Category Archives: Race/Ethnicity

The Chukchi – A Glimpse into An Ancient Past?

Mike: Are the Chukchi actually Paleomongoloids?

Actually, I believe that they are Ancient NE Asians. This race lived from 10-20,000 YBP and gave strong inputs to NE Asians and also most Caucasians, even Europeans. The race seemed to have characteristics similar to what a precursor to the Caucasian and NE Asian races would look like.

The bizarre thing about Chukchis is that on autosomal DNA charts, they are actually all the way over into the Caucasian square! Just barely, but they are there all right. I tell this to people, and they flip out and say, “But they look Asian!” Indeed they do. It is with races like the Chukchis where racial terms like “Caucasian” and “Asian” lose their meaning. I believe that the Chukchi are ancient proto-Caucasian-NE Asians.

Another group that may well be remnants of the Ancient NE Asians may be the Ainu, but they only showed up 14,000 YBP, and by that time, the Ancient Northeast Race was well underway. However, the Ainuid types seem to have spread out quite a bit. Remains from Northern China from 9,000 YBP appear Ainuid. Ainuid or Australoid types were the first people to come to the Americas. There are a few tribes left who seem to be the remnants of these ancient people. One was an extinct tribe in Baja California called the Guaycuru. I am thinking that the Gilyak may also be part of this ancient race. In phenotype, the Gilyak look more Japanese to me than anything else.

The Ancient NE Asian Race may well have been an Australoid type race. Australoid inputs were significant in the formation of the Caucasoid race. An ancient Caucasoid skull from Southern Russia from 33,000 YBP has been classed “Australoid” based on skull type.

The Australoids were in a sense the original Out of Africa people. Yes, they are primitive, sure, but do you think our most ancient ancestors, the OOA people from 70,000 YBP, were not primitive?

4 Comments

Filed under Ainu, Anthropology, Asia, Asians, China, Eurasia, Europeans, History, Northeast Asians, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Russia, The Americas

Yes, “Soft” Bad Boys Exist in the US

Jose: Here this kind of androgyne or quasi androgyne “bad boys” maybe exist in some little circles, like between goths or something like these. Because there is no place for them being seen as “bad boys” if are quite feminine. Real “bad boys” will kick their asses. A punk, skater, hip hopper, etc., can be accepted as bad boys (according to their behavior obviously). But not effeminate men. They will be mocked, and common “quiet” men will not take them as “bad”.

If a quite effeminate men have wild behavior, at some point, they moment will have to change their feminine side or hide it because he will have problems every day if he deals with “bad boys”. He will be mocked and attacked.

For being a thug you have to act like if you were in jail or something like this. Dress is not so important, as long as you don’t dress effeminate (this can carry many problems).

In other Latin American countries probably this goes much deeper. Something dressed like Marylin Manson or David Bowie pretending being bad (even if is bad) can’t walk quiet in the street with that attitude. It have to “accept” the mocking and be taken as a “faggot”. I think in Paraguay or even little cities of my region of Argentina if someone is like this, people will not be quiet even in a normal neighborhood. Normal people will mock someone like this, not only “bad boys”. Not to mention in working-class places or some towns that are quasi-rural and people that live there are entirely from working-class and lower-class.

In big cities it’s different because people are accustomed to see “rare” persons like that.

Effeminate and feminine are not the same thing. Effeminate means acting like a woman. Here in the US, mostly only homosexual men act truly effeminate. This is the sort of “faggoty” behavior seen in ~75% of gay men. But effeminate straight men are quite rare. I would be surprised in 1% of straight men are effeminate.

These guys were not really feminine at all, but they do have a soft side. The guys I knew were pretty bad. They were juvenile delinquents, drug dealers, surfers and they stole things like ten speeds and marijuana plants. They were almost like gang or street kids. But they were masculine enough that no one would ever want to fight them. It’s just that you could see a feminine side going in a lot of them. In the US we have quite a few men who have a very strong masculine side and then they have a pretty strong feminine side going too. As long as they have that good strong masculine side going, no will fight them or even mess with them. I knew some guys like this who were criminals! One guy was a huge drug dealer in San Fransisco. He kept his cocaine in one house, lived in another house, and I forget what the 3rd house was for.

You are confusing effeminate and feminine. Effeminate means acting like a woman. Feminine is just a soft sort of guy. But a lot of White men have hard and soft going at the same time because you can do that in our culture. As long as people can see that masculine side, no one cares about the soft stuff. It sort of becomes invisible. Plus if you have a strong enough masculine side going, most men just leave you alone, don’t challenge you, don’t mock you or make fun of you, and don’t start fights with you.

I live in what is almost a ghetto. It’s a barrio. But no one ever starts one single thing with me here. No one bugs me, starts fights with me, or even insults me. But I have a strong masculine side, and I get into it in this hood, and a lot of people have told me I look scary. One advantage to looking scary is that most people pretty much leave you alone and don’t fuck with you.

This why I doubt Trash’s comments that a White man will get his ass kicked or robbed for sure in this type of neighborhood.

But in US White society, you do not have to be macho or hypermasculine like in Latin American society. Here in the US a soft man can be a bad boy or even a criminal. For instance, I get called bad boy quite a bit. People see me in a store or something, and they start laughing and say, “Hey there, bad boy!” Or I will be talking to a woman and I give her one of my million dollar smiles and she starts laughing and says, “Ohhhh, you’re a bad boy!” And I am a pretty damn soft guy. But somehow I give off a bad boy vibe somehow.

Here in US White society, a bad boy is any sort of rebel who looks like he doesn’t play by the rules and has a sort of devilish air about him. Macho or hypermasculine behavior is not necessary anymore.

I used to wear men’s kimonos! I wore these things called short kimonos. It is actually Japanese men’s wear. You wear it over a shirt and pants. A lot of guys did hate it when I wore that. I would see guys who looked like they wanted to beat me up when they saw me wear that. But nothing ever happened. Plus women loved it when I wore that kimono. They went nuts over that thing, while the guys acted like I was wearing a dress and they wanted to beat me up.

But at that time, I was also a punk rocker with a permanent scowl who wore lots of leather and spikes. A lot of people acted like they were afraid of me, and usually nobody started anything.

20 Comments

Filed under Argentina, Culture, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Latin America, Man World, North America, Paraguay, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Sex, South America, USA, Whites

PUA/Game: A Lot of Women Go Nuts for “Pure Androgynes”

Jason Y: A suspected queer in the family. Great, another way for the narcissist to feel superior.

He is not a suspected queer. Only the NPD called him gay. No one else in the family ever did. In fact, if you called my friend gay to the rest of the family, they would start laughing so hard they would almost fall on the floor. It’s because he’s the opposite of gay. It’s like laughing at a very skinny man trying to insult him by calling him fat. It’s preposterous.

That’s because my friend is so hyper-heterosexual that he is almost like the most wildly heterosexual man that ever lived. Even though he is rather “feminine” (quiet, soft, likes to read and write, and I think he even sews and knits lol) in some ways, he is not effeminate (acting like  a woman) at all.

All these PUA guys go on and on about acting masculine, but you would not believe how many of these “feminine” men I have met who were such crazed womanizers that it would blow you away.

But most of them had a masculine side going too. A lot of them were involved in illegal activity like selling drugs. They were almost all “bad boys.” Like bad to the bone. That’s the thing, everyone thinks that it’s only hypermasculine guys who are bad boys, but that’s not really true. You would be amazed at how many “feminine” (not effeminate) bad boys there are out there. Some of them are pretty bad too. Like, real bad.

Really, a lot of the craziest womanizers I have known had a strong feminine side along with a heavy masculine side. They were basically “pure androgynes.” I am thinking that the feminine side enabled them to get along with women well and maybe even understand how they think, to the extent that can be understood at all.

These PUA guys selling hypermasculinity like a drug are fools. My observation in life is that a lot of women and girls go absolutely nuts for these pure androgyne types. By no means all women are like this, and a lot of women say these guys are not their type because they prefer a more traditionally masculine man. White and Asian women especially go nuts for these guys. Black and Hispanic women, not so much. I think those women want or even demand hypermasculine guys. I am sure they are socialized that way, but still.

Iggy Pop said David Bowie got more women than any man he had ever known. “From waitresses to heiresses, they all wanted him,” he said. Go to a Bowie video on Youtube and it will be full of women and even girls gushing about how much they want to fuck him. And what’s a bit funny is there are quite a few guys, gay or bi I guess, who are saying the same thing. It’s like everyone wanted him. All the guys and all the girls, they all wanted David. Must have been nice.

For pure androgynes,  I am think maybe Jagger or James Dean. Or even Marilyn Manson maybe. Or Russell Brand for sure.

You don’t have to be a he-man to get women. That’s one of the biggest lies out there.

20 Comments

Filed under Asians, Blacks, Celebrities, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Hispanics, Man World, Music, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Rock, Romantic Relationships, Sex, Whites, Women

The AltLeft “Tea Party,” by Rabbit

The AltLeft “Tea Party”

Very nice new article about the Alt Left from Rabbit. I actually still like Rabbit. He is apparently not happy at with Trump. He described most of Trump’s Cabinet picks as “cringey” which is at the very least how I feel about them. Actually to me they are more like “”homicidal rage-inducing” but at this point, that’s a bit of a quibble. Rabbit is on the same page with all the rest of the Left on Trumpism except on the broad race, immigration and possibly trade policy stuff. But he already seems to be selling out the trade stuff horrendously. He’s selling out the immigration stuff too. Too bad the Mexicans aren’t going to pay for the wall. You and me are! Out of our pockets into the mitts of one of one of Trump’s billionaire pals via a rigged no-bid contract. Reverse Robin Hood again, but Reverse Robin Hood is all Trumpism is about anyway. Think about it. Real hard now.

and I don’t see how he could be given Rabbit’s base political beliefs. A lot of the rest of the left wing of the Alt Right has gone over to Trumpism, and to me, that’s all I need to sever ties with them once and for all.

The thing about Rabbit is the same thing that everyone gets wrong about the Alt Left. Rabbit is a Leftist, dammit. He really is a leftwinger. He’s a man of the Left. So many people just cannot wrap their heads around that. If you look at his views across the board, Rabbit is leftwing on just about everything but race and the Cultural Left, and even on the Cultural Left, he is with them on a lot more things than I am. Rabbit holds traditional leftwing notions on sexual orientation, gender identity, feminism, etc. He’s not a social conservative at all. In fact, he is to the left of me on a lot of that stuff. On the other hand, he seems personally red-pilled and he spent a lot of time in the Manosphere and the MGTOW movement before he drifted into the Alt Left.

If he’s leftwing on about everything but race and PC Culture, how the hell is he a rightwinger? I don’t see how missing one check box on the leftwing list of beliefs throws you out of the Left. Suppose we say Rabbit cannot be on the Left due to his views on race (a common notion). In fact, we say, his racial views make him a rightwinger no matter what else gets thrown into the mix. Ok, fine, cast him out.

He’s back over on the Right now. Rabbit gets handed the rightwing checklist. Whereas with the Left he failed to check one box, with the Right he fails to check 95% of the boxes. And somehow he’s rightwing? Forget it. Getting beyond left and right is said to be a well known trope of fascism, but so what? Maybe we do need to get beyond left and right and maybe we don’t have to be fascists to do that. In fact, the Alt Left is precisely all about getting beyond Left and Right to some extent, although we are still mostly on the Left. There’s nothing inherently wrong with heterogeneous politics, and this represents your average person’s views anyway. Homogeneous politics is synonymous with ideologues, and who needs them. Give me a sui generis heterogeneous political mix versus any sort of ideologue any day of the week.

Whatever you think of his stand on race, I believe that Rabbit is a very important thinker in our movement, and besides, let’s get real, race is only part of the package Rabbit is selling. You can still buy a custom package minus the race part. Furthermore, he is a superior chronicler and opinion-maker in our movement as a whole, and Rabbit doesn’t care if you don’t agree

It’s not often discussed, but I also like his media criticism, most of which centers around movie reviews. He has a quirky sense there too, focusing on films from the 1970’s. His architectural musings are also quite good, though I don’t know much about the subject. And there’s something about a guy who unironically lionizes Charles Manson

I also very much like his prose and also a lot of his quirky worldview. I am trained as an editor and Rabbit’s prose is what we call “clean copy.” You needn’t mark it up at all, and he’s saying it better than you the editor could anyway. The rules of English punctuation are quite arcane, and 95% of Americans screw them up. Rabbit’s pretty much got them down. You would think he was a J-major.

But as far as a writer goes, he is one of the finest writers in our movement. He’s a great writer! He should be published, and in fact, I believe he is just now as he deserves to be. As a writer, most of what I read is not really great writing. Only maybe 10% of the time do you read prose on the Net that truly sings right off the page. I don’t know if he’s better than I am, but it’s awful close. It’s at least a tossup, and that’s a compliment, as I dislike most other writers.

As long as he keeps away from racial slurs, his prose is worth it for the political theory and just for the pure aesthetic pleasure of it.

A lot of people want to throw Rabbit out of the movement. Funny because he just about co-founded it. Thing is, Rabbit ain’t going anywhere, nor should he. He’s staying right where he is whether we like it or not. Rabbit is stuck with the Alt Left, and we are stuck with him. We are stuck onto each other like damned remoras. And perhaps after all that is just as it should be.
teapartyalice

I know what you’re thinking, but no, I don’t mean “Tea Party” in the sense of the happy meal conservative movement that emerged in the early part of the Obama administration. Nor am I referring to anything relating to the Boston Tea Party or the American revolution.

I’m talking about the AltLeft and how for me it has come to resemble the tea party in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (1972 version of course!) This film was always on HBO in the mid 1980s, even though it came out in the early 70s. I believe the reason they began to re-air it in the 80s was because the star, Fiona Fullerton, had grown up and re-emerged as a Bond girl in “A View to a Kill,” which came out in 1985.

Anyway, when I first got involved with the AltLeft about a year and a half ago, in my mind it was always meant to augment the AltRight, not outright oppose it. It was a way to view and examine the affects of multiculturalism and political correctness from a cultural and economically left lens as well as from a secular and futurist perspective rather than the radical traditionalist, socially conservative one that dominates rightwing circles. In other words, recognizing the implicit Whiteness that underpins the identities of progressive cities like Seattle or Portland, and asserting that it must become explicit to some degree in order for those places to maintain their culture, aesthetic and quality of life.

It was to put forth the idea that someone can be pro-White without the albatross of traditionally conservative culture, pre-modern aesthetics, capitalist economics, or widely accepted Republican historical dogma (“the 60s were bad,” “Vietnam draft dodgers were traitors,” “McCarthy was right,” “I hate modern architecture,” etc.)

If you hang around rightwing groups for any period of time, you’ll find they have an assumed historical narrative that informs many of their beliefs. I say “assumed,” because they just take it for granted that everyone who agrees with them one issue such as race also accepts their historical framing of a wide range of other issues such as economic systems, religious beliefs, or aesthetic preferences (just as someone on the “Left” might assume that anyone who supports trans rights and raising the minimum wage automatically accepts the idea that racial diversity is always a good thing.) Not everyone buys the package deal.

manson

Unfortunately, the AltLeft has instead attracted a wide range of bizarre characters, each with their own zany ideas about what the AltLeft should represent. Many of them never read any of the original manifestos that I or Robert Lindsay or anyone else wrote or bothered to do any research. They just started using the term like they’d started a new band without checking to see if some other band was already using the name. That would be understandable if this were the pre-Internet days, but it seriously only takes like two seconds to Google. Others actually did thoroughly read this site and somehow managed to come to the conclusion their peculiar ideology was compatible with mine, despite it being a complete mystery to me what exactly was the point of agreement.

The AltLeft has come to attract all kinds of eccentric personalities, each one adhering to their own pet belief system. Worse than that, many have joined the AltLeft for the purpose of militantly opposing the AltRight, which is something I never intended to do (hence the reason I still use the tagline “the left wing of the AltRight.”) Though I disagree with him on a few ideological points…I happen to support Richard Spencer, and I have defended him numerous times when certain squeamish (and often prudish) factions as well as a few prominent figures of the AltRight unsuccessfully tried to throw him under the bus.

So when I interact with other people in the incoherent “movement” known as the AltLeft, it feels a lot like the sitting down at the tea party in Alice in Wonderland. It’s a group of outlandish castouts, contrarians, and vagabonds that have little in creatural commonality other than their politically idiosyncratic tendencies and behavioral eccentricities. Part of me finds this demoralizing, wondering why I ever bothered going down this rabbit hole and whether I can just climb out and forget the whole adventure. Yet the other part of me just embraces the gathering of this zany cast of characters for the sheer chaos that they have unleashed as we bounce off-the-wall ideas past each other and revel at the sight confounded normies that stumble into our world.

6 Comments

Filed under Cinema, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Culture, Democrats, Economics, Fascism, Feminism, Gender Studies, Left, Liberalism, Man World, Obama, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Republicans, Sane Pro-White, US Politics, Vanity, Writing

Fight Over “Faggot!” Remark One, Two and Three

Jason Y: Only massively hypermasculine men would kill someone accusing them of being gay. Other people possibly get hurt by it, but either ignore it or maybe try to insult them back, but in a low-key manner, maybe with some “Fuck you” remark or something.

White Dawg: I agree with you, Jason. If you are remotely masculine and not mentally ill, you would counter with a put down of some sort. One might choose to ignore but usually, one does say “Fuck you, blow me” in one way or the other. Sometimes, during the fighting ages – teens, late adolescence or early twenties, calling someone something similar to this would be the last words used to start the actual fistfight.

But, murder, no. Maybe accidental manslaughter.

Keywords are “not mentally ill”.

I live in the hood. It’s full of Mexicans, who are massively hypermasculine, and Blacks, and you know what they are like. We also have a fair number of Arabs. Do you think Arabs are hypermasculine? The few Whites around here are essentially the dregs. The very few good-looking White girls around here are all hooked with really lousy, ghetto, thuggish Black guys. The guys look like total scum, but the White girls eat em up like chocolate.

A good way to get punched or even killed in Latin America is to challenge a man’s masculinity in any way. In fact in a number of those countries, you can just about get away with such a crime, as it is considered an honor crime, and a man has a right to defend his honor down there, with his fist or maybe even with a gun or a knife.

Down there, some guy calls another guy a faggot pussy, and the other guy pulls out a knife and stabs him. Most men down there will have no sympathy for the guy who got killed. They will say that he was asking for it, and what did he expect was going to happen? No sympathy for idiots. He would be treated like a guy who jumps into the polar bear exhibit as the zoo and gets killed. So what! Darwin Award!

About the guy who did it, a lot of guys will just shrug their shoulders and say, “Yeah, well, a man has to defend his honor…I might do the same.”

They would agree that it is a tragic situation for both parties, and it is a rather sad and not joyous occasion, but they will tend to have a “What do you expect?” attitude towards the killer. They might be inclined to let him go. They won’t cheer for him, and they will think it is all a tragic mistake, but they will not want to persecute him either.

Fight Over “Faggot!” Remark One

When I was 19, I went out with a couple of my friends. My friends were quite good-looking Alpha type guys (surfer/stoner/drug dealer types), and actually that description in the parenthesis would be a good description of me too. I don’t know if I was good-looking or not, but people were always raving about how handsome I was, so perhaps I looked good.

One of the guys knew these two single chicks who lived alone. Problem was they were fat, but they were very nice and sort of pretty too. They were about 19. We went in the apartment and the vibes were  crazy. These two fat chicks were giving off vibes like, “Whoa! We won the lottery! When do we get a chance to get guys like this? How do we get these guys to fuck us? Goddamn, we want to fuck you hot guys so bad! We are going to tie you guys up and rape you here!” and we were giving off vibes like, “Um, don’t think so, you chicks are really nice, but you’re fat, sorry lol.” The sexual tension was so thick you could cut it with a knife. Nobody said much along those lines, but you could feel the sexual cold front like a heavy fog.

So nothing really happened.

We went to this party across the way. I think we went with those girls. There was booze, hard liquor and I think a lot of pot. By 11 PM I was seriously wasted, and the room was rotating on its axis. All three of us guys were in the kitchen, and all of us were straight. The two other guys were seriously macho, almost scary. Some guy tried to one-up or AMOG us. He pointed to all three of us, noted that we were all together, had been together all night and had not gotten any women, therefore, we must be faggots. He was not very nice about it either.

My friend suddenly turned around and hit him hard. They guy flew back against the wall, and there was a serious fight for awhile. We left later and were talking in restaurant and decided that a comment like that could only have been answered with a punch. I said I was not sure if I would hit someone who called me that, and the guy who threw the punch said, “I sure hope you would,” and looked at me disdainfully and dubiously. The other guy agreed. Their attitude was, if you do not answer that comment with a punch, you are seriously pussy or probably a fag yourself. You are disgusting and disreputable, you are not any sort of man at all, and we will not associate with you anymore. You are a worm. Oh and you’re probably a fag yourself.v

Fight Over “Faggot!” Remark Two

This guy named RG was one of meanest and evilest bullies around. Basically your worst nightmare of an antisocial juvenile delinquent. He called me a fag in the 8th grade one day after school. I am not sure what else he did. I think he started something physical or challenged me to fight.

At any rate, he did something provocative, and there was a huge fight between him and me. I held my own somehow. It wasn’t fun at all, but a huge crowd of guys gathered around, and they were all cheering and yelling like it was a football game. Good times! The fight ended with no one winning. Everyone agreed that I had to hit him in those circumstances. My net worth at the school increased exponentially after that fight. Before I was a wimp, but now there was this new respect. I was still sort of geek, but now I was a dangerous and honorable geek and plus I was probably not a fag either, and that at least earns a nod.

Fight Over “Faggot!” Remark Three

A couple of years after incident one at age 21, I was at this party my friends threw. We were all drinking beer, and it was about 10-11 PM. RG came up to me.

Well, RG could never get laid ever for some reason even though he was a psychopathic bully. He was almost too mean and ugly to get laid if that’s even possible. He was a doper all through high school, and I think even the booze set in which was unusual for high school, as alcs were rare. After high school, he turned full-blown alcoholic, dressed poorly, never combed his hair, smelled bad, was as ugly as ever and stumbled around drunk most of the time. Of course he was just as mean as ever, but now he was regarded as a pity case, being a drunk.

He staggered up to me at the party outside and said, “Lindsay LOL. You faggot LOL.” Well that’s one thing, and who knows how to respond? But while he is doing this, he took his beer and poured it down the front of my open  shirt. Now where I grew up, if someone does that, you have to hit them. You must. No two ways about. If you don’t, you are a pathetic, sissy fag and no one will talk to you anymore. Well, I hit him about as soon as he did that, and a wild fistfight broke out.

Somehow the fight migrated into the kitchen, and the women as usual were yelling, “Both of you guys are going to jail!” the way they always do.

Some people were asking what to do, but one guy said, “Don’t worry. Just leave them alone. Bob will kick his ass.”

The kitchen cleared out fast, and the fight got seriously nuts and even dangerous. I was so mad I picked up a kitchen table, lifted it over my head and smashed the table right down on his head! Yep. I hit a man over the head with a table! With a table. I can’t believe I did that. I did it with such force that the wooden table broke into many pieces, and RG crashed to the ground, nearly out cold and badly hurt but not dead or even close. Eventually, RG picked himself up, staggered over to me and shook my hand. I guess he wasn’t going to call me a faggot anymore that night.

There was some frenzied discussion about what I did.

“Geez man. Bob broke the damn table! Is that ok? Should we let him get away with that? He should pay for it.”

The attitude of most including the owners of the house was, “So what, who cares if he smashed the  table to bits? It was worth it for RG to get his ass kicked. Bob should not be made to pay for the table. Just forget it.”

I would be careful calling people that. Those are fighting words where I was brought  up.

53 Comments

Filed under Arabs, Blacks, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Hispanics, Homosexuality, Man World, Mexicans, Race/Ethnicity, Sex, Whites

Is 116 a High IQ?

My answer below from Quora:

What is wrong with that? Most people are average. Is there something wrong with being average, ordinary, typical, everyday, or like everybody else? I mean if you are average, you are about the same as most folks around you. 67% of the population has an IQ between 84–116. A 116 IQ is called “high normal.” If there was a footrace of 100 people, you would come in 16th. You would beat most of the people in the race. What’s so bad about that? Everyone can’t come in first you know. Only one person can come in first. If there are 10 people in the room you are smarter than 8 of them. If there are 20 in the room, you smarter than 17 of them. In other words, most of the time you are in a room with other people, you are smarter than most people in the room. Isn’t that cool?

Also I must say that IQ’s in this range differ a lot. I had a commenter on my site with an IQ of 117 and he was one of the smartest people on there. I have one with a 115 IQ, and he is smart as a whip. I have a 147 IQ and it is hard to say that I am smarter than either of those guys. You cannot raise your IQ, but I think people at the same IQ seem smarter or less smart depending on how much they have stuffed into their heads. That 117 IQ who seems to perform far above his range has been stuffing his head forever. If you want to be as smart as possible, just keep stuffing your head and challenging your mind. I think you might be very surprised at how smart you will end up seeming to be.

You also might look into extra-IQ factors. Extra-IQ factors have been shown to increase your effective IQ on the job by 10–20 points. A book by James Flynn showed that Chinese and Japanese first generation Americans were performing at jobs 10–20 points above what would be expected based on their IQ’s. The reason they were performing above their IQ levels was due to beneficial extra-IQ factors that served as a sort of “synthetic IQ points.” The extra-IQ factors made them seem to have IQ’s that were 15 points above their own, or it made them perform just as well on the job as someone with an IQ 15 points higher than their own.

12 Comments

Filed under Asians, Chinese (Ethnic), Intelligence, Japanese, Northeast Asians, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, USA

Only White People Have Blue Eyes

blue-eyes-01

I guess all these people must be White then. But…but…wait a minute…um….uh….erm…duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Only Europeans have blue eyes only Europeans are White hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..

25 Comments

Filed under Afghans, Anthropology, Central Asians, East Indians, Europeans, Genetics, Humor, Iranians, Near Easterners, Pakistanis, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, South Asians, Whites

Flynn Effect in North Africans/Turks Migrated To West Europe By Robert Lindsay

This is from one of my papers on Academia. It is getting linked around all over the place right now, so I thought you folks might want to take a look at it if you have not done so already. Pretty interesting paper documents an 8-13.5 rise in the 2nd generation of immigrants coming from the less developed world to the West, in this case to Europe. The usual hereditarian rejoinders to this argument are dealt with.

Flynn Effect in North Africans/Turks Migrated To West Europe

By Robert Lindsay

From an article by Philippe Rushton, hereditarian, a revelation about yet another instance of skyrocketing IQ increases in the second generation born in the West after migrating from the less developed areas.

Previously, we noted that the children Jamaican immigrants to the UK (IQ = 71) have IQ’s of 85-86, typically within a single generation. That is a gain of 14.5 IQ points merely by being raised in the West. Hereditarians have offered many rationales for this. The usual one is that the Jamaican immigrants were already very bright anyway (as we will see with Moroccans and Turks in Netherlands, this is not true).

Another is that Jamaicans in the UK are very heavily bred in with Whites to the point where they may be only 1/2 White. This is not true – UK Jamaicans are only 12% White (Jamaicans in Jamaica are 9% White).

The children of Indian and Pakistani immigrants to the UK (IQ = 81.5) have IQ’s ranging from 92 (Rushton) to 96 (a figure I prefer). Call it 94. This is a gain of 12.5 IQ points merely by being raised in the West. The counter-argument here once again is that this group is self-selected.

Taken together, the children of Jamaican and East Indian immigrants see rises of 13.5 IQ points merely by being raised in the West. It is true that beyond the initial jump, we are not seeing more rises.

However, a strong initial jump is perfectly consonant with being raised in an area with a higher standard of living. Higher standards of living seem to be somehow translating into long-term rises in IQ. The mechanisms can be debated.

Education, a massively stimulating environment (computers, cell phones, TV, movies), proper nutrition, good medical care, and myriad other things have been suggested, but the mechanisms for the rises are still somewhat mysterious.

Now, via Rushton, we have yet more evidence of a Flynn Effect in immigrants to the West. First generation Moroccans and Turks in Netherlands had IQ’s of 81. This is low. The Moroccan norm IQ is 84, and the Turkish norm IQ is 90. So, contrary to the argument that only the very brightest immigrants are going to the West, it seems instead that the less bright immigrants are arriving instead.

The second generation has IQ’s of 89. 89 is around the Turkish average, but it is 5 points above the Moroccan average of 84. Both the Turkish and the Moroccan figures also shows a Flynn gain of 8 points between generations. Rushton tries to explain this away somehow, but he doesn’t do a good job of it.

The evidence for massive IQ gains in second-generation immigrants to the West is now becoming overwhelming, and it is going to be harder and harder for hereditarians to explain away.

Comparison of 1st and 2nd generation immigrants to the West and the resulting Flynn Effect gains, apparently solely by being born and raised in the West. The common factor behind rising IQ’s in the West may be related to rising standards of living.

                   1st   2nd   Gain

UK Jamaicans       71    85.5  14.5
UK East Indians    81.5  94    12.5
ND Moroccans/Turks 81    88     7

Average            78    89    11.5

8 Comments

Filed under Blacks, Britain, East Indians, Europe, Europeans, Flynn Effect, Immigration, Intelligence, Jamaicans, Moroccans, Netherlands, North Africans, Pakistanis, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, South Asians, Turks

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.

6 Comments

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

Who Can Blame Working Class Whites for Voting for Trump?

Trash: When they are 12 or 13, they start smoking joints. By 15 it’s meth. They do poorly in public schools and cannot gain entry to college. The trades they do excel at: fixing things, hunting, race car driving, fighting…

Jason Y: Say WHAT ??? I think Trash is poster boy for the liberal elite. Don’t come down to Bristol TN, they will feed you to the lions at the Bristol 500. It will be the top entertainment at half-time. 😆. The response you’re going to get, assuming your ass isn’t kicked, is going to be a lot of “pussy and cocksucker remarks”, so wear some earplugs. Note, I didn’t say it. I see where you’re coming from, but THEY won’t understand. Attacking the culture is an unforgivable sin here. Be prepared to DIE.

Barack Thatcher:  “I think Trash is poster boy for the liberal elite.”

Perhaps he should change his name to “CASH”

Yes, Trash’s hatred for working class Whites is off the charts. If he was in the country, he would vote Democrat. I wonder how many Democrats think exactly like he does? It’s no wonder all these working class Whites voted for Trump. Democrats act like we hate these people. We give them nothing but hatred, mockery and contempt, while Trump the Fraud at least tries to talk to them and pretends he can help them. At very least, he doesn’t hate them. He holds a rally and says, “Hey, I like you. You are good people! You are not bad people!” So of course they vote for him. We liberals are digging our graves with this elitist anti-working class White crap.

87 Comments

Filed under Democrats, Liberalism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Republicans, Sociology, US Politics, Whites