Category Archives: English

What Race Is This Person (Singapore)?

13043717_1174597142564927_1383531800797081546_n

An interesting phenotype from Singapore.

This is the aunt of a friend of mine. The family is from Singapore. They are part of an ethnic group called the Pernakans, a Southern Chinese group that moved to Malaysia ~600 years ago for some reason, possibly due to overcrowding in Fujian or worse, the terrible wars that periodically raged through the region.

Chinese groups have been leaving from this part of Southern China for a very long time now, especially in the last 200 years. In the past couple of centuries, this part of China has become very crowded. Possibly as a result, wild and vicious wars periodically raged through the area, sometimes killing 100,000’s of people. If you study Chinese history, you will hear about these wars a lot. It is not uncommon to read that invaders conquered several large cities and exterminated the whole populations of perhaps 300,000 people, men, women and children. This is how the Chinese have often fought wars. Chinese wars are unbelievably vicious and savage.

The Pernakans moved to Malaysia, and over time, bred in with Dutch and Portuguese and to a lesser extent British Europeans. All three were colonists in the region. I believe that they were Min speakers, but their Hokkien has gotten so changed, in particular from massive borrowings from Malay, that these languages in general are no longer intelligible with Amoy or Taiwanese Hokkien Proper.

Most Pernakans now are somewhat Eurasian, Chinese crossed with Dutch, Portuguese and sometimes British. The Pernakans had their own patriarchal culture and were known as very hard workers, often at manual labor type jobs like farming, timber harvest are working on rubber plantations. They committed little crime and had very orderly societies. The European colonists marveled at their high level of civilization. They did keep slaves, but they probably treated their slaves better than any slaves have ever been treated, and in many cases, slaves were freed.

Over time, most Pernakans also bred in with Malays. Pernakans are now a Chinese/Malay/European race, but the Asiatic tends to be prominent over the European in the stock. The mixing of cultures over 600 years in Malaysia resulted in some very interesting fine cuisine.

Many of these Chinese migrated to Singapore, where they, along with Teochew speakers (another Min group) and a large group of Cantonese Chinese, form what is known as the Singaporean Chinese, one of the wealthiest and most economically advanced ethnic groups on Earth. There is still a division of labor in Singapore, with Chinese on top, Malays on the bottom, and Southern Indian Dravidian speakers in between. Nevertheless all three groups are substantially mixed by this point. Most Chinese have Malay blood, and a lot of Malays have some Chinese in them. Malays and Indians are now intermarrying quite a bit. There is some ethnic conflict but not a lot possibly due to the wealth and everyone being so mixed.

Although this woman has a somewhat archaic phenotype (note prognathism), these archaic types are fairly common in Southern China. Many can be seen in the mountains of Yunnan Province. The archaism may be due to incomplete transition from Australoid -> Mongoloid, as the transition happened much later in Southern China than in Northern China, and prominent Australoid types were common in the far south of China only 3-4,000 YBP.

I also believe that this woman may be admixed with Caucasian. And I think the Malay admixture is quite clear. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I think I see some Vedda influence here. That would not be unusual, as Malays were Veddoids only until quite recently, and the Senoi are Veddoids to this day. The Mani Negritos are also still extant.

The transition in Malaysia went from Australoid Negritos (Mani) and Orang Asli -> Australoid Veddas (Senoi) -> Paleomongoloid Southeast Asians (modern Malays). The Malays appear to be aware of this transition, as they state that the Mani and Orang Asli are their ancestors. The bloodline of the Orang Asli goes back 72,000 YBP, so this group has been present in Malaysia since the very first Out of Africa groups, and their archaism is about on a par with the Andaman Islanders, another Australoid group which is also the remains of some of the earliest OOA groups.

2 Comments

Filed under Andaman Islanders, Anthropology, Asia, Asian, Asians, Cantonese, China, Chinese, Chinese (Ethnic), Chinese language, Colonialism, Cultural, Culture, Dutch, English, Europeans, History, Language Families, Linguistics, Malays, Malaysia, Mixed Race, Negritos, Physical, Political Science, Portuguese, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asian, SE Asians, Singapore, Sinitic, Sino-Tibetan, Sociology, War

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.

Thus

  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.

50 Comments

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

Is English a German or Scandinavian Language?

S. D. writes: I’m German American. Half my family is Prussian German and the other half is from Munich in the South. I can answer this, sort of.

English is actually from Denmark.

These folks were never from Germany, they were from Saxony and Angles They were Scandinavians.

Normans brought a great deal of Latin words into the English language but they themselves were Norwegians.

Brits have no German in them. They are Scandinavian and Celtic. Their language reflects this.

Wait a minute. English is a West Germanic language. It is in the same branch of Germanic as German. The most closely related language to English is Frisian, which is spoken as probably up to seven separate languages in Northwestern Netherlands and Northwestern and Far Northern Germany.

Scandinavian is North Germanic. All of these languages are straight up from Old Norse.

English is up from Old German, or more properly the Anglo-Frisian branch. Frisian is straight up from Old Saxon, which gives you a clue to what the Anglo-Saxons were speaking.

A man who knows how to speak Old English recently went to Frisia with a TV crew. He stopped and talked to an old farmer who was a Frisian speaker. He could actually communicate with this guy with him speaking Old English and the farmer speaking Frisian (“Modern Saxon”). If you look at Old English, it looks like German. If you hear a tape of someone reading Beowulf, it sounds like someone speaking German. Not only that, but you cannot understand a word.

The British are mostly a Celtic or even a pre-Celtic people. On top of that is layered some German (the Anglo-Saxons), some French (the Normans) and some Danish on the east and north, formerly the Daneland.

I have heard stories about the Normans being Vikings or Norwegians, but I am not sure about that. They were living in France when they invaded. One of my distant ancestors is Eleanor of Acquitaine, Queen of England. She was from the West Central Coast of France.

The Normans brought a lot of French words into English. Actually they spoke Norman, which is a completely separate language from French and is still alive to this day, though it is endangered. But it is related to French. Norman split off from Old French in ~800-1000 CE.

The Scottish and especially the Irish have a lot of Scandinavian blood in them due to a lot of Viking raids in those places. That is why there is all the red and blond hair and green and blue eyes there (red hair and green eyes in Ireland and blond hair and blue eyes in Scotland).

It is true that a lot of Latin borrowings came into English during the Norman period and even afterwards, as Latin was the language of science, technology and government. Some Danish words did go into English from the Daneland. Scots and a lot of the incomprehensible English dialects from northeastern English such as Geordie have heavy Danish influence.

However, there is a little something to your theory. The three tribes in that area that all invaded England were called the Angles, the Saxons and the Jutes. The Angles and Saxons lived from northeastern Netherlands through Northwestern and Far Northern Germany, but the Jutes actually did inhabit Far Southwest Denmark. They speak a language down there called South Jutish, and I am told that Danes cannot understand it at all. However, I have heard that a Jutish speaker and a Scots speaker from Scotland can actually somewhat communicate along the lines of the Old English speaker and the Frisian farmer!

39 Comments

Filed under Balto-Slavic-Germanic, Danish, English, English language, Europe, European, Europeans, French, Frisian, German, Germanic, History, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Irish, Language Families, Linguistics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Scots, Scottish

Bitch World Tour

SHI writes:

It’s extremely common for British and Scandinavian bitches (especially Sweden and Denmark) to suffer from entitlement mentality, feminazi mindset, support for emasculation of men, heartless cruel behavior, lack of human warmth, betrayal and cheating in relationships. These are the ones that are 100% likely to act bitchy in a nightclub especially because you gave them the wrong look and don’t have enough money. Their expectations from men are unreal and according to them, there’s not a single man worthy enough to touch the ground they walk on. They’re all gold-diggers or rich wannabes and it’s their worst behavior which is copied by other cultures – they’re like a bad infection that has spread in every other country. Ever wondered why Englishmen are always found drunk at the pubs and suicide is highest in Sweden. It’s a lack of love and basic human intimacy which we take for granted in other cultures. It’s not wrong for women to pose a challenge to men but acting with wanton cruelty is just vile.

Englishwomen and Scandinavians are bad to the bone. These creatures are deluded enough to believe that they are the best any man can get and will act whatever way they please with no consequence. It’s simply not true, there are hundreds of millions of good choices to make.

For example, French and Italian women are an absolute delight. They take care of themselves, can act bitchy but in a feminine and demure way which only increases their appeal to men. They aren’t nearly as manipulative and filled with hate.

German women are a mixed bag and can be a bit on the masculine side. What separates them from the Brits is their unrelenting honesty and realistic expectation from men. Also they’re a lot more approachable in any situation.

Spaniard and South American girls are absolutely down-to-earth and like their French and Italian counterparts, absolutely great for casual flirting and even serious relationships. They’re playful, flirtatious, won’t make you feel bad even if you don’t have enough money and will call back if they like you. Absolutely no pretensions. Latin women are least likely to be gold-diggers.

Russian, Ukrainian and other Eastern European women are gold-diggers universally except their expectations are more reasonable compared to the English. Also they can make a man feel real good in their presence.

What do you think, guys?

I will admit that Latin American women are great in general, except that they have this machista/machisimo expectation that a lot of us won’t be able to live up to. I have had some good luck with Russian women. I never knew any Ukrainian or East European women except a Polish-American girl whose people had been here a while. She was really cool and so was her Mom. Of the Spaniards, Italians and Frenchwomen, I have only dated Frenchwomen. They can be charming, but I had a French girlfriend who was twice my age as a young man (I was 21, she was 37) and she turned into a Hellacious ballbreaking bitch. But other Frenchwomen can be quite sweet.

I don’t have a lot of experience with Italian women, only friendship, but they are very feminine. The men run the show over there, and the women are resigned to that. Upper-class Spanish women are complete bitches. I have known some German women but not really dated them. They can be a bit masculine, but really most of them are just regular women deep down inside. I have no experience with Scandinavian women except Americans. I knew a Finnish-American whose people had been here a while. She was great and a total beauty. I also knew a Swedish-American “Black Swede” whose people had been here a long time. She was nice when I met her but then she stood me up for a date.

I have had mixed experiences with British women but overall pretty good. I haven’t run into the entitled mindset.

2 Comments

Filed under Culture, Danes, English, Europeans, French, Gender Studies, Germans, Hispanics, Italians, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Romantic Relationships, Russians, Spaniards, Swedes, Ukrainians, Women

South Africa: A Marxist Analysis

From here.

One very nice thing about Marxist analyses of various capitalist societies is that they explain so many things.

I’ve seen other analyses of South Africa that didn’t seem to explain the situation very well.

The standard is “the Whites oppressed the poor Blacks and wasn’t it terrible.” Well, of course that tells us a lot, but does it give us the whole story? No.

How about the White point of view? Whites build the nation into a great nation and now the Blacks are destroying everything the Whites built. Well, ok, this tells us some things.

How about the White nationalist analysis of the situation? The Blacks are waging genocidal war on us and trying to exterminate us via a racial war. I’m not even sure if that’s correct, forget explaining anything.

The Marxists like to say that it all boils down to economics. What’s an economic analysis of South Africa look like?

Something like this below. It’s interesting because he talks about capital accumulation. I don’t understand it very well, but under capitalism, you need capital accumulation. Capital accumulation is acquired iin various ways, but one of the best ways is to oppress your working class as much as possible. The more your keep your working class down and the less you pay them, the more capital is accumulated via the capitalist class via capital accumulation.

So it appears that mass repression of the working class is necessary for capital accumulation, which is one of the building blocks of a capitalist economy. If that’s true, and it seems that it is, well, what’s so great about that? Most of us are just workers. Why should we support a system that has as its building block the mass repression of our class. What’s the point of that?

And if capital accumulation is not built on the backs of workers, how then is it to be accomplished?

The analysis below is also interesting because it suggests that the motivation for most farmer killings has been robbery rather than some genocidal project.

I don’t think that anyone would seriously want a return to apartheid if they understood that the present intensified pauperization of a significant portion of Black South Africans is a direct consequence of the forces of global capitalism. The ANC rejected the Freedom Charter in favor of neoliberal ideology and the majority of South Africans have paid a bitter price.

Apartheid was a form of capitalism that was calculated to use the White Afrikaner working class, impoverished by British imperialism, as a means for the Afrikaner landed aristocracy of super rich farmers (a tiny minority) to make inroads into industrial capitalism which was controlled in South Africa by English speaking Whites of mostly British ancestry.

Apartheid also served to produce a significantly accelerated capital accumulation because the workers could be paid a lower wage than was required to reproduce the workforce, a luxury not available at the time to European and North American capital. This was because the wages of the workers were subsidized by the rural landholdings of their families in the Bantustans.

By the 1980s it became apparent that Apartheid was no longer an efficient means of capital accumulation and the leading members of the business elite went behind the governments back and did a deal with the ANC at a meeting in Lusaka, Zambia.

In short order, Mandela was released from prison, the Freedom Charter was rejected in favor of neoliberalism, and the ANC came to power with no intention of making the fundamental socioeconomic policy changes required to provide justice for all in South Africa.

A few blacks were co-opted into the white bourgeoisie, became board members of large corporations and joined the ranks of millionaires while very little changed for the majority. Neoliberal globalization was a far better way of exploiting the people of South Africa than Apartheid.

The result today is incredibly high unemployment amongst Blacks and a high crime rate which has led to the murder of a great many White farmers. What the neo-Nazis don’t tell you, however, is that the Black murderers are equal opportunity murderers and will kill Blacks as readily as the kill Whites if there is material gain to be had from the murder.

3 Comments

Filed under Africa, Blacks, Capitalism, Crime, Economics, English, Europeans, Imperialism, Labor, Left, Marxism, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, South Africa, White Nationalism, Whites

More Illegal Immigration Madness

Repost from the old site.

First off, let me start out by saying that I am a Leftist. In fact, I am a Communist. However, unlike 99% of Leftists, I actually oppose illegal immigration. Why? Because it is one of the worst things that has ever happened to American workers of all colors.

In my town, I figure that 85% of local Hispanics support the illegals that run amok all over here. The reason for that is clear. Hispanics, like every other group except Whites, are allowed to be and even encouraged to be ethnocentric.

What’s completely insane about is that in their ethnocentrism, Hispanics are really hurting themselves. You never see a Help Wanted sign in this town. Why would you, when the unemployment rate is 11%? Yet I don’t know one single illegal alien who is out of work. It seems 100% of them are working.

My White friend has roofing skills. He goes down to the local hiring hall and tries to get hired, but he does demand $9/hr. That’s $1 over minimum wage. Yet every time, the employers say that some illegal over there will do it for $4-5/hr (that’s far below minimum wage).

Also, my friend says that every job he applies for demands bilingual skills in Spanish. As he is not bilingual, he is SOL.

I find this ridiculous. It might be slightly sensible if these Spanish speakers were natives who had lived here since 1850 and hence had some right to their native tongue.

Instead, almost all of the ones you will need to use Spanish with are illegal aliens who hopped the border in the past 20 years. The notion that one cannot get a job in the US unless one speaks a foreign language is preposterous. I think it ought to be illegal.

Bottom line is I know all sorts of young Americans around here who are out of work. Now, they aren’t always the most wonderful citizens, but if there were Help Wanted signs all over town, I think they could work somewhere.

Instead, they are unemployed and spend their days involved with gangs, crime, tagging, rolling drunks, fighting with gang rivals, leeching off their stupid girlfriends, engaging in petty thievery, and especially smoking dope. They just in general act highly uncivilized.

I would like to point out here that in a manner that is little discussed, illegal immigration has been partly responsible for gangsta culture, drug abuse, laziness, and just general cultural degeneration among young Americans of all races.

Studies have shown that as illegal immigration has increased over the past 20 years or so, the number of young Americans who count themselves as “discouraged workers” who have dropped out of the labor force has grown significantly.

The two things must be related.

Illegals are taking all the low-skilled labor and these were the sort of jobs young Americans cut their working teeth on in their youth. With no work to do, young Americans become discouraged, drop out and culturally degenerate in various ways.

In the comments section, commenter Lafayette brings up a highly pro-immigrant Weltanshauung in the UK involving Polish workers. The content is familiar. Britons are told endlessly the society will collapse if not for the immigrants. There are so many jobs that young Britons just will not do. If the immigrants go, the economy will tank. On and on.

I don’t know the dynamic of Polish immigrants in the UK, but I assume that they are working for lower wages than Britons work for. Otherwise the entire UK media would not be cheering them on. I also noticed an article recently that said that Polish workers were better workers than British workers.

This is part of the pro-immigrant culture that we went through in the West under Reagan. Starting under Reagan, a new culture developed in America whereby rightwingers repeatedly endlessly what crappy workers Americans were, especially blue collar workers. There was no evidence for this whatsoever, but the talk went on.

Americans, mostly young Whites, were also told that blue collar jobs were for losers. The only way to be a winner in America was to run a business or work in an office. Good, honest, US working class culture was degraded with an incessant drumbeat. At the same time, the illegals started to pour in.

I think that these two things were connected.

There was a concerted rightwing project to tell young Americans that working class jobs were for losers and that US working class workers were crappy workers, combined with the beginnings of a total flood of unskilled labor from south of the border. The unstated assumption: the US working class all needed to be replaced by immigrants, especially illegals from Mesoamerica.

At the same time, an all-out war was waged on unions, the organizations of the US working class. The notion was also promoted that Americans are some kind of sissy fussbudgets who will not do any kind low-status labor. Therefore, we needed to import millions of illegals to do this work or else the economy would collapse. We were also regularly harangued with stories about phantom labor shortages.

After about 15 years or so of mass unskilled illegal immigration, the US Left did an about-face and decided to represent the interests of immigrant scabs over native workers. The nasty and wicked notion that normal, sane and reasonable opposition to illegal immigration was racism (!) was promoted, and soon wormed its way through the whole culture to where it is now widely accepted.

After that, the labor unions themselves, the last holdout of the workers, went over to the immigrant scabs, and US workers were finally left completely high and dry.

I would like to point out that the entire MSM was complicit in this, and they are to this day. Realize that if the MSM is consistent about any one thing, it is their sheer and utter contempt for labor. There is not one single major US newsmagazine, TV news station or large daily newspaper that is the slightest bit friendly to labor, much less organized labor.

As the UK’s lunatic pro-immigrant culture continued, these same nasty memes wormed their way into the culture. One is the notion that there are certain jobs that Britons simply will not do. It’s not stated, but what’s implied is that Britons will not do this work for any amount of money. I don’t know about Britons, but here in the US, that’s manifestly untrue for anything other than field work.

A much more pernicious line soon followed, and this is that the foreigners are actually better workers than the natives. The Right will start this line, but soon the ultra-traitors of the Idiot Left will pick up on it.

I had an anarchist say straight to my face that US workers are lazy and incompetent, and that’s why we need illegals to replace them (!).

Lafayette also points out that in the UK, the entire Left has given up on the working class. Instead, it is supporting immigrant scabs who are being brought in for the sole purpose of driving down the cost of labor for UK native workers.

What followed after that is that the labor unions themselves got on board and supported the immigrant scabs over the interests of native workers. Since government and media never support native workers, and as Lafayette notes, the Left completely gave up on them, what this means is that native workers lost their last friend – their very own unions .

The Left here in the US and UK will respond with the pleasant-sounding nostrum that what is needed is to organize all of the immigrants, especially the illegals. The problem is that this feel-good fall-back position is utterly doomed to failure.

The notion that organizing these illegals is going to help anything is even more idiotic here in the US than it is in the UK. Unionization in the US has been plummeting since the 1950’s and in particular since 1973. Unions are now so weak that it’s ridiculous. That they are suddenly going to organize all of these immigrant scabs and regain all their power and glory is comical.

Even if they did organize the immigrants, as Lafayette notes, what good is it with ten or more workers lining up for every unskilled job? All the unions in the world are pretty useless in the face of a tidal wave and resulting massive glut in unskilled labor.

Under capitalism, labor is like pricing – it is based on supply and demand. Massive oversupply of low-skilled labor will result in the bottoming out of the price of labor just as massive oversupply in a type of goods will result in the collapse in the price of that particular widget.

So with fields like construction totally glutted with low to unskilled workers, the high-paying construction jobs of yesterday are never coming back, whether you organize the immigrant scabs or not.

US unions can’t even organize US workers and get them to join unions. How will they organize a bunch of illegals who can’t even speak English?

P.S. I am not a xenophobe. I do support limited (200,000 a year?), tightly controlled legal immigration. The immigrants should be rigorously analyzed, and the vast majority of potential immigrants should be rejected. Immigrants should be required to jump through many hoops in order to prove to us exactly how they will be an asset to our nation instead of adding to our nightmarish underclass.

Educational, legal and other histories should be reviewed. Those immigrants from whatever land who successfully run this tough gauntlet are likely to be net benefits as opposed to net detractors to our nation.

One of the principal problems with illegal immigrants is that it is unscreened, so instead of getting high-quality immigrants, we get the peasantry and urban poor of the Third World. They are unlikely to be net benefits to our land in either the short or long run. Chain migration (family reunification) should be drastically scaled back or ended altogether.

5 Comments

Filed under Britain, Capitalism, Conservatism, Economics, English, Europe, Europeans, Government, Hispanics, Illegal, Immigration, Journalism, Labor, Left, Legal, Poles, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Reposts From The Old Site, Republicans, US Politics, Useless Western Left, Whites

Black People Like to Fuck

From the often-interesting American Renaissance comments section:

From the times of antiquity, every visitor to black Africa remarked upon the sexual proclivities and prowess of blacks, and their seeming preoccupation with sex.. From the ancient Egyptians, Greek, Romans, Arabs and others who came after them.

Are all these people guilty of stereotyping what blacks themselves take a delightful (to them, anyway) pride in, namely bragging about their sexual prowess and the size of their genitals? They themselves nourish these stereotypes, and then howl “racism” whenever they’re called on the carpet for it, by non-blacks.

Hmmm.

Black people like to fuck.

I like to fuck.*

Up with the Blacks!

*I am currently “suffering” from age-related sex drive decline, but things yet work, so no major worries. I’m also on sex-drive lowering meds and have prostatitis, which lowers your sex drive. It’s actually cool in a way, because I’ve been a sex addict my whole life. When Internet porn came around, I would surf porn for up to 8-12 hours at a time, like a gambling addict that could not let go. At one point in the past, I was spending up to 6-8 hours a day in various types of sexual activity, including with female partners.

Interestingly, I’ve found that most women are sex maniacs too, or at least they are around me, if they like me that way. Never ran into the “not in the mood” type. I think most women are tigers waiting to be let out of their cages!

Anyway, it’s nice that the drive is going down. Not in that British way. You know how the British are. William S. Burroughs noted that the upper class men reach a certain age, the sex is gone, and they wipe their brow, “Whew, glad that’s over.” These Tory types are just too civilized to be pig in the mud mammals.

I can finally get some other stuff done. Sex addiction is after all an addiction, and it feels like a drug, gambling or any other addiction. It’s a blast, but you’re out of control, and you secretly want to stop. Now I get to think about something other than something other than sex all day! And for an intellectual who thinks a trip to the library is like an exotic vacation, that’s a nice thing.

98 Comments

Filed under Blacks, English, Europeans, Heterosexuality, Pornography, Race/Ethnicity, Sex

“Drunk and Disorderly: The Joys of Ranterism and Other Topics,” by Jacob Bauthumley

For white English or American readers of this blog, a question.

Who went to church this morning? Go on, own up. Nobody?

Coming home on the bike I passed the Catholic church on the corner of my block (West Earlham). Everyone was of Indian origin, speaking Indian languages! In white Norwich! Not a white Caucasian in sight.

This morning I was up extremely early, and at first light I was worshipping at the church of my allotment, delighting in the alchemy of all life. Yes really! Just enjoying it.

Then, I went scrumping windfall apples, and gathered 150lb of different varieties, which I moved on my bike trailer in an old plastic cistern back to my friend Ruth’s place. I am so knackered now that I have to go back to bed. I’ve been up since 4am, and I’ve had three hours’ sleep. What the hell. Sleep it off, baby. It’s a Sunday!

I rang a friend, a local poet, and he put me in touch with a local cider maker with a press, out in rural Norfolk, in Old Buckenham. My friend John and I plan to turn the apples into ten gallons of cider and sour the cider to make ten gallons of cider vinegar.

Religious views are a very tricky area, aren’t they? The two things you are not supposed to discuss in polite English society are religion and politics. It is clear that I do not have the manners of an Englishman, since I talk about both.

My nom de guerre Abiezer Coppe gives his views on the Christian religion at the end of the piece.

I have been at times an Marxist atheist, an Marxist agnostic, and a Marxist with Christian leanings. In the next phase of my life I shall settle for a Marxist gnosticism, marrying the rational materialist dialectic of Marx, to the otherworldly insights of the Christian Gnostics, starting with Valentinus (3rd Century AD). I am in good company. Ernst Bloch (1885-1977) was also a kind of Marxist gnostic. True, he was a Stalinist, too, but Stalinism is not the main thrust of his remarkable magnum opus on Hope, Das Prinzip Hoffnug, or of his biography of the 15th Century revolutionary peasant leader, Thomas Munzer, which I found in French translation.

Spiritual search: should I give it up entirely? I have tried the Cheshire Cat Buddhists at the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (I swear they all had the same smile) but they gave me the creeps, as every religious group does.

Experiential spirituality is the only type I can connect to: I learned Vipassana meditation once. Ten day silent retreats in Herefordshire, no speaking, no eye contact: it takes a lot to discipline a wild mind. I’ve always been poor, and even the poor can afford it: I gave service instead of cash, and went back and worked in the kitchens on another retreat.

Vipassana was good, and it works, but who wants to spend two hours a day sitting on their arse meditating? It certainly chills you out like nothing else does, the ten day retreat. You come out feeling clean, really clean. A good friend of mine called L–a came on a Herefordshire retreat with me (I drove my totally illegal French taxed, French MOT’d and French insured Citroen BX from Norwich to Herefordshire and back, and around on the roads of the UK for 2 years, and the police never stopped me once). She’d smoked dope and tobacco, and drank alcohol all her life. After the 10 day retreat she just stopped, without even a struggle. No alcohol, no drugs, no tobacco. She just didn’t want them anymore.

Buddha was really onto something, then. Buddhism is a practical spirituality centered on the practice of compassion, and the meditative practices of Buddhism actually renders one more compassionate. It can’t be a bad thing.

I’ve met atheists and Marxists who are – or seem – spiritual, and plenty of Christians who are not. It’s about the being, the beingness of the person, the kind of love they put forth into the world. I’ve met Muslims with a spiritual energy to die for.

Spirituality is? – taking the risk in every moment to be honest, to connect with other beings (it might be a frog, my favourite amphibian) and live and love from my deepest sense of whom I am, from my wild and untamed self. And damn the consequences. It’s difficult. We are English. We are fairly shy. We like dissimulation and subterfuge; it is what, as a nation, we are more comfortable with. At least the chattering classes, the bourgeois, the middle classes. I can only speak for my own class, and I am not Jay Griffiths, though I admire her guts. I am more comfortable with Latins, personally, than the emotionally repressed public school Englishman (I did that. I went to a small private boarding school in Suffolk for six years).

WYSWYG: What You See Is What You Get, in my experience with people of Latin  extraction.

If they don’t like you they come straight out with it. I respect that. In fact, seriously, who would WANT to live any other way once the inner wild being in each of us is brought to light? Who then would settle for the psychic equivalent of suburbia?

Read Wild: An Elemental Journey, by Jay Griffiths, to get an idea of what we have lost touch with, our mammalian, our animal nature, our inner wild being. Once we were wild beings, too.

Wild: An Elemental Journey is a magnificent book, and the woman has bags of courage, lots of cojones, as the Spanish say. Maybe we need to “re-wild” ourselves a bit (if a return to barbarism is all that’s in the offing, barring a socialist revolution: Socialism or Barbarism, Rosa Luxemburg), like Jay, sing from the rooftops, dance naked, and masturbate on a rock in the sun, as Jay describes doing in her book: she was doing a bit of Deep Ecology that day, connecting with nature, worshipping the sun and giving her all to the big O. Her account is in the book.

People are rarely so frank. In fact she was intensely lonely, in a wild place, far from human company. The orgasm brought her back to her sense of self, and reconnected her with her surroundings. Orgasm as sacramental act; I like it. Spirituality is not about going to church, it is not about which imaginary friend you have: it’s about love, love and respect for yourself, love and respect for your neighbours too, even the little frogs who come and visit me when I am harvesting vegetables I have grown.

Social revolutions are carnivals of bacchanalia, festivals of the spirit and festivals of the oppressed (Lenin), explosions of creativity and joy (it is not nice being oppressed, is it? It is often fearful, too): or they are boring barracks socialism, and end in Five Year Plans, the Fulfillment of Quotas, the Meeting of Production Targets, and the ruination of nature. And ultimately, a return to capitalism, consumerism, conformity and fear: China now. So revolutionary politics must include this spirit, as it will inspire the people of this land to rise against their oppressors.

Leftist political parties can be hard work emotionally! I didn’t see much joy and revolutionary fun in the 1970’s British Communist Party: it was a bit dour, a bit too serious, and very English. Yet there was also a real warmth among the comrades. We were en route for a better future, or so we thought…And when we stood up at District meetings and sang Jerusalem, by William Blake, it warmed my heart to sing the words of the greatest English gnostic poet, just as singing the Internationale in French to anyone who will listen does now.

Which Communist country kills 600,000 workers a year from overwork, and has a flexible working day of anything between 20 and 35 hours? China, the West’s new slave empire that produces all our electronic goodies. Someone died of exhaustion on a production line somewhere in China making my laptop…that thought does cross my mind (more here on Chinese workers).

I still identify as a Marxist, but as a Marxist Feminist Gnostic, which is totally unacceptable to the comrades! I’ve done the Communist Party (CPGB, PCF), done the Socialist Workers (SWP), but I couldn’t hack it, organised male Marxist politics (yawn…), so these days I work for the Green Party, campaign for them, but I won’t join. I’ve stopped being a joiner.

At least the UK Green Party do not have the one thousand hang-ups about the Soviet Union that the Communists had, and all that bloody coded language… They mean the things they say, too….it’s prefigurative politics, of the type I’ve always believed in. You carry the changes you want to see into your personal life. If you’ve rubbed shoulders with Stalinists for several years, as I have without ever being one of them, you’ll know how refreshing that is.

Where’s the Libertarian Marxist Feminist Gnostic Party?

That’s what I want to know. I haven’t seen one yet. When I do I’ll sign up.

I struggle with the materialist epistemology of Marxism. I have had a go at being a philosophical materialist, read the books (back in the day it was Maurice Cornforth, now completely and deservedly forgotten, and Emile Burns)  but found it kind of miserable…back in the day I read a lot of Marxists. The only ones I could go for were the outliers, the non-conformists like Ernst Bloch, a German Marxist who wrote a thousand page book about dreams, day dreams, hope and the place of utopia in the human imagination (Hope The Principle, 3 vols). Bad Marxists, utopian dreamers. William Morris and his News From Nowhere. Nowhere is where I live – the name of Utopia!

Philosophical materialism, in the forms in which I have encountered it, rules out as nonexistent that which palpably exists!

I have yet to meet a Marxist, for example, who takes homeopathic medicine at all seriously, and I trained as a homeopath, so I know it works!  They parrot the standard line. One would think that a revolutionary would have had a little more insight than that. If I had breast cancer, for example, a homeopath would be my first port of call. See Dr A U Ramakrishnan’s work in that area: consistent success across many types of cancer, with five year follow-ups, and none of the extreme toxicity and immune devastation of chemotherapy.

Mr Abiezer Coppe was, I imagine, a Christian gnostic sans le savoir, and inspired William Blake, who I think knew he wrote in the gnostic tradition (see historian E P Thompson’s last book, Witness Against the Beast: William Blake and the Moral Law, which is a brilliant study).

That is why I identify with Blake, too, and especially with The Marriage of Heaven and Hell (1793), a text on the dialectic before Marx and Hegel. It is a lot more fun to read than Karl Marx’s Theses on Feuerbach, too!

The English Ranters rejected all forms of spiritual, sexual and religious authority, and insisted that the only church was the human body. They were good chaps, religious anarcho-communists before communism, and more libertarian than Gerard Winstanley’s more puritanical Diggers, the only other Commies on the block at the time.

The Ranters had a endearing habit of preaching naked (if their enemies are to be believed) in the open air, on heaths, and drinking ale and fornicating at religious meetings. Very endearing. The Ranters did not believe in sin. Ranter women are said to have looked for sin in men’s codpieces, and on being unable to find any, declared there was none. That’s a kind of healthy materialism I like. So they didn’t believe in that superstitious shit the Church teaches, either, the Virgin Birth, Original Sin, or the sexual perversions resulting from the Christian, especially Catholic, strictures on the priesthood.

The Ranters were not feminists, but you can’t have everything, and in any case, who was a feminist in 1650? Ranters believed everything should be held in common, including women; they weren’t keen on the legal union of marriage and, I guess, just as in the 1960s, these 17th Century anarcho-hippie Ranter men enjoyed their sexual revolution and their sexual libertarianism while Ranter women got pregnant, had the babies, and were left holding them on the heaths of England, bereft of the men who had sired them. Maybe the Ranter males were indeed “only around for the conception”. Nothing new there, then!

So much for sexual liberation in 1650s England. Did they know about satisfying a woman in bed?

Funnily enough a feminist historian (Alison Smith) of early modern England told me that that there was a generally held view at the time that if a woman did not have an orgasm during sex with a man, then she could not conceive. So, in the beliefs of the time, no female orgasms equaled no babies…Quite progressive really, but did condoms exist then? I doubt it – condoms came in later…18th century, I think. Any condom historians here?

English Ranterism and the Digger movement represented a political dead end. With the Cromwellian Thermidor of the English Revolution after 1649, and the general persecution and ostracism of the Ranters, a lot of them recanted their beliefs, including Abiezer Coppe, stopped railing against the rich (one of their specialties!) and settled down to become Seekers, or Quakers (who are very much in the Gnostic lineage – no priests, no service, no dogmas, no crap, just the Inner Light of Not-God, etc…) or even Muggletonians…see E P Thompson’s book on William Blake (1993) for more. He interviewed the last surviving English Muggletonian. How about that?

More on the Ranters below:

Discussion of the Ranter historical context, and Ranter views.

– Extracts from the writings of Abiezer Coppe

My comments, writing as Abiezer Coppe, on Christianity and gnosticism:

27 Comments

Filed under Abiezer Coppe, Asia, Britain, Buddhism, China, Christian, English, Europe, European, Europeans, Feminism, Gender Studies, Guest Posts, Health, Heterosexuality, History, Illness, Left, Literature, Marxism, Medicine, Philosophy, Poetry, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Sex, USSR

“Kipling On the Front Lines,” by Alpha Unit

Mowgli, the little boy raised by wolves and befriended by Baloo the bear and Bagheera the panther, first came to life during a winter in Vermont in the imagination of Rudyard Kipling.

Kipling was in Vermont because that’s where his wife’s family lived; the couple had taken up residence there and started their own family. It was American hubris, however, that soured Kipling on living in the United States.

The focus of all the dissension was British Guiana, which was in a border dispute with Venezuela. Richard Olney, the American Secretary of State, declared that the United States had a right to mediate all disputes in the Western Hemisphere. Because of the Monroe Doctrine, you know.

In other words, the United States ruled the Western Hemisphere.

This didn’t sit well with the British, including Kipling. Anti-British sentiment in America, followed by family troubles, sent him back to England.

It was a period when both Britain and the United States were settling their weight upon all kinds of native peoples around the world. Someone observing the actions of both nations might have been amused by Kipling’s distaste for American interference in Britain’s interference in South America.

“If anybody’s going to be interfering in South America, it’s going to be us,” Secretary Olney would have told him.

Kipling, who actually memorialized the imperialist ambitions of both nations, remains a figure of contradictions.

He won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1907, though other writers have mocked his abilities, particularly as a poet. People still argue about whether he was pro- or anti-imperialist. Many know of his poem The White Man’s Burden, for which he has been denounced – and celebrated, as a satirist.

Does anyone concerned with world affairs today, particularly heads of state, really care what Kipling may or may not have advised his fellow Whites roughly a century ago?

I’m guessing that the answer to this question is “No.” The fact that people still debate Kipling’s views is a testament to two things: the power of art, in this case literature; and the power of the idea of race.

Kipling is long gone, but there are people who seem to have some kind of stake in whether or not his views on race and empire were justified. It reminds me of the debate we have had from time to time in America over whether kids should read some of the works of Mark Twain.

Kipling’s Kim has been compared to Huckleberry Finn, in fact. Both novels tell the coming-to-maturity tale of a “loose” boy with father issues, traveling with a beloved adult male. Both novels have come under scrutiny for alleged racism – which informs the question of their appropriateness for developing minds.

School children should be taught literature. Adults wrangle over which works are to be presented to them, and how they are to be presented, because adults supervise the indoctrination of children.

They wrangle for another reason, though. The issue of race is intimately wrapped up in another issue: self-esteem.

When I say self-esteem, I mean the popular concept of having a healthy, positive self-image. Who doesn’t want kids to have a healthy, positive self-image – especially “minority” kids, those long deemed to be most in need of it?

So for quite some time, at least here in the US, we’ve been giving historical figures – be they Presidents or novelists – the PC litmus test. If someone reads anything by Kipling other than The Jungle Book (both parts), will he be contaminated by White Supremacist ideology?

We’ve decided we must be very careful about that sort of thing going into the heads of young people.

And so educators and other interested parties have put long-dead authors such as Kipling onto the front lines of their ideology wars.

9 Comments

Filed under Alpha Unit, Americas, Anti-Racism, Britain, Colonialism, Cultural Marxists, English, Europeans, Guest Posts, History, Imperialism, Latin America, Literature, North America, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Scum, South America, The Americas, USA, Venezuela, White Racism, Whites

Who Are the Smartest White Europeans?

A commenter suggests that Russians are the smartest Whites.

It’s not the case. Russians are not at all the smartest Whites. Here are some recent scores. There is a North-South cline, but it’s not perfect at all. Italian is a very much a Med state, and it’s IQ is very high. France is mostly a Northern state, and it’s IQ is not so hot. Spain is a Med state with a high IQ. Ireland is a Northern state with a lower IQ than the rest.

Notice I title this piece White Europeans, because as a Pan-Aryanist, I not only believe that most all Caucasoids of Europe are White, but I also believe that there are Whites outside of Europe who are just as White as those of Europe.

Germany        107
Netherlands    107
Poland         106
Sweden         104
Italy          102
Austria        101
Switzerland    101
UK             100
Norway         100
Belgium        99
Denmark        99 (median)
Finland        99
Americans      98 (for comparison purposes)
Czech Republic 98
Hungary        98
Spain          98
Ireland        97
Russia         96
Greece         95
France         94
Bulgaria       94
Romania        94
Turkey         90
Serbia         89

I don’t have much to say about these scores. If France can produce such a great nation with an IQ of 94, then others with similar scores can do well too. Bulgaria, Romania, Russia, Hungary and the Czech Republic should be able to create some fine modern societies. They are surely smart enough to. These others listed below are certainly intelligent enough to do well for themselves. IQ is certainly not holding them back at any rate.

Mongolia                              100
Vietnam                               99.5
Estonia                               99
Latvia                                97.5
Ukraine                               96
Belarus                               96
UK East Indian                        96
Uruguay                               96
Moldova                               95.5
US Mexican-American (2nd generation)  95
Argentina                             94.5
Lithuania                             94
US Filipino                           94

Even Serbia has created an excellent modern society with an IQ of only 89. If you go to Belgrade, you would think you are in any modern US or European city. Even the countryside is not really backwards. Its health, education and development figures are excellent. There’s nothing inferior about the place other than their morals. If we take Serbia as the IQ at which one ought to be able to create a fine, modern, European-type society, things get a lot more interesting, and a lot more countries have the brains to do well.

Armenia                 93.5
Georgia                 93.5
Kazakhstan              93.5
Malaysia                92
Macedonia               92
Brunei                  91.5
Cyprus                  91.5
Chile                   91.5
Thailand                91
Albania                 90
Bermuda                 90
Croatia                 90
Costa Rica              90
Bosnia and Herzegovina  90
Cambodia                90
Cook Islands            89
Laos                    89
Suriname                89

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

168 Comments

Filed under Albanians, Argentines, Armenians, Asians, Austrians, Belgians, Belorussians, Bermudans, Bosnians, Bruneians, Bulgarians, Central Asians, Chileans, Cook Islanders, Costa Ricans, Croatians, Cypriots, Czechs, Danes, Dutch, English, Estonians, Europeans, Filipinos, Finns, French, Georgians, Germans, Greeks, Hispanics, Hungarians, Intelligence, Irish, Italians, Kazakhs, Khmer, Lao, Latvians, Lithuanians, Macedonians, Malays, Mexicans, Moldovans, Mongolians, Near Easterners, Northeast Asians, Norwegians, Oceanians, Poles, Polynesians, Psychology, Race Realism, Race/Ethnicity, Romanians, Russians, SE Asians, Serbs, Siberians, South Asians, Spaniards, Swedes, Swiss, Thai, Turks, Ukrainians, Uruguayans, Vietnamese, Whites