose tyrants and vote down laws felt as abusive, it never meant government of the people by the people for the people, it meant government by a single governing party (dêmos, from verb daiomai, I divide, I take apart, like the Latinate word party which is related to the very partire meaning taking apart) Eastern European style (minus any form of social ideal however mendacious) or by a closed-access class, and moreover it meant that this ruling party or class had or felt no responsibility towards greater good but cared for their group interests only as a gated community is managed.

It was not different from the modern concept of oligarchy. The ancient concept of oligarchy was rather government by a team so small that everybody knew who did what and who ordered what: as soon as the elite, while comprising no more than 1 or 2%, was just big enough for the power it exerted to be anonymous and without any real possibility of influence from any single individual within it, it was called dêmokratia, and especially when the real leaders preferred to keep their identity secret thanks to the anonymous crowd they manipulated at will, which was the case in Athens, whose symbol of the owl meant that very ideal of secrecy and shady dealings.

When such a ruling class or body felt responsibilities towards the greater good, the regime was no longer called a democracy but a timocracy (government according to honor fostered by personal contribution to the greater good): timocracy was a government of takers and givers, a democracy of takers only, and if you check on ancient Athenian mentality, it considered any form of productive work (poiesis), even the production of poems, a dishonor (another gross insult was demiurge, which meant nothing more than a productive artisan at the city’s disposal).

Greek had a word to denote the right of the commoners to vote down tyrants and bad laws, it was called laodicea (the common people judging), but the city that used this system existed in Phrygia only, in Asia Minor, not in Greece proper, who had too high an opinion of themselves as a superior kind over all humans to stoop down to such a regime. In the 18th century most scholars still knew more or less what real Athens was about in the Classical times, a government where the rich and well to do were told by no one they too had duties towards a higher political or moral authority. The partisans of “democracy” just wouldn’t admit to being compelled to practice the same religion as was needed to keep their inferiors in line.

That was the real meaning of “democracy” under Jefferson’s pen. The ideal sold thereafter to the European commoners was meant as a propaganda trick for useful idiots only, exactly like the worst aspects of totalitarian Marxism later on. That is the identity problem I would like to terminate as regards America.

In a certain sense, I want that country to turn officially fascist – that would be actually more in tune with the real Founding Fathers’ will. This country should no longer be declared to owe its existence to the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution, nor even to the Mayflower Pilgrims – neither describe its real essence in the ears of most.

The US should officially declare that it owes its existence as the first White predator political entity on the American continent to the Viking invader Eric the Red. All Americans should idealize the conquering Viking as their ideal ancestor, thanks to whose blood and example the Wild West could be conquered as a prelude to the imperialistic conquest of the whole world.

America did not appear on the map devising a perfect constitution for the human gender; it appeared as a reality of the soil of its continent as an enterprise to genocide all Indians and all other all-too-romantic bums of that kind to make room for slaving plantations furnished with Negroes and Irishmen.

The main difference with Nazi Germany is that Nazi Germany postulated that the Germanic race was the only worthwhile and successful predator in the world and could propagate only through physical breeding. On the other hand, America postulates that the Viking predator, apart from having ideal blood, has even more value as the most perfect example anybody in the world can follow as a model of self-transformation into a monster, though some races like the Viking-descendant Wasps and some Jews are statistically nearer that ideal type than others.

The US should officially declare itself to be the fatherland of all predators of the world, and of all religions having declared war against common humanity. Any delinquent in the world committing vicious acts of predation or betrayal against their community of origin (as the Vikings were for instance, and as the Jews were according the American Protestant ideal of what a Biblical Jew should be) should be considered a de facto American citizen.

LBJ used to say, in order to justify his policy of desegregation and the temporary establishment of his Grand Society, that the real reason for his move was for the elite to be able to roll back America to official racism and segregation. This was badly needed prelude to get the White Trash ready for a future in which they would be prepared to jettison all human rights and accept a dictatorship together with an Indian-style caste society in exchange for their only real dearest right, that of knowing that however hard they have it, Blacks will have it ten times as hard as servants of the lowest of their own servants, as quoth the Bible.

And I think that time has come. Ideally, the future official religion of such a country formed during or after a second Civil War to come as a revenge for the first should be some form of Hinduism, with the Jews being the Brahmins, the Vikings being the Kshatriyas, and the contemporary Indians being the Vaishyas.

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.


Filed under American, Amerindians, Ancient Greece, Antiquity, Blacks, Civil Rights, Colonialism, Culture, Democrats, Europe, Europeans, Fascism, Germany, Government, History, Irish, Jews, Left, Marxism, Modern, National Socialism, Nazism, North America, Philosophy, Political Science, Politics, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, Sociology, US, US Politics, USA, Whites

Alt Left: Gay Men Like Em Young

Hood: Sir

Gays and Pedophilia

When a straight man looks at an unusually mature 12 year old girl he thinks…”I know she is only 12 and I won’t do it even though she looks older.”

Gay men like Kevin Spacey do not seem to have this moral sense or switch. They see a 12 year old boy and they think “his ass is firm and tight.”

I don’t know that gays have the same moral sense about sexual behavior that straight men do. It seems to be a part of their genetic makeup that is missing.

It may be wired in somehow.

  • Peak age preference for heterosexual men: 20-25 year old women.
  • Peak age preference for gay men: 18-20 year old men.

I am not sure how it ends up that way, but it does.

  • 25% of gay men over age 23 have had sex with a boy 13-15.
  • 6% of straight men over age 23 have had sex with a girl 13-15.

Gay men are much more into those teenage boys than they are into those little boys. That gay men like teenage boys has been known since Antiquity (Ancient Greece) and continues to this day in Afghanistan. If we move the age range of teenage boys up to 16-17, you will get an even higher figure. Or just read Death in Venice for that matter.

Older gay men who prefer teenage boys are called chicken hawks. They often use teenage boy prostitutes. Many of these boys are runaways. Gay districts of Los Angeles (West Hollywood), San Francisco (Polk Street is notorious for underage male prostitution), and New York (West Village) are full of teenage boy prostitutes working the streets, many of whom are runaways. I remember reading articles about this phenomenon all the way back in the 1970’s. People have known about this forever.

A gay man is 12X more likely to molest a child 12-under than a straight man is. There is a lot of overlap between homosexuality and pedophilia. That said, the vast majority of gay men are not pedophilic or child molesters.

Gay men like ’em young. Everyone knows that. Why they are like that, no one seems to know.

1 Comment

Filed under Afghanistan, Ancient Greece, Antiquity, Culture, Ephebephilia, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, History, Homosexuality, Man World, Pedophilia, Psychology, Regional, Romantic Relationships, Sex, South Asia

Cultural Left Theory of Homophobia: The Cultural Left Is Wrong Again

The Cultural Left says straight men are afraid of gay men if they are afraid of being gay themselves or if they have gay tendencies themselves. There is no evidence whatsoever for this, but obviously reaction formation does form in some straight men who have some minor gay tendencies but deny them. There are also a few closeted gay men who are very self-hating such as Omar Mateen, the Orlando shooter. But by and large, it’s just not true.

The corollary of this silliness is if you are secure about your masculinity, you do not fear or hate gay men. So straight men who fear or hate men are not secure about their masculinity. This stupid lie is just not true, though of course it may be true in a few cases where you see some projection and especially reaction formation defenses.

What I have noticed in my life is the opposite: the more masculine or macho the man is, the more he fears or more properly hates gay men. At the very least, they make him very uncomfortable and they do not want to get close to them. They also do not want to be seen out in public with a gay man for fear that people will think that they are gay too.

The masculine the man is, the more uncomfortable he is around gay men. And the most masculine men of all were the most homophobic of all. These were men who straight up say things like, “I hate faggots!” They also tend to vastly overestimate the number of gay men and seem to think that ~20% of the straight male population is gay because they are not masculine enough for these guys. Any straight man who doesn’t measure up in the masculinity department is automatically seen as gay by this type of men.

I have been around an awful lot of men in my life and I have had probably hundreds of male friends. Of course most all of my good friends have been straight because frankly I do not associate with gay men, and I think this is very much for the best because to me they are nothing but trouble with a T.

The interesting thing that I have noticed is that many straight men are not exactly completely straight. They are straight of course because they are maximally attracted to women and much of their lives revolve around women. However, quite a few men like this do have some minor gay feelings.

Of course, the Cultural Left  would say that these men are gay because the Cultural Left scum want to claim as many gay men as possible for their sick Gay Agenda. According to the Cultural Left, any man who has any gay feelings at all is automatically a homosexual! This is absolutely insane, as minor gay feelings among straight men are about as common as weeds. They’re everywhere.

Look at the chart below.

100-0: Maximum heterosexual, minimum homosexual
90-10: Maximum heterosexual, incidental homosexual
80-20: Maximum heterosexual, significant homosexual
70-30: Maximum heterosexual, strong homosexual
60-40: Maximum heterosexual, very strong strong homosexual
50-50: Maximum heterosexual, maximal homosexual
40-60: Maximum homosexual, very strong heterosexual
30-70: Maximum homosexual, strong heterosexual
20-80: Maximum homosexual, significant heterosexual
10-90: Maximum homosexual, incidental heterosexual
0-100: Maximum homosexual, minimal heterosexual

According to the best data that I have, 62% of all men are 100-0’s. Nevertheless, I am convinced that many or most 100-0’s are capable of having sex with males and even enjoying it if the culture opens the door wide for such things. We have only to look at cultures like Afghanistan and Ancient Greece and Rome to see that in some cultures, up to 95% of men engage in homosexuality. No doubt most of them are 100-0’s, assuming the 62% figure is a biological average.

The best study I have seen is that 38% of all men have some level of gay feelings, albeit generally at a low level. Most of these men are 90-10’s and 80-20’s. I am convinced that men like this are everywhere in the straight community, and you can’t spot them. Probably only 6% of men actually lean gay according to one study. Since minor gay feelings are quite common in straight men, why should it be so shocking that some men have issues with these feelings, do not like them, and possibly defend against them via reaction formation? It should not be surprising at all.

I have noticed in my life that the more a straight man was ok with homosexuality, especially to the point of being almost violently ok with it like, “There’s nothing wrong with it! There’s nothing wrong with it! Who cares!” that if I watched that man for a number of years, quite a few of them engaged in gay activities with other men, I would say at least once.

The ones that I followed up had all been predominantly straight when I knew them. They were somewhere  between 90-10’s to 60-40’s. The gay activity phase was in their late teens to early 20’s, and it seemed like they aged out of it after a bit. A few were in it for the money. These were very goodlooking mostly straight men who hooked up with older gay men who became their sugar daddies in order to get nice clothes, lots of money, fancy cars, etc. It was pretty close to being male prostitution. However, even this phase did not seem to last long, and they often aged out of it.

The last I heard about most of them was that they were living in a big house somewhere married to a woman, and they had a couple of kids. In other words, they were regular suburban husbands and fathers. As the obviously leaned straight anyway (so for all intents and purposes were straight) it makes perfect sense that they trended towards marriage, children and a house in the suburbs by their 20’s and 30’s like most straight men.

The gay stuff seemed to be a more  minor interest that they grew out of. Keep in mind that I did not monitor these men closely because very soon after I found out they were having sex with men, I bailed on them because I am not going to associate with you if you are doing such things. Instead I simply heard about what they were up to.

So I am a bit wary of straight men who are vehemently to almost violently “ok” with gay men. I consider it a warning sign of some incipient bisexuality. There just a bit too “ok” with homosexual behavior, wink wink.

Yet, I have noticed  that many regular straight men who were anywhere from 100-0’s to possibly 80-0’s do have some minor gay interest. How do I know this? Because they tried to have sex with me, that’s how! This happened especially when I was young and I was reportedly a very goodlooking man. I had offers to be a male model, and I even interviewed for an agency. As I pointed out, these men are not gay at all (a 100-0 to 80-20 is considered a straight man), but let’s put it this way, an awful lot of straight men, while often extremely heterosexual, are not exactly completely straight if you catch my drift.

Anyway, the Cultural Left line is a lie. The Cultural Left says the more secure you are with your masculinity or heterosexuality, the more ok you are with gay men, and the more worried you are about your masculinity or heterosexuality, the more you fear and hate gay men. This theory is not only wrong, it’s completely backwards!

I have observed that instead of the most uncertain men being the most homophobic, it’s the other way around. The more strongly and solidly to unmovably heterosexual (the type who say they would not have gay sex if you put a gun to their head) a man is, the more uncomfortable he is around gay men, and often the more he dislikes gay men. And there is much better correlation with masculinity. The more hypermasculine or macho the man is, the more he dislikes gays even to the point of hating them.

So the Cultural Left has it backwards. It’s the studs and the he-men who are the most homophobic of straight men, not the men who are most worried about their masuclinity and heterosexuality. And the more accepting a man is of homosexuality, instead of making him more securely straight as the Cultural Left theory says, instead this is correlated with a willingness to engaging in sex with men.


Filed under Afghanistan, Ancient Greece, Antiquity, Culture, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Left, Man World, Roman Empire, Sex, South Asia

Last Word on Phoenicians, Phonetics, Etc.

It looks like we finally got the answer to whether Phoenician and phonetic, phonology, phone, phoneme, etc. are related – they are not, but both are from Greek words. Phonetic, phone, phonology, phoneme, etc. are derived from Greek Phonein, which means quite logically “to sound.” Phoenician, on the other hand, derives from a Greek word Phoenikoi for the people and region, derived from the word Phoenix which originally meant a particular conch shell that yielded a nice purple dye and later acquired the meaning via legend of a bird that rises from the ashes after it dies. I am not sure what the Phoenikoi were named after – perhaps the conch shell?

Anyway, the roots have no relationship to each other, but it was a nice hypothesis anyway. “Scientists” always like to chortle with ridicule at the notion of a “bad hypothesis” but I think in many cases, most hypotheses that seem prima facie reasonable are not bad hypotheses. Furthermore, I dislike the very notion of bad hypotheses as it smacks of the horrific arrogance all of the sciences engage in these days, even the ridiculous fake social “sciences” like my own pitiful specialty, Linguistics.

Miville writes:

Phonein (to sound) should first be sounded as the ancient Athenians did: not phoney-in, but pf-hone-een (or pf-honey-an as the Spartans did): the important thing is to try to sound out an f not with the teeth against the upper lip but with both lips as gently as to let off a beautiful soap bubble instead of ordinary spittle.

The Romans despite being the new lords on the block felt they were no match for Greece however decadent and derelict so they made that effort to sound the Greek ph the Greek way rather than like their own f, at least so as to spit gracefully down upon their own people, hence the spelling we inherited from them despite the fact no longer any Roman nor Greek knows any other sound than our own vulgar present f.

Phonein in Greek is written with an Omega, which was sounded Oh like in OMG in Athens and like Awe or (Golden) Dawn in Sparta. Phoenicia is derived, as regards the Greek language, from Phoenix, which was written with the false diphthong (original simple sound lacking a proper letter in the alphabet and therefore written two ones) oi which bore but little relationship whatever with either simple o or Omega and was rather sounded œ as in German Goethe or u as in turn depending on the city. Phonein meant to sound, phoenix rather derives from a word meaning a conch, the particular one whence came a very precious dark red dye, purpur or purple.

It also meant a legendary bird capable of rebirth after having passed through burnt offering. The legend was common (and still is in works such as the One and Thousand Nights) to all Near and Middle Eastern countries and the red color also pictured the Rising Sun, the Orient, hence the name given to the mariners stemming from the land of the rising sun also most renowned for its production of purple dye from the conch and for having given to Greece the alphabet.

The Phoenicians themselves called their own language and nationality Cana’an, so the name we use is a pure Greek creation, like the name Greek which is a Roman appellation for a people who call themselves Hellenes. The letters, of Phoenician origin, meant sounds, or phonemata.

The conch could also be used as a sounding horn, as is the symbol of the primeval creating divine vibration in many cultures, apart from the fact that in many languages a telephone receiver can be called a conch (Muschel in German). The proximate sounds, however, prove no common etymology, even though they are marvelous for poetry.

The early Roman soldiers when it came to name the same people that had settled Carthage did not make the effort their betters made when trying to pronounce Greek names and sounded Phoenikoi like Punici, simplifying the very peculiar Greek ph into p rather than into f. By regressive derivation they likened the word to their own poena, a punishment, and to the verb punire, but there is no common etymology.


Filed under Afroasiatic, Ancient Greece, Antiquity, Greek, Hellenic, History, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Indo-Irano-Armeno-Hellenic, Language Families, Linguistics, Roman Empire, Science, Semitic

Alexander of Macedon

Ah yes, Alexander the Great. Perhaps the greatest military strategist that even lived, no?

But what did he want? What were his goals? William Woodthorpe Thorn, the great classicist, birthed the Napoleonic notion that Alexander was after nothing more than “the Brotherhood of Man” or uniter of nations. This view was later popularized by Mary Renault in a series of popular novels.

I disagree.

Alexander wanted merely the same thing that all other conquerors (and all colonists for that matter) want:

  1. Land
  2. Money

In other words, the booty.

Let’s not romanticize these militarists too much.


Filed under Ancient Greece, Antiquity, Colonialism, History, Literature, Political Science

The Proto-Hellenic Homeland

The proto-Greek homeland prior to 4000 YBP.

From Indo-European linguist V. I. Georgiev:

The Proto-Greek region included Epirus, approximately up to Αυλών in the north including Paravaia, Tymphaia, Athamania, Dolopia, Amphilochia, and Acarnania), west and north Thessaly (Hestiaiotis,, Perrhaibia, Tripolis, and Pieria), i.e. more or less the territory of contemporary northwestern Greece)

So prior to 4000 YBP, the proto-Greeks were already in Greece. When did they come there? Sometime between 4800 YBP and 4000 YBP. Who was already there? Probably some sort of non-Indo-European group that that existed in Greece prior to the Greeks. There are many non-IE words in the Greek language and placenames in Greece and the surrounding area.

These people are generally called Pelgasians, but no one quite knows who they were. A relationship with the Etruscans of Italy is possible. They may also have been a non-IE group from Anatolia or from the Caucasus. At any rate, the Greeks moved in over 4000 years ago and intermingled with the people already there, creating the Greek people who created Classical Greece 1,500 years later.

Where did the proto-Greeks come from? No one seems to know, but it’s generally thought that they came from somewhere to the north.


Georgiev, Vladimir Ivanov. 1981. Introduction to the History of the Indo-European Languages. Publishing House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. pp. 156.


Filed under Ancient Greece, Antiquity, Europe, Greece, Greek, Hellenic, History, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Indo-Irano-Armeno-Hellenic, Language Families, Linguistics, Regional

The Rapid Spread of a Great Idea

The spread of chariots in all directions from their birth in northwest Kazakhstan 4000 YBP.

Wow! Look at how fast a great idea spreads. The spoke-wheeled chariot was invented by the Indo-European (IE) people in NW Kazakhstan 2000 YBP. The culture was called the Andronovo culture and appears to be proto-Indo-Iranian. From there, next it goes to the BMAC in Turkmenistan only 200 years later.

Next, 3600 YBP, all the way to the coast of China, probably via the IE Tocharian people.

Then, 3500 YBP, to Swat in Pakistan, all the way through Iran to Anatolia and then all the way down through the Levant to Egypt!

Then, 3300 YBP, to Greece and all the way to northern Europe around southern Sweden, northern Germany, Denmark and Holland. Note that there were not yet any Germanic people in that area yet. I am not sure if the ancient Greeks were yet in Greece. They may have just arrived from parts unknown.

By 3200 YBP, they were in Punjab writing the Rig Veda.

By 2600 YBP, chariots had spread all the way to France and the lower half of Iberia.

By 2500 YBP, all the way to southern England.

Once you come up with a great idea, it spreads pretty fast!

The horse was domesticated on the Pontic Steppe about 6000 YBP. The Pontic Steppe extends about from Ukraine across southern Russia through the Volga Basin past the Urals and down into Northern Kazakhstan. This area is known as “the steppes.” The horse was not particularly important militarily for the next 2000 years.

However, the invention of the chariot suddenly made the horse very important for military reasons. Near Eastern empires show an intense interests in the chariot for this reason from 3800 YBP. It’s not often stated, but the chariot was probably one of the great military inventions of all time.


Filed under Africa, Ancient Greece, Animals, Antiquity, Asia, China, Culture, Domestic, Egypt, Eurasia, Europe, Greece, History, Horses, Iran, Kazakhstan, North Africa, Pakistan, Regional, Russia, South Asia

More Nordicist and White Nationalist Insanity

We have a Nordicist in our comments section, posting on the thread about racial decline in Egypt.

According to most of these guys, race-mixing, in and of itself and independent of the stocks being mixed, causing automatic degeneration of any populations subjected to such mixing. This is obvious nonsense. In a region where a lesser stock exists, mixing via invasion or migration with a better stock with improve the overall quality of the stock. Race mixing can go either way depending on the stocks being mixed.

Ask any animal or plant breeder if mixing stocks causing automatic and immediate degeneration of the stocks involved. All animal husbandry and agriculture is based on “race-mixing” of various stocks to produce this or that breed.

Examples are given of “mongrelized” stocks such as in North Africa, the Arab World, Central Asia and South Asia. First of all, there’s not a lot of evidence that these stocks are any more mongrelized than anybody else, and there’s no evidence that race mixing caused any kind of stock decline over the years. Hell, it may well have improved matters. As I said, mixing can go one one way or the other. Were North Africans, Arabs and Central and South Asians really so superior before they got racially mixed? The evidence for this is about zero.

This commenter also pointed out some other White nationalist and Nordicist lies.

One is the age-old lie that ancient Greeks and Romans were Nordic Whites and that the declines of these empires occurred slowly over time as they got mixed with more and more “niggerish” (mixed with Black, Arab and Berber) genes. There’s little to no evidence for this. The ancient Romans were just Italians. The present day Italians are descendants of the Romans. The ancient Greeks were just Greeks. Present day Greeks are the descendants of the ancients.

Whether or not racial decline occurred in Egypt or not is up for grabs. Ancient Egypt was about 9% Black genetically. Modern Egyptians are about 20% Black. Between the time of ancient Egypt and modern Egypt, the Black % has about doubled. There are zero anthropologists who suggest that race mixing caused the decline of Egyptian Empire.

Further, ancient Egyptians were not really European Whites. They were Arabids and Berberids, the same “niggerish” stocks that supposedly caused the collapse of Rome and Greece!

The Egyptian Empire started in 3150 BC and lasted until 60 BC. Decline began to set in around 600 BC or so, about 80% of the way through the history of the empire. It progressed during the time of Alexander in 300 BC and by the time the Romans conquered, the Empire was on its last legs.

The same commenter says that North America used to be populated by Whites called Solutreans 20,000 YBP. There is zero evidence that these “Whites” in Europe ever made it to North America, and anyway, no one knows if Europeans of 20,000 YBP looked like Whites. Europeans of 30,000 YBP looked more like the Amerindians of the Washington State coast than any other race.

Supposedly, Asiatics in the form of Amerindians came across the Bering Strait and genocided the Whites of North America. This theory has interesting implications. It implies that North America is White land, not Indian land, and that Indians are not the natives and that they have no right to be here, completely the obverse of the standard narrative of Indians as natives and Whites as invaders and usurpers.

This commenter also holds that the ancient Polynesians were Whites called “the Lapita people.” Later on, the Polynesians “sea-niggers” showed up and genocided the ancient Whites. This theory appears to be utter nonsense. The Lapita came from Taiwan and were some of the greatest mariners who ever lived. They became the Filipinos, Indonesians, Polynesians, Micronesians and Melanesians.

The story of the racial decline of Portugal has been discussed previously on this site. First of all, we need to realize that most WN’s are Nordicists who think that Southern Europeans are non-Whites because they are Whites who have mixed with “niggerish” types like Blacks, Berbers and Arabs.

The notion is that Portugal was once a great White country = Nordic country. This follows from the north of Portugal, Lusitania, having Celtic roots. Over time, the niggerish genes moved in, and Portugal declined.

But the timeline is all messed up. The Black genes probably came in during the Roman Empire and not later. The Arab and Berber genes came in during the Arab conquest of Iberia, but this was before Portugal was a great power, not after. After Portugal became a great power, there were few to no Berber, Arab or Black genes added to the stock. The decline of Portugal followed logically from the decline of all colonial European powers, and race had nothing to do with it.


Filed under Africa, Americas, Amerindians, Ancient Greece, Anthropology, Antiquity, Arabs, Berbers, Blacks, Egypt, Europe, European, Europeans, History, Mixed Race, Nordicism, North Africa, North Africans, North America, Oceanians, Physical, Polynesians, Portugal, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Roman Empire, The Americas, White Nationalism, Whites

The Out of India Model for Indo-European

Related to “There was no Aryan Invasion” folks, mostly Hindu nationalists and Indian nationalists.

Out of India Model. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia page makes it seem somewhat plausible. It’s not. Not plausible, that is. It’s nonsense. Indo-European speakers did not come out of India. India is not the homeland of the Indo-Europeans. The true homeland is in far southern Russia north of the Caucasus, or, even better, in Anatolia.

This is what really happened: an Indo-Aryan migration. Read through that piece and it becomes quite clear that this is what really happened. Part of the problem is with the word invasion. There was no invasion. They just moved in.

Michael Witzel, a Sanskritist, has been in the forefront of attacking the Out of India model. Here is a good page savaging most of their arguments. He takes apart one of their leader proponents, N. Kazanas of Greece, a guy who is little more than a dilettante. It takes a little while to get through this stuff as it’s a bit heavy going, but I was able to do it. Once you do it, the Out of India Theory lies in ruins.

One of the OOI arguments is that Indo-Aryan peoples have no memory of a migration. But who does anyway? Most IE peoples do not remember their obvious migrations either. Romans said they came from Troy. This is a lie. Gypsies say they came from Egypt. Fiction.

Here is an argument against an Indo-Aryan incursion:

we have an archaeologically attested culture of many centuries if not millennia with undoubted literacy but without any traces of religious texts, legal codes, scientific works and even simple secular fables (except most laconic legends on indecipherable seals), and, in quick succession, even as the older culture declines, an intrusive illiterate people with no archaeological attestation at all who yet produce within a few centuries (according to the AIT) all the literature that was missing from the previous culture.

This is a unique situation that makes little sense.

However, this very thing happened in Greece. First, a Minoan cult, a Helladic civilization, but no literary texts, then, in a few centuries, then, within a few centuries, an explosion of literature, poetry, religion, philosophy, the Homeric texts, etc. Further, it does not produce “all the literature that was missing from the previous civilization. It produces new literature at a very rapid pace – see the Yayoi invasion of Japan from Korea and the rapid replacement of the Jomon culture for something similar.

Another argument is that archeologically, the record of civilization in India is continuous – that is, there is no obvious disruption dating from an Aryan invasion. However, as a general rule, culture, archeologically, is continuous in all parts of the world. Culture is continuous in Europe too, and we know full well that Indo-Europeans took over and supplanted earlier groups. Is there a record of this takeover culturally? Well no, but it happened.

However, keep in mind that horses and chariots showed up with the Indo-Aryans and were not found in India previously. OOI folks say silly things like, “Egyptians had chariots too” (Point being?). Anyway, horses and chariots did not develop in India. They came down from the steppes with the I-A speakers.

Surely if OOI is true than Sanskrit would be the most ancient IE language. It’s not at all. It only goes back 3,500 years too. The Anatolian branch may well date back 8,000 years.

If OOI is true than borrowings from other Indian languages such as Dravidian and Munda would be found in all branches of IE, no? But of course they are only found in Indic, which we would expect if Indic speakers migrated into India and not out of it.

Going back to pre-Indo-Aryan times, paleontologists find differences between bones even between Mohenjo Daro and Harappa. Also, there are no I-A bones found here. Of course not. Aryans will not show up for 1000’s of years.

Yes, Harappans built wheels, but they built no spoke-wheeled chariot. This came only with the Aryans. OOI folks have no explanation for this.

Indeed, Aryan chariots are built from woods from the Punjab plain, not wood from say the steppes. But this is not a valid OOI argument. Invaders always use whatever is available. Aryan immigrants brought chariot technology with them from the steppes. To make chariots in their new homeland, they used local wood. This is surprising?


Filed under Anatolian, Ancient Greece, Anthropology, Antiquity, Asia, Asian, Culture, Dravidian, Ethnic Nationalism, Eurasia, Europe, History, India, Indic, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Indo-Iranian, Indo-Irano-Armenian, Indo-Irano-Armeno-Hellenic, Language Families, Linguistics, Nationalism, Paleontology, Political Science, Regional, Russia, Sanskrit, Scholarship, South Asia

Peter Tobin “Clarifying the Primitive Communism Question”

The previous post on primitive communism was attacked by rightwing capitalist ideologues who insisted that primitive man did not live under primitive communism at all.

Peter Tobin responds:

These folks are profoundly wrong and apparently have read nothing, never mind bothering to find out what Marx and Engels actually said. Their knowledge appears to be derived from the first twenty minutes of Kubrick’s 2001.

Engels, rather than Marx, is pre-dominant in this area as the term arises in his seminal work Origins of the Family, Private Property and State. The key work that inspired them work was the American Morgan’s groundbreaking Ancient Society.

What Morgan does, in a serious materialist way, is to trace human progress from, what he terms, savagery to civilization. What Engels takes from this is that there are identifiable stages in human social evolution. So the primitive stage is sub-divided into lower, middle and upper stages. In the lower stage there were no classes, and state and economic relationships were broadly egalitarian. Hence there was a collective right to basic resources, and the question of a superior authority (kings, priests or elders) did not arise.

Morgan himself speculated on the “liberty, equality and fraternity of the ancient gentes.” He even finds contemporary evidence in the layout of the Native American village, which he calls “communism in living.”

At this time family groups were consanguine, and Engels refers to these family groups as the “original communistic common household” which lasted to the late middle stage of barbarism. There was even group marriage and incest, which existed in Polynesia and lasted until quite recently (to the horror of Christian missionaries). He does not hold this that stage up for emulation, instead, “communism” is used a technical terms to denote the “sharing” of sex with a related group.

This stage gave way to new household communities (Hausgemeinden), which Morgan calls the punaluan family, which prohibits sex between brothers and sisters and children and parents, but allows it between cousins. But this is not the bourgeois form of the family where one man possesses and dominates one women, as women were common wives and men were common husbands.

Far from extolling the former, Engels make the point that as it withered, the human stock grew stronger and better by outbreeding as opposed to inbreeding.

The other important factor that must be considered is the emergence of man as a hunter of animals and hence an omnivore. His brain grew bigger and his teeth smaller. What is salient here is the behavioral changes took place, especially in the process of socialization. In order to hunt effectively man had to organize communally and develop stratagems for success.

Consider, by contrast, the earlier hominids, such as the australopithecines, who were herbivores and consequently had larger teeth and smaller brains – a trait shared by many vegetarian animals today.

You can all these forms, “communist,” “socialist,” “communal” or whatever nomenclature denotes shared activity, because this phenomena is self-evident.

These stages gave way as man settled down and took up agriculture. Private property and the growth of surplus and authority became prevalent, although residual forms of the earlier stages continued.

For example, Grote, in his History of Greece, defining the characteristics of the emerging Greek tribes, found evidence of: common religious ceremonies, common burial, common rights of inheritance, common obligation to help the tribe in times of struggle, and the common ownership of property, while at the same time he noted the growth of authority figures, kings, priests, lawgivers and even treasurers.


Engels, Frederick. 2001 (1884). Origins of the Family, Private Property and State. Honolulu, HA: University Press of the Pacific.

Grote, George. 2000 (1846-1856). The History of Greece: From the Time of Solon to 403 B. C. London: Routledge.

Morgan, Lewis H. 1887. Ancient Society, or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery Through Barbarism to Civilization. London: MacMillan & Company.


Filed under Ancient Greece, Anthropology, Antiquity, Cultural, Economics, Guest Posts, History, Left, Marxism, Physical