Category Archives: Amerindians

Why Do Some Countries Lack a Class Conscious Working Class?

John Engelman: Contrary to what Karl Marx said, for most people most of the time loyalties of nation, race and ethnicity are stronger than loyalties of class. The working class in the United States has always been more diverse than the working class in European countries. It is becoming more diverse with the influx of non whites.

To get class consciousness you really need a homogeneous working class. It helps if the working class is ethnically distinct from the upper class. In Scotland the upper class is English, or Anglicized Scottish. That is to say Scottish, but educated in England, and often speaking with English accents.

The clear majority of Scots vote for the British Labour Party. English workers are more likely to vote for the British Conservative Party.

The argument is circular in a sense because as you look around the world, generally what you see in most cases is an ethnically homogenous working class.

Would you describe the working classes of Latin America as homogeneous or diverse? They seem to be a mixture of White, Indian and Black and the mestizo, mulatto and Zambo mixtures, correct? Yet the diverse working classes down there have high working class consciousness despite their diverse nature.

Aren’t North African and Gulf countries fairly mixed between Blacks and Arabs?

Certainly in Arabia, lands with diverse working classes of Kurds, Arabs and Iranian working classes are all very left.

I believe Sri Lanka even with the vicious Tamil versus Sinhalese war, the diverse working class is leftwing. In Burma the working class is very left although there have been wild ethnic wars sputtering on for decades.

In Russia and other nations of the former USSR, there are many ethnic minorities, but the workers are still working class.

A recent exception is Ukraine where workers have gone radical Right. The former Yugoslavia is still very leftwing even after all of the ethnic conflict and even slaughter of past years. Spain’s working class is very radical despite an armed conflict in the Basque region and separatists in Catalonia. The different religions hate each other in North Ireland, but the Scottish Protestant workers are as class conscious as the Irish Catholic ones. Switzerland is divided between three ethnic groups – French, Germans, and Italians – yet it is a very leftwing country.

The extreme tribalism in Africa has not prevented the working classes from being class conscious.

Is the working class of England voting Tory yet? Or do you just mean that they are more likely to vote Tory than the Scots are?

Most workers in Europe, Arabia, North Africa, Africa, the former USSR, China, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, Japan, South Korea, Nepal are the same ethnicity as the ruling classes of those places, yet workers have a high degree of class consciousness in all of those places.

The places where working class consciousness has been harder to develop were those that had a Chinese ruling class as in Philippines and Indonesia.

I think we need to come up with some better theories about the poor class consciousness of the US working class. If you are looking for examples elsewhere, India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Taiwan, Australia, the Baltics and Colombia are places with quite poor working class consciousness.

In Australia it is recent as US style conservatism is imported.

A similar trend is underway in Canada and has been since Thatcher in the UK. But the UK is in nearly a revolutionary situation. A lot of the working classes are militant and radicalized, while a lot of the country has at the same time gone Tory. When Thatcher died, there were anti-rich riots in housing estates across the land. Thatcher was burned in effigy in the streets. Can you imagine that happening in the US?

The recent riots in the UK also had a class undercurrent. I was dating a British woman at the time, and she told me that local storeowners who treated the community well were spared by rioters. Rioters focused on stores selling upscale goods to the rich. Many corporate outlets were also smashed.

She told me that a number of those outlets had a reputation for not paying taxes to the UK by hiding money offshore. She said the rioters knew who those companies were, and they were brutally singled out. Many outlets were burned to the ground. Can you imagine heavily Black rioters in the US having class consciousness like that?

The Baltics are a case of entire nations full of complete idiots who hate Communism so much that they went into an extreme overreaction against Communism and turned against anything socialist, left, liberal or mildly progressive. Fascist heroes including many Nazis with a lot of Jewish blood on their hands were celebrated. Communist parties were outlawed, and Russian minorities were viciously maltreated.

Radical rightwingers were elected in all of these lands, and Chicago Boys Friedmanite experiments were undertaken. The results were predictable. In the recent economic crash, the most neoliberal European countries were the most devastated of all. Estonia was eviscerated, and Latvia was almost wiped off the map. 1/3 of the Latvian population left the country, including almost all of the educated people.

The Philippines and Indonesian cases are up for discussion, but these are Latin American situations of a ruling class of a different ethnicity than the working classes holding forth brutally and anti-democratically over the people. In addition, the workers have little consciousness.

Taiwan has a similar legacy where extreme hatred of Communism resulted in being ruled by reactionary fascist anti-Communists for decades. There is a nascent Left now, but it has little power yet. The wealth of the country seems to have gotten in the way of working class consciousness. Probably the extreme anti-Communism helped too, as any working class movement could be quickly portrayed as Communist.

Leave a comment

Filed under Africa, Amerindians, Arabs, Asia, Australia, Black-White (Mulattos), Blacks, Britain, Canada, Catholicism, China, Christianity, Colombia, Conservatism, Economics, Eurasia, Europe, Fascism, Indonesia, Iranians, Ireland, Japan, Kurds, Labor, Latin America, Left, Marxism, Mestizos, Middle East, Mixed Race, National Socialism, Nazism, NE Asia, Near Easterners, Nepal, North Africa, North America, Philippines, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Russia, Scotland, SE Asia, Socialism, South America, South Asia, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Taiwan, Ukraine, Whites, Yugoslavia, Zambos

Setting the Record Straight About Pre-Contact Africa

John Engelman: Agriculture and civilization select a race for intelligence. Caucasians began agriculture about eleven thousand years ago. We began civilization about five thousand years ago. Negroes only adopted agriculture about four thousand years ago. They never developed their own civilizations. They have only recently been exposed to White civilization.

Agriculture was probably developed by Africans before it was developed by anyone else. There is evidence for agriculture or pre-agriculture in Africa (West African Guinea Highlands) as early as 12,000 YBP. You must realize that Africans originated many things that we as humans do. The next to develop agriculture were the Mayans (corn), the Chinese (rice) and the Papuans (yams), all at 9,000 YBP. The Egyptians and Mesopotamians were not far behind. Africans even had plantation agriculture as early as 900 CE in Tanzania.

I doubt if Caucasians developed agriculture 11,000 YBP. Are we referring to Mesopotamia, the Levant or Egypt here?

Animal husbandry was also developed very early on in Africa. It may have been developed in the Western Sahara before anywhere else on Earth. A figure of 9,000 YBP is suggested for animal husbandry in the Sahara. However, pigs may have been domesticated in Papua around this time also. Animal husbandry was widespread in Africa, particularly in the Sahara, the Sahel and Ethiopia, on contact. I don’t know much about animal husbandry further south, but I have heard there was a shortage of animals to domesticate.

At any rate, the invention of the hoe and subsequent hoe agriculture along with the spear played a major role in the history of Africa. Both derived from the early development of metallurgy in the form or iron. Indeed, the Iron Age came to Africa before it came to Europe. The development of iron metallurgy and the subsequent creation of those two iron tools allowed the Bantus to expand massively all over Central and South Africa in only the last 2-3,000 years.

Africans definitely had civilizations, that’s for sure. Mostly in West Africa but quite a few in the Sahel too. There was even a civilization in Rhodesia. Early European explorers drew drawings of large African cities. Looks like civilization to me. Civilizations were especially common in Nigeria. They had manufacture, trade, agriculture for export, all sorts of things.

5 Comments

Filed under Africa, African, Agricutlure, Amerindians, Anthropology, Antiquity, Asians, Blacks, Central Africa, Chinese (Ethnic), Cultural, East Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Europeans, History, Livestock Production, Near East, Nigeria, North Africa, Papuans, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, South Africa, Tanzania, West Africa

The Strange Links Between Antisemites and Rightwing Zionists

Israel actually gets a lot of support from out and out fascists, including some anti-Semites and people with Nazi links. I know that Richard Spencer has praised Israel as a model for the racist Whites-only state he wants to create. Kevin MacDonald has also written a nice article on Israel as a model. Israel is indeed a model for anyone wanting to create a racist ethnic nationalist state. There’s not a lot of difference between a racist Jews-only state and a racist Whites-only state.

In this fascinating piece Judith Mirville discovers many more fascinating links between these two most unlikely allies.

I will tell you why fanatical antisemites and Protocol-centric conspiracy theorists love Trump, the arch-neocon, the Jewiest among the Noahides: there is no incompatibility at all between being a Nazi White Aryan supremacist and an ultra-Zionist, no matter if you are a Likud car-carrying member Jew or a Jew-outjewing gentile neocon.

You must first realize that first White supremacist theories sold to the Western World, especially most of the Anglo-Saxon ones, were pro-Jewish and justified themselves of Biblical Jewish origin: the most fanatical branch even claimed of descending, as all true White Anglo-Saxons, from the Biblical tribes of Judah and Israel. That form of racism which is responsible for the dehumanization of Irish, then of Negroes, then of Amerindians, then of East Indians, existed long before the more publicized one born in Central Europe and Germanic countries justifying itself of the Vedas, of the recent discovery of Sanskrit, and of the Aryan invasion theory of India and of Europe.

British Anglo-Saxons in India snub natives and see themselves as Jews or would-be Jews having conquered yet another non-Biblical people – they would dominate it as true Veda-perfect Aryans of the kind there no longer was in India due to caste miscegenation only later on, and even then this was only ideological enrichment, not reconversion: most of the first White Indo-Aryan supremacy theorists postulated that the authors of the Vedas and of the Jewish sacred scriptures were the same people as they pushed for invasion of heathen lands. O

ne very popular exponent of such a synthesis was Edouard Schuré, in his 1900-published semi-doc book The Great Initiates. The over the top rabid antisemitism of the Nazi party was a departure from, not a continuation of, the racist mainstream; actually it is rather the result of a late hurried electorally-tailored compromise of that ultra-right-wing party with the Austrian antisemitism of leaders such as Lueger who were clearly of the non-Marxist Left, not of the racist right, witness the fact the latter (and not the Marxist) had pushed for the most advanced social measures that were still being passed at municipal level in Vienna and around.

Rabid antisemitism was the original Left ingredient put in the Nazi witches’ pot so as to seduce working masses into fighting with their own bosses against the Reds (and their own interests), and most bourgeois German Jews laughed of such a feat of cunning on Hitler’s part. To get an idea of that little-mentioned fact, read the book or view the film The Serpent’s Egg.

Antisemitism has always been recuperated, not begotten, by the economic Right: I wouldn’t go as far as to say that antisemitism is a left-wing position, but it is not one of the Right neither, it is one that positions on the third axis of multi-factor analysis of the political spectrum.

The first factor in factorial explanation power as an eigenvalue is always, be the right-left one, i.e. whether you identify with the common man and with the victims or with the privileged and the conquerors to define yourself, and whether you identify with more general or particular interests — even most of the American Left actually classifies as more right-wing than the rest according to that definition with all shades of pink in between.

The second is authoritarian versus freedom-loving — the term Libertarian is now unusable for that meaning since most American so-called Libertarians are authoritarian personalities among other detestable traits. The third factor in factorial explanation power as an eigenvalue is localist (not nationalistic – it can be village-centred Sicilian Mafia or Basque anarchistic) versus globalist (not necessarily present-day globalist ideology, it can also be Marxist International or in favour of big social nation-states aiming at global reach) with all intermediate shades: Jews are globalist on that axis as we may expect, but nothing prevents a globalist from having right-wing egotistical and authoritarian personality.

There is even less incompatibility between a Nazi-like antisemite and a perfect Adelson twin brother neocon like Trump in that most Nazi-like antisemites in the US exist thanks to the Zionist establishment as a social management tool, not as an indigenous formation. The KKK, despite a few lone wolves like D Duke, has always been pro-Jewish in theory and favoured by Southern Jews against the Blacks, as has always been the Southern antebellum paradigm, not counting the fact it is anti-Catholic and anti-Irish Presbyterian Scottish by mystical reference and therefore Biblical-Zionist as regards magical rituals.

They are traditionally and most spectacularly used for Jewish-solidarity enhancing false flags, and they are also used by Jewish bosses to destroy worker solidarity so as to turn workers’ interest issues into racial ones.

The Great Divide in the US, apart from the class and left-right divide which has always been the first in importance everywhere except in the virtual media world of a few very maligned countries, has always been White (or better said general privileged newcomer)/Amerindian/Black, since the country was founded by the act of killing Indians to make room for Negro or Irish slave plantations. There are the conquering ones (the Whites), the ones targeted for elimination (the Indians), and the imported slaves (the Blacks), or if you will the superiors, the rebellious inferiors (the Indians), and the exploitable inferiors (the Blacks).

The superiors in America by tradition either are Jews, as was the case with the Southern plantation system where they were both the international traders in cotton and the educated professional elite, or fancy themselves as Biblical Jews of a more perfected kind. Antisemitism in the US only aims at renegade Jews, particularly those who harbour universalistic ideas or tendencies, which good Jews should never entertain under the pain of losing their status as such.

All antisemites in the US go to great lengths to explain that the only Jews they inveigh against are false Jews like Eastern European Khazarians. This is a very stupid position, by the way, as the most rabidly supremacist Jews are traditionally the Sephardics and Mizrachis ones, especially those of recent North African origin. Contrary to East European ones, they were never subject to left-wing ideas, and they were always proud to be concentrated in parasitical, predatory sectors of activity and of having participated in various slave trades.

On their own side, Jews have been most of the times White or pro-White racists of the grandest kind. Some say that Talmud-based Orthodox Judaism postulates that only Jews are actual real humans. That is not accurate or rather true by odor only.

The traditional (and most widespread among North African Orthodox Jews (whom I know well) position is that most bipeds now peopling Earth not being humans but animals or rather natural-born biological robots in apparent human form, only a minority of those bipeds being descendants of Biblical Adam and deserving the title of human.

There had been humanoids for hundreds of centuries before as modern archeology indicates, but humans as such existed only from the date Biblical fundamentalists agree upon to have been the beginning of the Jewish era. That is the way these Jews have always managed to conciliate Biblical literalism and archeological data.

Sub-Saharan Blacks are clearly non-humans according to their view – they are not even simian but reptilian by nature, and their erstwhile most cunning leader was none other than the great Tempter of Eve mentioned in Genesis. Not all humans are Jews according to that view, but the first human, Adam, was intended to be a Jew and to breed the rest of humanity as a Jews.

Non-Jewish humans, who would spontaneously serve the Jews by their own nature, were to be sired by Jewish lovers of non-human females, hence the fact that having a Jewish mother, not merely a father, makes one a Jew by default (a non-Jew can also desire to be a Jew or have a Jewish soul giving all the powers of a Jew).

A Jew is defined as some human having been promised by his creator the reversal of the one big punishment for the Fall which was the loss of the power of human speech to force obedience upon all animals, non-human humanoids, and even inert mineral beings and elements such as wind and clouds as by robots. By obeying the Law in a letter-perfect way, a Jew is supposed to recover the dictatorial power of his word over everybody and everything else. That is the only point for those North Africans in being Jewish.

Manifestly obeying the Law doesn’t make most of these Ultra-Orthodox Jews into people capable of granting all their wishes by merely uttering orders to every non-Jew and non-human being around. Many nevertheless try as if the thing were just normal. Don’t be surprised when so many of them speak to you as if you were their butler. They conclude that something is missing in their obedience to the Law that is the aspect of the Law for initiates only, that deals with magic: the Kabbalah.

North-African Jews believe in Judaism as being ideally the supreme form of witchcraft – their thing is not a religion in the common sense. The North African Jews believe they are the only true Whites. Adam was the first White who appeared; other humanoids were coloured of various hues. The ancient Jews were nearly as white as milk, the other peoples of the Earth are White inasmuch as there is a greater percentage of Jewish blood running in their veins, that is to say a greater percentage of Jewish males having originally sired them.

The reason why nowadays the best Jews are not so white is of course the partial degeneracy caused by their disobedience and lack of hard work in recuperating their magical powers as described by the Kabbalah. In addition, many North African Jewish groups and tribes are originally converts, not Hebrews, who are growing Whiter and Whiter with the generations passing as they manifest their virtues and powers.

People who betray their Jewishness or Whiteness cease to be Jews and Whites, and sometimes their skin darkens pretty fast, as is said was the case with Ham, the father of Ethiopians (not all Blacks – most of them not being human at all), but in general that result is achieved by encouraging those fallen ex-Whites or ex-Jews to breed with darker non-humans.

I for one see no incompatibility between Nazi-like antisemitism and Jewish supremacism, they actually strive to promote exactly the same people as they define them and to discriminate against the same people. It is two darshanas, two side-views of a same doctrine, and both fit in marvellously in greater caste-extolling Hinduism.

3 Comments

Filed under Amerindians, Anti-Semitism, Austria, Blacks, Britain, Conservatism, Europe, Europeans, Fascism, Germany, India, Irish, Israel, Jews, Judaism, Kabbalism, Left, Libertarianism, Middle East, National Socialism, Nazism, Neoconservatism, North Africans, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, Republicans, South, South Asia, US Politics, USA, White Nationalism, White Racism, Whites, Zionism

The Fate of Psychopaths in Primitive Societies

Research has shown that psychopaths are present in all human societies. Robert Hare, famous psychopath researcher, asked some Eskimos if they had psychopaths in their villages.

“Yes,” they said, “We have people like that. It’s usually a man. He refuses to hunt or do any work at all and simply lives off everyone else. He is charming and has a high sex drive and when the men go off hunting, he stays in the village and has sex with all of the other men’s wives. He steals and gets into a lot of fights with other man and lies almost constantly.”

“What do you do about someone like that?” Hare asked.

The Eskimos replied, “Well, after this behavior has gone on for some time, the men of the village will get together, tie up the psychopath, and paddle him out to an ice floe. They will drop him off on the ice floe and paddle back to shore.”

In case you don’t know about the Arctic, being left on an ice floe is a death sentence for a human being. So the Eskimos say that after putting up with the psychopath’s antics for some time, the men of the village rise up and all kill the psychopath.

American Indians were known for their kindness and charity. I did a lot of anthropological work on California Indians when I was working as a cultural anthropologist. Here in California, some Indians refused to work. However much the other Indians disliked this behavior, they continued to feed the parasite. He was allowed to survive. Obviously you can’t allow too many folks like this in your society or your tribe will go extinct. In primitive societies, if nobody works, nobody eats because work mostly consists of efforts to obtain food.

However, in doing research on the Indians of the Southwest, I found that some Indians who chronically engaged in bad behavior or broke group rules by committing adultery, stealing, getting into fights, or killing other members would typically simply be thrown out of the tribe. In tribal societies, this could well be a death sentence because while the tribe together knows how to hunt and gather to survive, an individual Indian may not be able to do it well enough to survive.

However these men often survived long enough. In addition, being thrown out of tribes for bad behavior was uncommon but not rare. At any given time, there were a number of  Indian loners roaming about who had been tossed out of their groups for bad behavior. It was common for these men to find each other, and they would then roam about in pairs, threesomes or even in small groups. There were enough of these men that they sometimes formed mini-tribes of their own – outcast tribes so to speak.

11 Comments

Filed under Amerindians, Anthropology, California, Cultural, Inuit, North America, Psychology, Psychopathology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, USA, West

Do Whites Really See Themselves as Superior to Hispanics?

Not really.

A lot of Hispanics like to think so, but those people are victim addicts and grievance collectors. These people grab slights with the same gusto as a trashman gripping a bin.

You will not hear Whites talking much about how Hispanics are inferior. They are on various statistics, but the differences are not glaring, and most Whites see Hispanics as functioning well enough anyway.

Most Whites in California barely see Hispanics as a separate race because around here, they hardly are. This state used to be literally part of Mexico. We literally have Hispanic, often Mexican blood flowing through the very veins of this state and its people. You scratch a White Californian, and nowadays, you will often find some Hispanic background somewhere. There are so many of them, and Whites and Hispanics breed together pretty easily.

A certain commenter from the Midwest does not seem to like Hispanics much, but that is because he didn’t grow up with them.

He also remarks a lot about their Indian features, which are prominent to him, as he didn’t evolve in his life with these folks. Here in California, you never remark about Indian features in Hispanic people it is considered rude and many Mexicans to this day think it is shameful or a mark of inferiority.

In Hispanic culture, the whole conversation is semi-banned, proscribed and underground if it exists at all. If you bring it up in public, Hispanics get visibly uncomfortable. Indian blood is part of their quotidian lives, but they simply blot that fact out and refuse to see it. The Mexican government’s promotion of a mystical lie called mestizaje – nearly literal race denial – assists in making this topic not only off-limits but semi-invisible.

On the other hand, Whiter Hispanics are quite proud of their Whiter features. This holds true especially for Mexicans. Some White Mexicans think the very idea of Whiteness is rude, but others will quite proudly tell you how White they are. One woman I know was literally named Blanca, or White. She told me that the state her people came from – Jalisco – had a lot of Whiter folks in it. And I have seen a lot of White Mexicans from Jalisco.

Others will give you a broad smile and mention their illustrious Spanish ancestry.

I knew one guy who was so stuck up about his Whiteness and assumed class superiority that he literally stated that he was not Mexican, even though he was born in Mexico as an actual fact. He explained to me in some dubious logic how he was actually a Spaniard, not a Mexican, despite being born in Mexico.

He also said he went to Spain a lot and had relatives there – this is common not only among White Mexicans but among White Peruvians, Colombians and other South Americans. I knew a Colombian woman who actually spent about half her time in Spain.

This man also talked about how he spoke the real, true, pure Castilian Spanish of Spain. He pointed to some mestizos nearby and said most Mexicans had crap Spanish – it  was full of English words, he said with disdain. The mestizas he was pointing at glared at him.

He was broaching the Great Unmentionable – race in Mexico.

And the attitude of this man shows you how ethnicity can transcend and trump nationality. This fellow was born in Mexico, but he identified himself by his heritage – Spaniard – rather than his nationality.

3 Comments

Filed under Amerindians, California, Colombians, Hispanics, Latin America, Mestizos, Mexicans, Mexico, Mixed Race, North America, Peruvians, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Sociology, Spaniards, USA, West, Whites

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.

24 Comments

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

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

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

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

Dude! Two things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 Comments

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

Mexicans Are Mestizos and Mexican-American Culture Is Barrio Culture

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

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

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

Zeke is apparently a cultural liberal.  Sigh.

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

Mexicans as a mestizo people is simply fact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really there are two Chicano cultures in California.

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

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

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

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

4 Comments

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

Mexican Indians Are Not a Problem in the US or in Mexico

Trash: Mexican Indians of certain tribes would be a close second (to US ghetto Blacks).

Mexican Indians do not really act bad at all. We have lots of them around here and they cause almost no problems whatsoever. They are these short, dark, rather squat, very reserved,  and stoic ancient  people with ancient village traditions that go back forever. The men are, very masculine in a sense of being tough as nails and stoical but almost androgynous in another sense of being almost painfully quiet and passive to an extent that is nearly feminine.

They are very relaxed, and you often see two Mexican Indian men walking down the street with their arms around each other. That’s not considered gay at all. Gender roles are quite a bit more relaxed than with mestizos. I hear some of those Indian cultures down there even accept their local version of transvestites and some of those Indian cultures are nearly matriarchies. Women are everywhere running everything. They run outdoor markets for instance.

Of course, they have a terrible problem with alcohol. You can see them late at night sometimes stumbling around drunk. In fact, some of the local gang punks I knew around here had made a habit out of “rolling paisas.” The “paisas” are the Mexicans who barely speak English, often Indian. “Paisa” basically means an illegal immigrant. They work heavily in the fields so much so that they have monopolized them and are hostile to others who try to work there.

One of my White friends worked in the fields for a bit, but he said the work was very hard and there was no way to keep up with the paisas, who had it down somehow. Also the paisas had monopolized the fields, and they let Whites know they were unwanted.  They would try to drive you off the job. There was quite good money to be made on piecework if you worked extremely fast. Some of the paisas are now using meth out in the fields to work faster.

The gangsters would go out at 3 AM after bars closed and look for “paisas to roll.” They would see one stumbling down an alleyway drunk (they are mostly on foot and many have no cars) at 3 AM after the bars let out. They would roll him by hitting him and knocking  him over and  then rifling his pockets for money. Paisas typically do not have bank accounts because they are illegals, so they keep all of their earnings in their pockets all of the time (they get paid in cash). They paisas are typically not badly injured in these attacks, but they might lose $300. Also they will not go to the police because they were drunk and illegals are scared of going to the police.

For the most part, they simply will not talk to you even if you try to talk to them. Some of them still speak their Indian languages, which sound completely insane and nothing like Spanish. I was walking by a store one night and I saw several Indian men in a circle speaking what sounded very much like Chinese! I asked them in Spanish, what language they were speaking, and although they did not want to talk to me, they said Trique. Trique sounds Chinese because it has tones like Chinese and other East Asian languages. I even asked them in Spanish how well the different Trique languages could understand each other. They answered, but their basic attitude was, “Get lost.”

There is not much crime in their villages either. They deal pretty harshly with criminals there. A lot of the women are not pretty, particularly as they age as they age very poorly. But some of the young women are strikingly beautiful, although there is a tendency to be fat. Those hot young Mexican Indian women will not have anything to do with a White man. They won’t talk at me or look at me or anything. They seem to only date Indian men.

The whole problem with Mexicans comes from mestizos, many of whom are 50-70% White. It’s not really a race thing with Mexicans so much. More like a culture that is pure crap, like Black culture. It’s not nearly as bad as Black culture, but I don’t like Mexican or Chicano (Mexican-American) culture, sorry. It’s just not for me. I have grown up around it my whole life, and I don’t like it. Some of my best friends growing up were Mexican or half-Mexican.

I even had Mexican girlfriends are dated half-Mexican teenage girls. They were both 15 years old. I later had a 1/4 Mexican girlfriend. But all of those people pretty much just acted like White people. They had fully assimilated into ordinary California American culture. One 15 year old girl was into Chicano culture, but it was not that bad back then. She was a gang girl, and she used to fight other girls! Haha! She sure was devoted though. Too bad I only knew her for a weekend.

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.

1 Comment

Filed under Alcohol, American, Amerindians, California, Crime, Culture, Depressants, Hispanics, Illegal, Immigration, Intoxicants, Labor, Mestizos, Mexicans, Mixed Race, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Sociology, USA, West, Whites

Columbus Day: You Got a Problem?

Well, which is it? It was Columbus Day until we found out how terribly this first of the invaders treated the Indians. And he did treat them badly. Well, it is mostly his men, but he stood by, watched and let them do it. Check out Bartolomeo de Casas, if you can stomach it. Nasty stuff.

And so the proposal is to change the name of the holiday from Columbus Day to Indigenous People’s Day.

How do the people feel about this change? Well let’s do a survey of some typical men on the street so we can see how they feel about the proposed changes.

22279883_1722363984441693_9222325558585184075_n

“Uh. The name of the holiday is Columbus Day, punks! Columbus Day, you hear me? Columbus Day! You got a problem wit dat? Huh? Answer me punk!”

16 Comments

Filed under American, Amerindians, Culture, History, Humor, Italians, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, The Americas, USA, Whites