Category Archives: Asians

Repost: Are Oriental Massage Girls Safe?

This post ran a long time ago too, but I sold some ads on this one too, so I thought I would rerun it. Great post for any male commenters who like to purchase their sex.

BX Monger writes:

You missed out and should have boned her good. Most of these MP babes are cleaner than the avg chick you may meet in a bar and bang. Some of the older MP babes that only do handjobs will put out on occasion, and it’s the tightest p*ssy on earth. 40 yo single Korean babe with no kids and rare romp occasionally likes being ravaged!

I don’t discuss my own experiences on there, but from talking to my friends, those Asian massage parlor chicks in the US ain’t got a damned thing. I have friends who used to go to those places all the time. They told me they never caught a damned thing.

Talking to numerous men over a period of years:

No cases of:

Gonorrhea
Chlamydia
Genital warts
Herpes 2
Syphilis
HIV
Trichomomas

Not one single case.

13 Comments

Filed under Asians, Gender Studies, Health, Heterosexuality, Illness, Man World, Public Health, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Sex, USA

How America Has Achieved the Classless State of Communism (in an Odd Sense)

Granted, rich and middle class people think they are better than poor people. A lot of Whites or Asians think they are better. There is still some ethnic chauvinism around.

Nevertheless, I have had a low income for decades. I talk to people who make very good incomes sometimes, and they are very friendly to me. Some of them were even quite close to me, as in relatives. My income situation is not brought up. I am intelligent and highly educated and polite, and a lot of higher income people think people like that are interesting people regardless of their income. So those wealthier people will treat me well because I act like a White middle class college educated American. They don’t care about my income. That’s not important. What’s important is if you walk the walk and talk the talk. That actual particulars are somewhat irrelevant. A lot of culture in the US is about display more than essentials.

Sure people think like this. It is considered in very bad taste to brag about how rich you are or even to visibly look down on people of lower classes. If you do so openly, you are going to get told to knock it off in one way or another. I guarantee that you will be very disliked.

There was a guy at my junior college whose parents were rich. I went on a ski trip with him and other students to Colorado. From early on in the trip, he bragged all the time about how rich his family was. It wasn’t long before everyone on the whole trip hated him. People talked about him a lot behind his back. Others started making subtle remarks telling him to knock it the Hell off.

I roomed with the guy and three other guys. Towards the end of the week-long trip, I made some oblique comment about how his bragging about being rich was really angering a lot of people in the group. I didn’t come out and say it. Instead I said it in a sort of hidden code. He figured out what I meant, and he told me in an annoyed tone that he had gotten the message loud and clear. And he did pretty much knock it the Hell off.

We are very much a class-oriented society, but we are supposed to pretend that we are all equal. It is almost as if America has actually achieved a classless state of Communism. In that sense, we are a Communist country. We have extreme class differences, but you are not allowed to mention class in the US, so there is this sort of idea that we are all the same somehow regardless of money.

I lived in a working class White community for a while. There were a lot of well to do people there who had high paying jobs. Everyone was very nice to everyone else, even the trashmen, the clerks in the 7-11’s, and gas stations, basically all of what you would call lousy, low paying jobs. It is quite amazing to see how polite an attorney will be to a trashman or gas station clerk in a town like that. There is also this attitude in White culture that “you never put down a man for working at a job.” It goes along with “any job is a good job.” If you had a good job and treated the trashman or gas station clerk with disdain, a lot of people would see you and think very poorly of you. It is just not something you are supposed to do.

I am aware that Chinese think like that, along with Asians in general. Indians are notorious for this thinking. It may be common in some other parts of globe.

Americans consider this sort of thinking to be a sign of a backwards culture.

6 Comments

Filed under American, Asians, Chinese (Ethnic), Culture, East Indians, Left, Marxism, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, South Asians, USA, Whites

Do Whites Really Think Asians Are Inferior?

Ok, Americans are people that has no “superior/inferior” thinking, except that I’ve read enough of comments claiming Whites are superior to Chinese/Asians/Browns/Blacks etc., because of this and that…. Some even try to prove it is genetic.

Racial Talk Is Deeply Proscribed in White Culture

Yee, the whole conversation is proscribed. Racist talk is even more toxic that class stuff. But. You will probably find this talk about race more than other things, simply because underground racism is pretty common in the US. But the same people who make racist comments also make winner/loser comments about class and other things. The superior/inferior thinking naturally leads itself to racism and other isms, which is one reason it is so proscribed in White middle class culture.

In my White middle class culture, all of that talk is proscribed, especially the race talk.

But yes on the Net you will see a lot of racist thinking. But on White racist sites like American Renaissance and Stormfront, you will see a lot of racist posts but very few class based posts. That is because White middle class culture has sort of a prohibition against attacking other Whites on a class basis. And beyond that, among racist Whites, it is considered particularly egregious to attack your fellow Great White Man on a class basis. It’s nearly heresy.

Whites Do Not See Asians as Inferior At All

Most White Americans certainly do not see Whites as superior to Asians. That is minority thinking from out and out racists called White nationalists. They are not common, and most Whites hate them. Even among White nationalists, many of them are Asiaphiles. I am talking out and out Nazis here. There is a strain of White nationalism on the Left of the Alt Right called Asian Aryanism. It promotes a separate state for Whites and Asians, while the rest of the place is left to go Brazil.

The fact that it exists does not mean it is ok. If you think I can go out into this town I live in and start talking about how Whites are better – even to other Whites – you got another thing coming.

And even most of the Blacks and Hispanics around here do not think Asians are inferior.

I would wager that most humans period do not think Asians are inferior. Most humans think Asians are at least as good as the rest of us, and it is actually quite common to regard them as a superior race.

There is a group of White nationalists who openly admit that Asians are superior to Whites. However, it is sort of a “Whites are great, but Asians are even greater” type thing. They are comparing two elevated races and saying that one is a bit above the other, but it doesn’t really matter because differences among superior groups are not very important.

12 Comments

Filed under American, Asians, Culture, Race Relations, Racism, Sociology, USA, White Nationalism, White Racism, Whites

Seeing Yourself or Your Associations as Superior Is Very Proscribed in US Society

Lee: Well, basically every Chinese have this “I am superior and these people are inferior” thing…

HongKonger and Taiwanese thinks they’re superior than mainland Chinese; Shanghainese think they’re superior than all the rest of the country, city folks think they’re superior than rural folks; Southerns thinks they’re superior than Northerners and vice versa; science students thinks they’re superior than liberal art students; kids think my parents/dogs/toys are superior than yours… basically everyone finds something superior about themselves.

I have no doubt rednecks also feel superior than other people. I think it’s the competitive nature in human. Whether people say it out loud or not is just a matter of personality. I heard that American culture encourage people to brag about themselves.

We don’t really have that in this country. I can’t think of any state in the US where people think they are better than other people. And I can’t think of any region in the country that thinks it is better than other regions.

You aren’t supposed to think like that if you are an American.

STEM students think that their major is the only rational one. They would like to make it so that STEM and business are the only things that are offered at a university. I doubt if STEM people think they are better than Liberal Arts students. They just think that Liberal Arts degrees are useless and a waste of money.

I have two Liberal Arts or Humanities degrees – three is you count teaching.

1. Journalism.

2. Teaching.
3. Linguistics

I have hardly met one single person who has ever told me that those degrees are useless or stupid or who ever said that their degree was better than my degree.

Rednecks don’t really think they are better than other types of people, at least not that I am aware of.

A lot of Americans don’t like people from some states or regions or maybe they don’t like city people or country rednecks, but they won’t say it is because I am superior to them. They will say that people from some state are living in the Dark Ages or they are backwards, racist people. They’re not really inferior – they just have a point of view that is not compatible with modern society.

A lot of liberals hate conservatives, and conservatives hate liberals. But liberals don’t think they are better than conservatives to my knowledge. We just think they are backwards, wrongheaded people with a frankly disgusting and immoral point of view. They’re not inferior though. We might say they are bad. But bad doesn’t mean inferior. It means they have a political view that you feel is very harmful and dangerous.

Conservatives think the same about liberals. But I am not aware that conservatives think they are superior to liberals. They just think we are bad, wrongheaded or even evil. But in the US, evil doesn’t mean inferior. In this sense, it means that the liberal POV is so pernicious and dangerous that it is going to be harmful to society.

I cannot emphasize strongly enough how much American society opposes bragging, talking about superior people and inferior people, or acting like you are better than other people. If you go around all the time talking about how you or your state or your region or you ethnic group or your college major is superior to other states, regions, ethnics or majors, pretty soon you will not have any friends. I learned this pretty early on in life.

If I went out today and starting talking about how Californians are superior to people from other states, it would be very soon that someone would tell me to shut up. And I live in California!

I couldn’t even say the West is better. People would tell me to shut up then too.

Of course if I say Whites are better, I will get told off in a hurry. Or Germans, or British, or whoever. I am going to get told off before I even say much of anything along those lines.

Certainly if I said my college majors were superior to some other inferior majors, I would get told to shut up too.

I heard that American culture encourage people to brag about themselves.

You are not supposed to talk about the superior people and the inferior people in the US. It’s called “putting on airs” and it is looked down upon to a profound degree. Nobody, but nobody, but nobody likes it! You will get told to shut up real quick, and if you don’t learn your lesson, soon no one will talk to you.

Now granted, rich and middle class people think they are better than poor people. A lot of Whites or Asians think they are better. There is still some ethnic chauvinism around.

Nevertheless, I have had a low income for decades. I talk to people who make very good incomes sometimes, and they are very friendly to me. Some of them were even quite close to me, as in relatives. My income situation is not brought up. I am intelligent, highly educated, and polite, and a lot of higher income people think people like that are interesting people regardless of their income. So while I do not have much money, I probably act like someone who makes more money than I do. My income may be low, but my behavior is middle class, at the least.

Sure people think in this superior-inferior way, but you won’t hear people talk like that a whole lot. It is considered in very bad taste to brag about how rich you are or even to visibly look down on people of lower classes. If you do so openly, you are going to get told to knock it off in one way or another. I guarantee that you will be very disliked.

There was a guy at my junior college whose parents were rich. I went on a ski trip with him and other students to Colorado. From early on in the trip, he bragged all the time about how rich his family was. It wasn’t long before everyone on the whole trip hated him. People talked about him a lot behind his back. Others started making subtle remarks telling him to knock it the Hell off. I roomed with the guy and three other guys. Towards the end of the weeklong trip, I made some oblique comment about how his bragging about being rich was really angering a lot of people in the group and that people had been communicating this to him all week. I didn’t come out and say it. Instead I said it in a sort of hidden code. He figured out what I meant, and he told me in an annoyed tone that he had gotten the message loud and clear.

We are very much a class-oriented society, but we are supposed to pretend that we are all equal.

Americans probably hate Communism more than any other people, but there is this odd attitude in the US that we are somehow a classless society or at least that class is something that doesn’t even exist here. This is seen in the attitude of so many Americans that they are “middle class.” A guy making $15,000 a  year might describe himself as middle class. Republican politicians making $400-500,000 a year routinely describe themselves as middle class. It is as if the rich and the poor are not even there – instead everyone is this sort of hazy, floating, undefined middle class sort of person.

I lived in a working class White community for a while. There were a lot of well to do people there who had high paying jobs. Everyone was very nice to everyone else, even the trashmen, the clerks in the 7-11’s, and gas stations, basically all of what you would call lousy, low paying jobs. It is quite amazing to see how polite an attorney will be to a trashman or gas station clerk in a town like that. There is also this attitude in White culture that “you never put down a man for working at a job.” It goes along with “any job is a good job.” If you had a good job and treated the trashman or gas station clerk with this superior to inferior disdain, a lot of people would see you and think very poorly of you. It is just not something you are supposed to do.

Once I asked my mother if she thought anyone was inferior. “How about some serial killer on death row?” I asked. She shook her head. “It’s not a matter of superior and inferior. He’s not inferior – he’s just bad. It’s a moral matter or right and wrong, good and bad.”

I am aware that Chinese think like that along with Asians in general. Indians are notorious for this thinking. It may be common in some other parts of globe. Americans consider this sort of thinking to be a sign of a backwards culture.

13 Comments

Filed under American, Asians, Chinese (Ethnic), Conservatism, Culture, East Indians, Higher Education, Labor, Liberalism, Political Science, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Sociology, South Asians, USA, Whites

Economics and White Racism/Nationalism in the US and Europe

Beauregard writes: Not all WN’s are NS. There is sort of a natural anti-government slant with them as they believe it unjustly compels Whites to support non-Whites through taxes or other.

In the US, White nationalists are all Libertarians and Republican type conservatives, no exceptions at all. Well, very few are not Libertarians and almost none of them oppose laissez faire economics and neoliberalism. At least of the typical US variety you see on the main US White nationalist sites. White nationalism in the US is a Libertarian movement – full stop, almost no exceptions.

The only exceptions would be a few of these Left of the Alt Right types coalescing around Rabbit and his site. Those are sort of leftwing White nationalists. A lot of people say that that makes no sense, but really it does. Ethnic nationalism doesn’t have to be rightwing. Rabbit is a liberal/Left type on almost every single issue other than race. How dare we call him a rightwinger.

In Europe, Libertarian White nationalists basically do not exist. There is literally no such thing. All Nazi and White nationalist types in Europe are socialists – usually national socialists. There are really no Libertarians period in Europe – the closest is the Tories and UKIP in the UK, but the UK has finally gotten sick and tired of Thatcherite neoliberalism, which was continued by the execrable Tony Blair.

Inequality has exploded and the UK is turning into a smaller version of the US. Why any sane nation on Earth would want to model itself on the United States is beyond me, but the general atmosphere in the UK now is US-type Republican Party politics for the Tories and disgusting Hillary/DNC corporate liberals in the Labor Party promoted by the Guardian and other fake left outfits. There has been a huge fight in the Labor Party over its soul as corporate branch of party seemed to have the power and the money, but they were defeated by a Sanders-style insurgency with Corbyn, who is now being predictably red-baited.

So racist Libertarianism is a peculiar American disorder, but it may have analogues in the ultra-capitalist reactionary politics of the Philippines and Latin America, in which the White and Chinese elites preside over a de facto Libertarian stripped state, the motivation for which being anti-Malay racism on the party of the Chinese and anti-mestizo, Indian, mulatto and Black racism on the part of the Latin American White elites. That’s probably as close of an analogue to US Libertarian racism (the Republican Party is a de facto ultra-racist party, as the reason for the Libertarianism, neoliberalism and government stripping is rooted in White racism seeing no use for government and government as a drain on White taxpayers to fund mestizo and Black good for nothing layabout criminals.)

Stormfront has always had a large socialist (national socialist) section possibly because all of the European forums are made up more or less completely of socialists. Tom Metzger, as nasty as he is, was at least for the workingman. This Heimbasch with his Traditionalist Workers Party seems to be onto a pro-worker project also. At this point, I’d rather support a pro-worker Nazi that a Goddamned corporate Democrat with neoliberal economics, neoconservative foreign policy and the Cultural Left on social issues. Neoliberals kill far more people every year than Nazis anyway. How many people do Nazis actually kill in a year? A handful? How many do neoliberals kill? Millions.

70 Comments

Filed under Asia, Asians, Black-White (Mulattos), Britain, Capitalism, Chinese (Ethnic), Conservatism, Economics, Ethnic Nationalism, Europe, Fascism, Government, Latin American Right, Left, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Malays, Mestizos, Mixed Race, National Socialism, Nationalism, Neoconservatism, Neoliberalism, Philippines, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Republicans, SE Asia, Socialism, US Politics, USA, White Nationalism, White Racism, Whites

Race in India: An Anthropological View

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genetically, they are Aborigines, Melanesians, and Papuans.

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

Hema Malini, a very White-looking Indian.

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

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

Raju, Bishop N John S D classic dravidian

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

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

4 Comments

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

Species and Subspecies in Current Races of Homo sapiens sapiens

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5 Comments

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

Interesting Racial Arguments: Blacks As Less Domesticated Humans, and Whites and Asians as Domesticated “Slave Races”

Great comment from Francis Melville. 

African Blacks are humans, period.

The main mistake about that by those who see them as a parallel species closer to apes than man relies upon the infamous argument of neoteny: evolution from ape to man (so as devolution from man to ape as some religious fundamentalists postulate) is supposed to have happened through greater and greater retention at adult age of traits only the primitive species’ infants shows before losing them at adult age.

But that argument, however seducing it seems, is fallacious the way it is used: clearly, for instance, dogs as we know them are descendants of the wild dog, which is a parallel species of wolves to the point only zoologists can distinguish them from other wolves. And from that lupine ancestry, dogs have evolved far more than humans are supposed to have evolved from more primitive men, they have kept infantile traits at a degree humans themselves never went to…yet they remain dogs and show no sign of turning into a kind of speaking intelligent species capable of writing with all fours.

Though they cannot survive outside an apartment and require the same care as a human infant or even more, they still bark and bite each one according to its capacity. Neoteny produces domestic or more domesticable animals out of wild ones and nothing beyond. Neoteny alone cannot make a lineage change of species, nothing of that kind of phenomenon has ever been observed under any microscope or otherwise through paleontological history. You could still invent more and more puppy-like races of dogs under the pressure of lawmakers prohibiting Rottweilers, none of these new races would end up being human-like or humanoid-like in any way, none of these dogs would suddenly learn to speak like Pluto, though they may look like cartoon dogs more and more.

African Blacks show many traits (though not all) of less or no neoteny compared to the mean European and even more compared to East Asians (for instance African babies learn to sit and adopt various other adult postures at an earlier age than other humans), but that may make an African a wilder human, NOT a lesser human…in the very same way Sub-Saharan Africa seems to be by its ecological vocation the conservatory of the wilder versions of so many other species, like the wild dogs, the wild asses (which include the zebra as well as countless other onagres), the wild buffaloes, and the famed wild elephants.

African elephants, for being wild and having never been domesticated, are not less elephantine than the ones used in India and Indochina as beast of burden or transportation, in the same way the wild African buffaloes are by no means less bovine than the domestic buffaloes used in India to till the soil: quite the contrary, anybody would qualify the African elephant as more elephant-like by its spectacular bodily features than its more modestly-looking Indian far cousin, for the same reason wild bulls and buffaloes have always symbolized the epitome of bovine nature with far more intensity and sacredness than domestic oxen.

Europeans are not more human than Africans, they are more domesticable and amenable to so-called civilized life, actually it is a more polite expression to say they are easier to enslave and put to hard work by neurological programming rather than by mere physical shackles only.

Some say among Haitian and Benin voodoo practitioners that Whites and Asians were the first species reduced to a more fragile and specialized one but far easier to put to useful work by the process of trans-generational domestication and bodily modification by the first animal tamers: according to them, non-Blacks are born out of the will of malevolent sorcerers to dispose of population of dependent slaves by birth. That is probably a short caricature, but there seems to be something real about it.

So many proverbs from so many cultures are wont to say laughter is what really makes humans human, animals being so serious in comparison of the most serious humans. Do Black Africans laugh less?

21 Comments

Filed under Africa, Animals, Anthropology, Asia, Asians, Blacks, Canids, Carnivores, Cows, Cultural, Dogs, Domestic, Europeans, Herbivores, India, Mammals, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, South Asia, Wild, Wolves

Humble Pie Origins: The Glorious Caucasian Race Was Created By Crossing Two Types of Aborigines

All White people used to be Black or Asian.

1/3 Proto-Black (Warm-adapted Australoid, Negrito type?) + 2/3 Proto-NE Asian (Cold-adapted Australoid, proto-Ainuid?) = Caucasoids, 42,000 YBP.

So basically you crossed two Ainu Australoids with one Negrito Australoid and you get a White person. So Caucasians were created by breeding two types of, let’s call it what it was, Australian Aborigine types together.

Most humans don’t have illustrious lines if you go back far enough. It’s nothing to be ashamed of. I mean after all, if you go back far enough, we were all frogs. Why is that an insult. It’s not an insult to say that Pepe is the Father of All of US Shitlords.

3 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Ainu, Anthropology, Asians, Blacks, Europeans, Negritos, Northeast Asians, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, SE Asians, Whites

My Unadulterated Thoughts on Intelligence Variance among the Races

Someone recently asked me my unadulterated views on intelligence variance among the races. Incidentally, he was a Black man. Generally, I take the 5th on that question and simply say that there are intelligence differences among the races, that is, yes, Whites are smarter than Blacks, NE Asians and Jews are smarter than White Gentiles, etc.,  all on average, mind you, but IQ tests prove this very well, and IQ tests absolutely measure intelligence better than any other device we have. Usually just saying that it’s a proven fact that on average Whites are smarter than Blacks is enough to consign me to the Societal Doghouse for eternity,  so I don’t bother piling it on. I say yes, Whites are smarter than Blacks, but we don’t know what causes this, if it is genes or environment or both or something in the air. In public statements I say I am agnostic on the causes.

The truth is that I am lying. I simply do not want to come out and say that there are genetic differences in intelligence between the races because my name is mud enough as it is and there’s no reason to keep digging once your enemies have thrown you in a hole that goes halfway to China already.

But now I will come out and confess that I do believe that there are genetic differences in IQ between the races. I expect that I will now be vastly more ostracized than I am already after I say this.

I do believe there are cognitive differences between the races that are genetic. However, I add one proviso to that. Usually when people that there are behavioral or cognitive differences between the races, what usually follows is a Doomsday statement along the lines of “No hope for Blacks.” They say that Blacks will be less intelligent and highly criminal forever since it’s genetic and genes are destiny.

The thing is I don’t believe in that. I believe that genes tend to be destiny in a macro but not micro sense, that is among groups but not among individuals and subject to much variation.

But I also believe that environments can modify genetic tendency. A typical environment will result in a typical behavior and cognitive outcome for the group. A bad environment, which we seem to specialize in as humans, will result a catastrophic outcome for the group with behavioral and cognitive outcomes expressed at an extreme level. A good environment will result in the behavioral and  cognitive outcome being relatively better for the group.

And an extremely good environment or a Super-environment as I call it may result in an outcome for the group that completely washes out the behavioral or cognitive profile for the group allows them to match better performing groups. I am reminded of a Black tribe in Burkina Faso of one million members. They have a homicide rate as low as the Japanese, 1/100,000. They are Muslims, they live in the desert, they value education, they live a very traditional life and perhaps most importantly, they place great value on the wisdom of elders, especially male elders.

People like to say that you can never turn Blacks into Norwegians or Japanese. In  terms of sense of humor, I think Blacks not turning into Norwegians is an excellent trend. This syllogism is true as far as it goes, but here we have a tribe of 1 million Blacks in the darkest heart of Black Africa where none of the light of modernity shines who at least on one important variable, have somehow managed to turn themselves into Japs.

In intelligence, we know have a case in the UK similar to the case in Burkina Faso for behavior.

Nevertheless, the latest scores out of the UK have British Blacks matching Whites on high school achievement tests. It’s not an IQ test but it can be a proxy for one. Anyway it predicts job success and performance very well, so it doesn’t matter if it’s not an IQ test.

There is a solution to this conundrum. Even with genetic IQ differences, there still room for environment to close the gap. However, the environment for Blacks to close the gap as British Blacks did would have to be a “super-environment” which may have been achieved in ultra-PC UK. However, I would say that these super-environments are hard to achieve, and most places will not be able to create them, so Blacks will fall behind in most environments.

In contrast, Whites and Asians need only a typical environment to succeed. In a poor environment, a lot of poorer Whites will fall behind but many others will succeed. The Blacks will simply be completely plowed under far worse than in an ordinary environment. Curiously the cognitive power of some groups like Chinese and Jews may be so high that they can surmount genetically even quite poor environments. Their genes just plow right over the environment.

In the same way, Blacks do have a tendency towards crime that I regard as genetic. However, if we set IQ at 113 (about yours) Blacks and Whites have the same crime rates. So if we could raise Black IQ, we could lower Black crime because as Black IQ rises, cognitive capacity rises up and overpowers or overwhelms any genetic tendency towards crime. In other words, an intelligent Black man may have the same genetic tendency towards crime as an 85 IQ Black man, but the 113 IQ Black man’s IQ simply overrides, bulldozes and plows over the genetic tendency towards crime because IQ suppresses criminal behavior and as IQ rises, crime drops because of the crimino-suppressant effect of rising IQ.

As you can see, my views on this are quite nuanced. Yes, Blacks are less intelligent and more criminal than Whites and this is in part due to genes. However, given the right environment, these outcomes can be improved and if you make the environment spectacular enough, you can even wash out these genetic tendencies entirely and Blacks can match Whites or even East Asians. However, creating these Super-environments is going to be very hard to do.

I have also postulated a theory about how increasing IQ serves to suppress genetic tendencies towards crime and how IQ acts as a barrier against bad environments, with the highest IQ’s having nearly suppressive effects on bad environments, average IQ’s have a subset badly affected by bad environments while others weather it and the lowest IQ’s being no barrier at all against bad environments or even worsening their bad effects by introducing  the equation of Low IQ + bad environment which seems to result in an exponential effect worse than either alone.

Not that my nuanced views will matter to the Commissars of the Cultural Left though. I’m already an Enemy of the People, and this will just increase my sentence at the intellectual gulag archipelago where I was shipped to long ago.

65 Comments

Filed under Africa, Asians, Blacks, Britain, Crime, Cultural Marxists, Europe, Genetics, Intelligence, Jews, Left, Northeast Asians, Psychology, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, Whites