Category Archives: Northeast Asians

White Culture Is One of the Least Rapey Cultures on Earth

Most Islamic cultures are pretty rapey, and India is rapey as Hell. All Latin America and all of Sub-Saharan Africa is rapey as all get out. All of the Caribbean is rapey. The Philippines is pretty damn rapey. India is probably the rapiest place on Earth. Generally speaking, the more Black and mestizo the place is, the rapier it is. South Asian culture is rapey as Hell, and Bangladesh and Pakistan would be rapey too if they were not Islamic. Rapeyness seems to be negatively correlated with how White or NE Asian a place is and positively correlated with South Asian, mestizo and Black cultures. Which of course is what any sane person would expect and is of course the exact opposite of what White-hating Western feminists propose.

Western feminists have decided that White culture and only White culture is afflicted with some bizarre thing called “rape culture” in which rape is normalized. I don’t know about these feminists, but I never lived in any White culture where rape was normalized or sanctioned. If I did, perhaps I would have raped a woman or a girl. I shudder to think about it, but I figure I am just a normal guy. If you give men cultural permission to rape, a lot of them are going to do just that. Even White men. That is why we need strong laws against rape to punish maniacs and make even normal guys like me think twice (or better yet fifty times) before doing something like that.


Filed under Africa, Americas, Asia, Asians, Bangladesh, Blacks, Caribbean, Crime, Culture, East Indians, Feminism, Gender Studies, India, Latin America, Mestizos, Mixed Race, Northeast Asians, Pakistan, Philippines, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, South Asia, South Asians, Whites

Repost: What Do the Chinese Think of Blacks?

This is also getting posted around lately. There is a lot of talk on this site about racism, prejudice and ethnic conflicts that result from that all over the world, so I thought you might be interested in this. I hate to say it, but I do not think Chinese like Black people too much. There is also an excellent story of Chinese men staging an anti-Black race riot in China over Black men “stealing their women.” Most groups of men will not put up with another ethnic group taking their women. It is a primal thing.

Hacienda, a Korean nationalist commenter with an anti-White grudge, posts:

“…all those groups seriously hate blacks…”

One thing whites HAVE to stop doing:

Stop trying to be the spokespeople for other races. How the f+ck do you know that Chinese REALLY hate blacks!

I have spent a lot of time around Japanese and Koreans. They seriously hate Blacks, way, way, way, way worse than Whites do. They are like how we used to be. It’s pretty much the same with the East Indians in the US. And I know for a fact it’s true about Hispanics. It’s not that these people hate Blacks and Whites don’t, it’s just that they are vastly more racist than we are anymore. US Whites have lost a lot of their anti-Black racism lately. Things are far different than they were 30 or even 20 years ago.

I recall that during Mao’s era, the Maoist regime used to send bright Africans to college in China. The Chinese male students would chase them down the streets threatening to beat them up and calling them monkeys.

Also, a number of Blacks came to a university town in China recently. As might be expected, they were great players and were quickly cleaning up with the Chinese girls. They would throw parties in their apartments. Only Black men allowed. Only Chinese women allowed. No Chinese men allowed.

The Chinese male students at the university staged a wild, violent riot over the Blacks “stealing Chinese women.” Things got so bad that the Chinese government moved the Black students out of the city.

I also heard one Chinese guy from the Bay Area say that he and every Chinese person he knew in the Bay Area despised Blacks. Turned out that a number of them had been victims of violent crime. In every single case, the Chinese person was victimized by a Black criminal. This was the genesis of their rage.

Those anecdotes, along with the fact that Chinese racial supremacism probably mirrors the Japanese and Korean varieties, lead me to think that Chinese are not too wild about Blacks.

Heck, Chinese don’t even like other Asians. They don’t even like non-Han Asiatics who are their fellow citizens in China. I have had them tell me that Chinese means “Han.” Anyone in China who is not Han is “not Chinese.” Implication is that they are inferior. Even the Cantonese Yue are considered to be barbarians. They are somewhat off the hook as they have been Hanized, but not totally.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.


Filed under Asia, Asians, Blacks, China, Chinese (Ethnic), Japanese, Koreans, Northeast Asians, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Whites

Gedalia Braun’s Piece on Africans

Sam: A possible explanation for Black behavior.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

What Race Were the Windover People?

Sam writes:

Oh, so we’re going to go the old, “They were here first” trick huh? Ok. Here’s a story on the 8,000 year old Windover Skeletons and these people were Caucasians. That’s right White people. The Indians came from Siberia and murdered my ancestors. So they need to get the fuck out (if we’re going by the “I got here fist rule”).

The Windover Pond Giants

If you think I’m kidding or trolling about them being Europeans, I’m not. Europeans have a very distinct facial structure and are totally different from other races. A decent anthropologist can easily tell what race a person is from looking at their skull.

The DNA of the Windover People is Asian. The Caucasian appearance may be similar to Kennowick Man who comes from about that same time frame (Kennowick Man  9,000 YBP Windover People 7,500 YBP), however Kennowick Man only appears Caucasoid because he is sort of an Ainuid.

Kennowick Man’s skull plots most closely with the Ainu and the Moiriori, an extinct Melanesianized Polynesian people from the Chatham Islands. The Ainu are Australoid and the Moriori were a heavily Australoid Polynesian type.

Hence the Windover People are probably Australoids.

When you cross an Australoid with a Mongoloid, sometimes you end up with a pseudo “Caucasoid” phenotype. These people are not really Caucasoids; they just look like them. This is possibly because the number of possible endpoints for human phenotypes is small, and “Caucasoid is one of the few possible endpoints.


Filed under Ainu, Anthropology, Asians, Northeast Asians, Oceanians, Physical, Polynesians, Race/Ethnicity

Another Way of Looking at IQ: Extra-IQ Factors

RL: Incidentally, two of the brightest commenters on my blog had IQ’s of 113 and 117. The 117 IQ guy was fantastic at philosophy and other forms of abstract thinking. The other fellow was into genetics and anthropology, but he thought in much the same way. A few of these types are so bright that you almost think that their score is wrong. I am not sure what is going on except maybe they are working their brains extra hard, or they have filled their brains up with all sorts of goodies.

Oops I did it again: Myers-Briggs (Jungian) type, life experiences, economic status, degree of neuroticism (“Work their wits hard”), the brain faculty we call “sensitivity”, the other we call “fantasy”, all are factors.

This is so correct. Jim Flynn wrote a book the premise of which was something like “factors above and beyond IQ.” He showed how 1st and 2nd Generation Northeast Asians in the US (mostly Japanese and Chinese) were often working at jobs up that usually required IQ’s 20 points above their level. In other words, a 100 IQ Japanese-American would be functioning on the job at the same level as a typical 120 IQ ordinary American. In other words, the NE Asians might have an IQ of 100, but on his on the job performance was the same as someone with a 120 IQ.

Flynn called these “extra-IQ factors.” In other words, on the job, IQ isn’t everything. I forget what the extra-IQ factors were but they seemed to be things like punctuality, responsibility, resilience, psychological stability, regular attendance, studiousness, reliability, seriousness, conscientiousness, hard working nature, and stick-to-it-iveness or what some are now calling “grit” which boils down to “if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again,” or continuing to hammer away at a problem even after repeated failure – not giving up.

So you see there are personality factors that you can add to your IQ score so you perform at a higher level than your IQ would predict.

I was thinking of this in terms of Blacks, that maybe Blacks could cultivate some extra-IQ factors that would allow them to overcome some of their disadvantage due to lower average IQ. If an 85 IQ Black person could function on the job at the same level as we expect a 105 IQ person to perform at, I think the position of Blacks in the US could improve a lot. Unfortunately the wort of things that were helping the NE Asians were sort of “nerd factors, square factors, uptight factors” that Blacks just don’t seem to do well in, mostly because they look down on this sort of excessive seriousness.

Nevertheless, I am open to the idea of harnessing extra-IQ factors in Blacks to help them to perform better in school and work. Harnessing what seems to be their innate social skills and extroversion might be one of these things.

Myers-Briggs or Jungian personality type: Yes, certain personality types might help one perform above their IQ level.

Life experiences: Correct. Certain types of life experiences and lessons learned and skills gained from them could help push you above your IQ level.

Economic status: Yes, a higher economic status might help you to perform above your IQ level.

Degree of neuroticism or working their wits hard: Correct. Someone who pushes their brain into overdrive and characteristically pushes their mind and intellect to its limits in an almost challenge-testing near-athletic competitive manner could surely perform above their IQ level. I think I have seen some examples of this in my life.

Sensitivity as a brain factor: I could see how this would help you perform above your IQ level, but I am wondering just what this factor is.

Fantasy as a brain factor: If this means something like creativeness or open mindedness or the tendency to think outside the box, I could see how this would help you.


Filed under Asians, Blacks, Chinese (Ethnic), Intelligence, Japanese, Northeast Asians, Personality, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity

Nice Theory: Latitude As Cultural Creator and Differentiator

This is a superb comment that I just received. I crap talk Indians a lot on here, but one thing is clear and that is that there are many very, very smart Indians. This is of course inevitable given the size of their population, but if Brahmins are 5% of the population and are an inbred and preserved high-IQ group (which I think they are), then there may be even more bright Indians than I thought. Even if only 1% of Indians have IQ’s of 120-125+, that still leaves us with 13 million high IQ Indians. That’s the size of a number of well-known European countries!

In addition, there are ~65 million Brahmins, and it might be interesting to see what their average IQ is. At any rate, very smart Indians are not rare at all, and I have run into quite a few of them.

I also think that the genetic potential IQ of the Indian population is a lot higher than its phenotypical result which is driven down by disease, poverty, extreme malnutrition, atrocious schooling, contempt for education, widespread popularization of anti-scientific belief systems, etc.

An Indian population brought up in the West may be able to reach an IQ of ~90. I say this because British Pakistanis have 90 IQ’s, and they are from one of the most backwards groups of Pakistanis. Pakistanis have an IQ of 82 in Pakistan, so British Pakistanis got an 8 point Flynn gain merely by being brought up in the West.

This Indian man is proposing a couple of theories regarding latitude as progenitor and conveyor of culture and intelligence levels and types by comparing Northeast Asians and Europeans in one group with South Asians and Middle Easterners in another. He includes factors such as weather, agricultural development, levels of immigration, and monocultural versus multicultural societies. He even imagines to toss in Putnam’s low-trust theory of multicultural societies.

Nice work!

And I actually think he is onto something here.

Raja Hindustani writes: I am Indian, & I have lived in England for 8 years before returning, and I always felt we Indians were much more cunning and better at manipulation than the native English, but the English seemed much more logical in their thought patterns. My personal theory has been that Northern Europeans (and maybe North East Asians) historically lived in a place which was cold with variable climate that in addition  was more or less homogeneous with similar peoples in Northern Eurasia.

Thus they had the following conditions in the ancient past with the following results in the present times:

  1. They had to compete primarily with nature instead of against other humans. Population density was lower in the ancient past, as they lived in a harsh environment that had a cold climate region with variable weather. Thus their brains were geared for planning, abstract thinking and the creation of better tools.
  2. They had to cooperate with strangers to survive at critical moments, and since genetically people were very similar with similar average natures, they cooperated with and trusted strangers a lot more. In places like Middle East and Indian subcontinent, since agriculture developed faster here due to favorable conditions of climate, populations grew faster, and this resulted in densely populated cities, a feature which reached Northern Europe much later, maybe just during Roman/Greek times. Besides, peoples from various races intermingled, as the location of this region is central in location. African-type peoples intermingled with Caucasians and even East Asians. India had Black Australoids, invading Caucasoids from West central Asia and Mongoloids from the East, for example.


  1. Humans in the South had to compete primarily with other human beings. Thus human cognition had to develop more towards cunning, swindling, cheating, arguing, survivalism, clannishness, etc. rather than developing those cognitive skills dealing with making better tools to survive against the hardships of nature.
  2. Having experienced multiculturalism and multiracialism earlier, we were enriched with low-trust natures. Supporting our clan/caste at all times while ignoring universal morality at the expense of the other was of utmost importance.

I believe the huge gains made in Ancient India in the knowledge of the Mind (meditation, complicated concepts common in the sermons of Hindu gurus) were a side effect of our cognitive abilities being channeled more towards reading other human beings and finding ways to manipulate them.

Chanakya, a cunning philosopher in ancient India, was considered a hero in Ancient Hindu India, which would never have been possible in a Protestant European country.

This is exactly why I find it strange that Whites are considered the most racist people. I think they were novices. We are far more racist, but our methods are more subtle, and we have more experience with of it than the crude attempts made by White people. But on the other hand, we were bad at inventing better tools. We did not even invent the wheelbarrow or a mere candle.

However, I have always found Europeans like the Greeks more akin to us Asians (Asians as in Middle East/ Indian subcontinent, not East Asia) than Europeans from the North, just like I feel Somalis are more like us Asians than Africans from the South.


Filed under Anthropology, Asia, Asians, Britain, Cultural, Culture, East Indians, English, Europe, Europeans, Geography, India, Intelligence, Northeast Asians, Pakistanis, Physical, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Sociology, South Asia, South Asians, Whites

Racial Categorization- The Oceanian Paradox

ultracool writes: This is a very interesting and insightful post, I see you are very intelligent and bold to write all this stuff, Robert. Still I think the problem with genes is that they don’t always match appearance, I think that were you to sort races according to physical traits only, you could put most Oceanians in the same race as Africans, as they share several traits like dark skin, thick lips and kinky hair, though I am not sure about Australians as they have quite a distinct look.

Even if you do physical appearance, you cannot throw those people in with Africans. Those people are Australoids – Melanesians, Papuans, Negritos, Senoi, Veddoids, Tamils, Aborigines, a few Polynesians, Ainu and a few Amerindians such as Tierra del Fuegans and some Baja Californians have very similar skulls. All of the skulls plot right together on a chart. Granted, Australoid and African skulls are close to each other on charts, but they do plot differently.

Polynesians and Micronesians are different – they are an Australoid-Mongoloid mix. Their genes plot with Asians, and their skulls plot differently from Australoids. However, some Polynesian skulls plot next to other Australoids such as the Ainu.

Australoid genes are all over the map. Melanesian genes plot next to other Oceanians with a subgroup of Island SE Asians that also includes some Indonesians. Philippines Negritos plot with Filipinos. Thai Negritos plot with Thais. Andaman Islanders plot off on their own, possibly in two completely different major races. Veddoids and Tamils plot with the other Indian Caucasians. Papuans and Aborigines are related only to each other and even then only very distantly, and they are very far from everyone else. Next to Africans and Andaman Islanders, Papuans and Aborigines are are the other oldest races. Outside of Africa, Andaman Islanders and Thai Negritos are the oldest races.


Filed under Aborigines, Ainu, Amerindians, Andaman Islanders, Anthropology, Asians, Blacks, East Indians, Filipinos, Indonesians, Melanesians, Micronesians, Negritos, Northeast Asians, Oceanians, Papuans, Physical, Polynesians, Race/Ethnicity, SE Asians, South Asians, Thai

More on the Finest Mixed Race of Them All – The “Hapa”

S. D. writes: Eastern Europeans have some Asian blood in them-Charles Bronson was an example-all the way West to Hungary (Named after Huns from Northern China).

Finns, though blonde, also derive some ancient Asian genes through the Lapps who were apparently present when the Germanic tribes migrated Northwards in antiquity.

The Filipino ruling-class are Eurasians.

My point is this ain’t nothing new under the sun, folks,

The grandchild of a white male and an Asian female that is 1/4 Asian looks no different than an Eastern European.

That is why the continent is called Eurasia.

Japanese are some ancient mixture of Caucasoid Ainu from Russia and ancient migrations from Korean peninsula (In this instance the Asians exterminated the whites).

Manchurian Chinese are Eurasians from the steppes of Soviet Siberia.

What is the big deal?

I love a lot of mixed race people because I think a lot of mixed race people are even more beautiful than those of the pure races that formed them. Further, some races that are not very attractive to me can create very beautiful people by mixing with another race. Even some mixed Aborigine-White women can be quite beautiful. One is a famous Australian model.

East Europeans do not have much Asian blood in them – maybe 3% in Czechs and not a whole lot more in your average Russian. It’s less than 12% at any rate. Finns and Turks are 7% Asian, a bit more.

Go look up some photos of people like the Mansi and the Khanty. Very, very mixed Asian-White to the point where you see people with blue eyes and blond hair next to people who look very Asiatic – very strange looking but somehow beautiful.

Some of the groups around the Altai like the Altai people and the Khakas are also extremely mixed – more or less 50-50 in those cases but really more like 40-45% White and 55-60% Asian. These are the ancestors of most Amerindians.

Tatars and Bashkirs are also extremely mixed, although I believe they are mostly White. Nevertheless some of the women look very Asiatic.

Turkmen are also very mixed – I think they might be 40% Asian.

The Ainu are not Caucasoids either by genes of by skulls. On skulls they are Australoids – basically depigmented Northern Veddoids – and on genes are they are simply Asians. People think they are Caucasoids because Veddoids have look somewhat Caucasoid themselves and a depigmented Veddoid can look (falsely) quite Caucasoid and also because the mix between an Australoid and a Mongoloid or Paleomongoloid can often appear mysteriously quite Caucasoid in phenotype. Check out the Ainu and the Veddoids, some Polynesians, Papuans and even Aborigines, some Southeast Asians such as some Khmers, and especially the Taiwanese aborigines who often look very “Caucasoid.”

Northern Chinese may well have Caucasoid in them from way back, but the genes are no longer present. Mongolians have more White in them – they are 14% Caucasoid.


Filed under Ainu, Amerindians, Anthropology, Asians, Chinese (Ethnic), Eurasia, Europeans, Finns, Khmer, Mixed Race, Mongolians, Northeast Asians, Oceanians, Papuans, Physical, Polynesians, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asians, Siberia, Taiwanese Aborigines, Turks, Whites

North Koreans Versus Indians


Tell me why you hate so much zero empathy or even try to understand the “Indians” but not the north Korean.

You will banned me first or you will explain this contradiction??

You tell me why I should show empathy for monsters, wicked people, and sociopathic, morally depraved freaks? Sorry pal. I am on an empathy diet. I have plenty of empathy for good people. As far as bad people go, they can just burn. I have dealt with enough assholes for twenty lifetimes, and I don’t need to even speak to one more.

Why should I try to “understand” monsters? Everybody does everything for a reason, and it is usually a logical reason in some way. Even criminals are behaving logically in some according to some perverse system of logic, and many of them have frankly been created by awful environments.

It is very easy to “understand” the behavior of most human beings  who act horrible in the typical ways. We all know why people act this way. Good and evil and inborn in all of us, and when your heart dies, the Devil can capture your soul and turn you into his plaything for the rest of his life. It can happen to me, you or anyone because we all have evil inside of us.

We all have to guard against our evil tendencies at all times. Those of us who act good are not that different from those who act bad. I have a great deal of evil inside of me, but I have enough of a pure heart and warm soul left somehow that I am able to suppress my evil behaviors and temptations. Not that I do not feel them. I simply feel them, recognize them as evil intentions and vow to resist them. In this way, you can walk with Jesus and be a real Christian.

Sublimation is nothing new. Churchill could have been Hitler.

Greed, hatred, competitiveness, lack of empathy, treacherousness, backstabbing, murderousness, aggression, violence, rape, wife beating, torture, cruelty, sadism, sexism/racism/classism/casteism, corruption, bribery, covetousness, jealousy, envy, irritability, meanness, fraud, cheating, stealing, lying…all of these things are essential aspects of day to day Indian culture that no one even thinks twice about.

And of course they are present in all human societies to some extent. Of course I “understand” why people act bad in every single way that I listed above. Most people figure that stuff out sometime in childhood. It’s not hard to figure out the motives for evil behavior. Further, I work in mental health, so I understand  the motives for evil better than 90% of the population. But so what? Who cares if we “understand” why people act horrible? Big deal! Most everything is “understandable,” even if in some sick or awful way. Why should I let scumbags off the hook just because I have figured out why they are such dicks?

And one more thing. If Indians are characterized by any one thing, it is that there is a sheer and utter lack of empathy that pervades the entire society and attempts to infect everyone born into it. If you try to be a dissident and protest this callous mindset, you will be browbeaten, shunned, rejected and possibly even threatened. I get emails all the time from Indians who condemn their country to Hell but then beg me not to post their name anywhere to anyone. They are absolutely terrified of speaking out in their society. A lot of them told me that it is actually dangerous to speak out against Indian culture. You may get physically assaulted or worse, not to mention the emotional abuse.

Now how about if you tell me why I should show empathy towards people who have no empathy themselves? Forget it. No! If you want me to feel some empathy towards you, you need to retain a human soul and something left of a heart yourself. If you have burned and discarded those essential human parts of yourself, I have nothing to say to you, and I feel I should show you no kindness, remorse, sympathy or mourning. You simply do not deserve to receive those human feelings from me.

The North Korean people I think are very good people. I have seen a lot of reports from people who went there, and they said that the people they met were all fantastic. It is the regime that is terrible. Bad government, good people. The culture itself is not toxic or evil.

In India the culture itself is toxic and evil and promotes sociopathy and wickedness in all Indians from the day you are born. Of course the government is full of some of the worst of all of these people, but your average Indian often is a perfectly horrible human being in the way he lives his life and his values or lack thereof. Normal Indian culture is narcissistic, callous, sadistic, self-serving, selfish, backstabbing, treacherous, utterly dishonest and sociopathic. So you end up with a billion people who lie, cheat and steal as a matter of daily existence. A nation of monsters.

The people themselves are shitty.

In India, the government is shitty, and so are the people who have blackened hearts and burnt out souls.

In North Korea the government is shitty, but the people are generally decent people with something remaining of real hearts and genuine human souls.


Filed under Asia, Asians, Culture, East Indians, Government, India, Koreans, NE Asia, North Korea, Northeast Asians, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, South Asia, South Asians

Veddoids In Modern and Ancient Asia: A Predominant Type?

Pepperoncini writes:

I think when you say Australoid, you mean Veddoid, and Vedda people are distinct and different from Dravidians, including Tamils. Tamils have a range of phenotypes. Tamil-speaking groups can range from very dark with low nose bridge and broad noses to dark, normal nose bridge and average nasal index.

Whatever the Tamils may appear to be, when we put Tamil skulls on a graph, they plot with the Senoi, Negritos, Andaman Islanders, Papuans and similar groups.

The Senoi are an Australoid group that are best seen as Veddoids transplanted to Southern China and then to Thailand 5,000 YBP. From 5-15,000 YBP, Veddoid types may have been widespread throughout Asia. The pre-Jomon in Thailand 16,000 YBP have skulls that plot closely with the Jomonese later in Japan at 13,000 YBP. If you compare photos of modern day Ainu people with Veddoids from India, it is clear that the Ainu are a depigmented group of Northern Veddoids.

There are also traces of Veddoid types in the Philippines long ago where reports of oddly Caucasoid-looking people appear in the anthropological record. They may have been part of the group that moved from Thailand to southern Japan between 13-16,000 YBP because the Philippines would be along this route.

So also would be Australia.

And indeed, the first modern Aborigines appear in the form of a group called Murrayans that arrived between 15-20,000 YBP. The best guess is that the Murrayans were the same group of Veddoids that were present in Thailand at this time and the migration may have part of the same Thailand-Japan migration that the pre-Jomonese undertook.

This is probably not the only Veddoid migration to Australia. Between 10-15,000 YBP, a group called the Carpinterians arrived, apparently from Southern India. Consider that all people in India are termed “Australoid” before 8,000 YBP when the Australoid-Caucasoid transition begins possibly with the arrival of the first actual Dravidians, probably Elamites from western Iran. These pre-8,000 YBP Australoids in India then could probably best be called Veddoids.

Australoid types were present long before in India in India and Southeast Asia as skulls from India and Thailand 25,000 YBP are said to resemble Aborigines. Their relationship to the Australoid Veddoid group that shows up at least 16,000 YBP is not known.

The modern Aborigines are a mix between Carpinterians and Murrayans that arrived 13-17,000 YBP in the subcontinent and subsequently interbred.

Before that, some very different and even more archaic people lived in Australia.


Filed under Aborigines, Ainu, Andaman Islanders, Anthropology, Asia, Asians, Australia, China, India, Iran, Japan, NE Asia, Negritos, Northeast Asians, Papuans, Philippines, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asians, South Asia, Thailand