Category Archives: Europeans

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.

18 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

How the Right Uses Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric to Further Its Reactionary Goals

I am not going to discuss here the rightwing use of anti-immigration policy as a way of politicizing racism, nor as a means of splintering the working class and getting a lot of workers to vote for the parties of the ruling class by voting for rightwing anti-immigrant politicians. Both of those are well-known goals of anti-immigrant discourse.

Not that anti-immigrant discourse is all bad. There are times when immigration is out of control and things need to be brought under order. The use of foreign workers are temporary low wage scabs to increase profits, the abuse of the refugee program, large numbers of problematic immigrants coming to a country, immigrants straining government services, illegal immigrants, environmental degradation by mass immigration, changing the nation’s ethnic and cultural character via mass immigration of foreigners, all of these things are examples of some of the negative effects that can occur via unregulated or poorly regulated immigration.

What I wish to talk about here is something different: anti-immigration rhetoric as a rightwing diversion from rightwing projects, in this case to dismantle the state.

A wildly corrupt and outrageous rightwing parliamentary coup followed by a blatantly corrupt trial of the head of the former president resulted in a hard rightwing putschist state pursuing a radical reactionary project of dismantling all of the progressive reforms of the leftwing PT government under President Lula. Since then, public institutions have been systematically defunded even when they were already underfunded to start with in part because Brazil has never once taxed the rich in its entire existence as a nation. So public services are collapsing due to defunding in the same way that public entities collapsed under rightwing Sam Brownblack in Kansas and the NHS is presently collapsing in the UK due to a death by a thousand cuts via the Tory government.

Public frustration over the collapsing state is at a high level. At the same time, many new immigrants have been coming into Brazil due to the rightwing and US-created collapse of the economy there.

You need to understand about immigration in Latin America. It does not have the racist overtones of the debate here in the US about immigration. Also the income differences between the countries of Latin America are not vast. Latin American nations consider all Latin Americans to be part of a single ethnic mixed race people sharing a single Latin American basic culture. In many countries, the immigrants speak the same language as the residents. This makes even mass immigration much more of a “meh” issue in Latin America than it is here. All Latin Americans are brothers, ethnically, culturally and often linguistically, so why not let your brothers into your house when they desire shelter from a storm?

Hence, even White Argentina has been taking in large numbers of mestizo immigrants from Peru and Bolivia lately with a promise to soon legalize them all. Even heavily White Costa Rica has taken in 1-2 million mestizos from its neighbors who are either impoverished or devastated by street crime with an apparent promise to normalize most of them. Venezuela took in many Colombians fleeing war and poverty without batting an eye, and Colombia took in many rightwing Venezuelans fleeing Chavismo. Except in Mexico, immigrants are seldom deported in Latin America. The idea is to house, integrate and even legalize them as soon as possible.

Nevertheless, the line of Venezuelan immigrants has turned into a flood in some cities.

Brazil’s rightwing gangster state has made clever use of the problems of mass Venezuelan immigration by deviously blaming the collapsed public services (devastated and defunded by rightwing evisceration) on the masses of Venezuelan immigrants! This is apparently not true at all. The immigrants are not overwhelming public services and causing them to collapse. Instead the public services are collapsing via gutting by the rightwing state.

But the government has the people whipped into a wild nativist frenzy over this. This is in spite of the fact that Brazilians and Venezuelans are probably little different ethnically – both being some mixture of Black, White, and Indian. The result has been daily attacks on Venezuelan immigrants in some cities and most recently a spate of high profile arson attacks on buildings housing Venezuelan immigrants.

This could be called attacks on immigrants as a diversion from anti-people rightwing projects. It’s a way of getting people to look the other way and scapegoat innocent people while the state is dismantled by the rich.

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 Americas, Argentina, Brazil, Britain, Central America, Colombia, Conservatism, Corruption, Costa Rica, Economics, Europe, Fake Guest Workers, Government, Illegal, Immigration, Labor, Latin America, Latin American Right, Left, Legal, Mestizos, Mexico, Midwest, Mixed Race, Peru, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, South America, US Politics, USA, Venezuela, 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.

3 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

Domesticated and Feral Strains of Many Mammals Can Differ Starkly in Behavior

I have heard that there are breeds of dogs who are very intelligent and others that are almost as dumb as rocks. Surely they are all the same species. Intelligence and behavioral differences are no matter. Dogs and wolves and dogs and coyotes are pretty much the same species. Dogs can and do breed with wolves and coyotes both. So what? Take a domesticated dog breed and put it in your house and what does it do? Probably makes itself at home and becomes your best friend. Now capture a wolf or coyote, drug it, put it in a cage, take it to your house, and open it up. When the coyote or wolf wakes up, what will it try to do? It will run out the cage, run around your house, tear stuff up, make a huge racket, and in a lot of cases, it would even try to attack you.

I am not going to make an analogy between Whites and Blacks and dogs and wolves here, but racists are free to draw their obvious conclusions.

Just for starters, say I find an unconscious Black human somewhere, and for some reason, the best thing to do would be to take the person to my house and take care of them for a bit. I lie them down on the couch. They wake up after a while like the wolf woke up in the cage.

Now is this Black person going to rampage around my house, make a huge racket, destroy a lot of stuff, and probably attack me? Well, not immediately for sure, and that’s true for even the worst ones. But some of the bad ones, if you keep them around a bit though…you get the picture.

A Black human is less feral and far more domesticated than a wolf is. Between wolf and dog the difference between feral and domesticated nature is stark and even frightening. Between an average Black and White human, the difference between a wilder human and more domesticated human is dramatically less stark. Black people are not feral humans in the sense of a wolf to a dog. A true feral human would be like those Wild Children that have been raised in the woods by wolves or bears. A Black human is orders of magnitude more domesticated than that.

Black humans, as you can see, after all are quite domesticated as far as mammals go. But are they still a bit more wild than Whites and Asians? Well, maybe so.

Saying that intelligence and behavioral differences between Blacks and Whites – well-documented – are prima facie evidence of two different species is utter madness. A more feral and more domesticated strain of any mammal can show marked differences in all sorts of behavioral and cognitive variables.

The domesticated and feral strains of all sorts of species are dramatically different. Even domesticated cats gone feral are often impossible to properly tame, and they are from a genetically domesticated line!

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.

6 Comments

Filed under Animals, Blacks, Canids, Carnivores, Dogs, Domestic, Mammals, Race/Ethnicity, Whites, Wild, Wolves

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

No Way Are Italians As Bad As Blacks

I know I am a biased German-American from the US/Canadian border but the Romans described your own Scottish ancestors (If you are that writer from Central West Virginia) and the Jewish tribes (Zealots) and everyone outside of Rome the same way.

Now today if you were to compare North New Jersey with say, Minneapolis (German/Nordic) or Central West Virginia, which area has the most homicides/disappearances with presumed homicides of known “wiseguys”, corrupted public officials, governors under taxpayer lifetime protection because they “took down” a “crew”?

White people always say thing like White trash is worse than Ghetto Blacks or Italians are as bad as Ghetto Blacks, but it’s never true. Mostly these are nervous White liberals who are saying these things in a desperate attempt to not be racist. That is laudable, and I understand the noble motivation. But it’s just not true.

There is no way on Earth that Italians are as bad as Blacks. What’s the Italian homicide rate? What’s the violent crime rate? What about all the other rates of lousy things? There’s no comparison. Black homicide and violence and crime in general is far worse than Italians. I doubt if the Italian ethnic group has a homicide or violent crime rate much above ordinary US Whites.

Ever heard anyone say they are moving out of a neighborhood because too many Italians are moving in?

The schools are going downhill because there’s too many Italian students now?

Just give it up, man.

There’s no need to cover for the Black race, The statistics speak for themselves. Of course, many Blacks are not a part of that mess in the slightest, but that does not mean that the race as a group performs very poorly on so many variables. Why cover for bad Black behavior? It’s on them. They own their behavior. They need to answer for it.

I would love to live in a city full of Italians. I would not even mind if the Mafia were present. What’s going to happen? Is the Mafia going to kill me?

On the other hand, do I want to live in a city full of Blacks? Are you nuts?

Let me give you an example. This city here used to be a majority White city, and the Whites were mostly Italians. So you could say that this was in effect a basically Italian city as they were the major group here major ethnic group here. It has since transitioned from a White/Italian city to an Hispanic/Mexican city. The transition has been noticeable for anyone with eyes.

Everybody says this city was far better back in the White/Italian days. No sane person says it is better now because objectively, it’s just not. I have said this before but I will say it again. When a locale goes White -> Hispanic, it’s pretty much a downgrade. I would live to see one city in this land where a city went White -> Hispanic and the result was an upgrade over the White version. Hispanic downgrades are rather moderate, and you can still live there. White -> Black downgrades of cities are so extreme that you don’t even want to live there. I sure wouldn’t.

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.

70 Comments

Filed under Blacks, Crime, Hispanics, Italians, Liberalism, Political Science, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Sociology, Urban Decay, Urban Studies, Whites

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

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?

17 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

Mexicans Are Ok; Mexican Culture Is Crap

Trash: HONEST GUY

I agree, but I would say that white rural rednecks are high in the running as well as Mexican Indians.

The whole problem with Mexicans comes from mestizos, most 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 (Black ghetto culture is 2-3X worse statistically but probably much worse on the ground), but I don’t like Mexican or Chicano (Mexican-American) culture, sorry. It’s not my culture. I grew up with White middle class culture, and that’s the culture I prefer. All of my relatives live in that culture more or less. I prefer my own culture. Is that some sort of a crime now? I am a bigot if I prefer my own culture to other cultures?

Mexican culture is 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 and 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, which I basically spent with her.

Chicano culture in the 1970’s was far less toxic than it is today.

I was even friends with the local Chicanos at the school, especially the girls. This was strange as almost no White guys made friends with these Chicano dudes. However, one of my friends somewhat befriended some of the girls. Their culture basically blew, as it was gang culture centered around being lowriders, driving souped up vehicles, and listening to “oldies” pop music from the 1950’s and 1960’s.

None of them did well in school, and they were very apathetic. The girls often had teardrop tattoos on their eyes. The men wore white t-shirts and were apathetic but friendly at least in a passive sense. For some reason they seemed sad most of the time, and it was as if they wanted to live this tragic, resigned to fate, somewhat doomed yet not dangerous “life of sadness” with little agency for some romantic or psychological reason. The sadness was almost the essence of their rebellion and ethnic subculture.

Some of those girls used to tease me in a friendly way. I forget why. Basically they did not associate with Whites. They lived in a rundown part of town called Motown or Dogtown. The gang activity was very low level and they were mostly just neighborhood social clubs. There was some gang violence, but it was mostly just fistfights like in West Side Story. There were no homicides whatsoever.

In contrast, most people I knew with some Mexican heritage simply assimilated more or less completely to ordinary American culture. They were only different in being somewhat more traditional, patriarchal, more rigid sex roles to some extent, and having strong family values. For instance, my half-Mexican friends were outraged that I would flip off my father and yell, “Fuck you!” at him. They called that “disrespecting your parents” and shook their heads at it.

The sex roles were not completely rigid. One of my best friends, CA, later came out gay, moved to LA soon after age 18 was quickly dead of HIV in the 1980’s. We had no clue at all that the guy was gay, although now that I think back, he never dated, had no interest in women whatsoever, and did have a lisp that we never thought much of. He displayed absolutely zero sexual interest in us, but gay boys and young men around age 15-21 are often in denial about their homosexuality, so they aren’t giving off vibes of attraction to men like most gay men do. You can become friends with them, even quite close if not best friends. They are completely normal and some of these seriously closeted young gay boys and men can be a lot of fun. They usually like to take drugs a lot for some reason.

His father ran a barber shop and was a typical macho Mexican man. The barber shop was covered with these soft porn girlie magazines. Nevertheless he was this sly, nearly juvenile delinquent (like all of us) stoner guy, 15 years old, and we would go over to his house and smoke weed and listen to albums like Jimi Hendrix “Are You Experienced” and have this total space voyages on weed.

My early pot trips were extremely weird for a long time – almost as bizarre and otherworldly and even terrifying but exciting as LSD trips, with the exception of being utterly hilarious in some weird, scary extraterrestrial way. For all intents and purposes, I was on another planet or even another universe on  those early trips. Nevertheless, I kept having those weed trips, in part because I like to live dangerously. Over a couple of years, they mellowed out and became a lot more normal as I also became a much more regular user and even a serious street level dealer for a while. I lived as a criminal for 14 years, running a regular drug dealing business on the side for mostly pot and psychedelics. And I never got caught!

The gangs committed no victimizing crime at all. The toxicity has come in that these gangs have become far more antisocial and criminal and their fights have become murderous as they became flooded with handguns and developed their own sort of sick gun culture.

8 Comments

Filed under American, California, Cannabis, Crime, Culture, Dope, Hallucinogens, Hispanics, Homosexuality, LSD, Mestizos, Mexicans, Mixed Race, Race/Ethnicity, Sex, USA, West, Whites