Category Archives: Mexicans

Game/PUA: Differential Masculinity and Femininity Among Both Males and Females As a Rationale for Interracial Sexual Preferences

Let us look at the masculinity-femininity chart across races:

Masculinity In Men

Race             Masculinity Level 

Black men        Highest

Arab/Berber Men  Very High

Hispanic men     High

Polynesian men   High

White men        Medium

Amerindian men   Lower?

East Asian men   Low

Indian men       Lowest, but varies

 

Femininity In Women

Race                Femininity Level

Asian women         Highest

Arab/Berber women   Very high

Indian women        Very high

Hispanic women      Higher

Amerindian women    High

Polynesian women    High

White women         Medium

Black women         Low

Testosterone levels in both genders seem to correlate pretty well with gender and race above. The highest testosterone women are seen as the least feminine and the lowest testosterone women as the most feminine. The highest testosterone men are the most masculine, and the lowest testosterone men are the least masculine.

Masculinity/femininity, that inscrutable variable that the idiot Cultural Left wants to wipe off the face of the Earth – this is the goal behind the ludicrous “get rid of gender” and “everyone choose your own gender” campaign –  seems to be pared down to that most coarse and biological of things, the level of some certain invisible chemical coursing through our veins and brains. How boring. How prosaic.

The whole problem with these varying levels of masculinity and femininity is multiculturalism.

In India, Indian women think Indian men are just fine.

In Asia, Asian women think Asian men are just fine.

In isolation, males and females of each race seem to be perfectly happy with the opposite sex in terms of masculinity or femininity.

Now enter multiculturalism. Catastrophe.

Now men can compare the femininity of the various races of women. In general, men will choose the more feminine women over the less feminine women. Likewise, women will now be able to compare the masculinity of men cross-racially. They will tend to prefer more masculine men over less masculine ones.

This probably only goes so far.

Hence White women will pick Black men over White men because they are more masculine but will reject Asian women as less masculine. They will be comparing everything to the baseline of White men.

Asian women will choose White men over Asian men as White men are more masculine. However, Black men may be too masculine. Here you are asking to pair the most feminine women with the most masculine men. It may not work. Asian women may regard Black men as so masculine that they are uncivilized, animal-like brutes. After all, Asian societies are run on a certain level of highly civilized and controlled behavior, and Black men seem to violate that. Asian women probably want their men masculine but controlled, civilized and mannered.

Of all the races, Asians set the bar highest of all in terms of acceptable behavior. Many behaviors that are just fine in White culture are outrageously rude to Asians. Many Asian women are said to have a visceral hatred for Black men on the grounds that they are dangerously uncivilized and violent.

Asian men regard Black men as the nadir.

In Asian society, a man must support his children. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Asian men see Black men running around having eight kids by eight different women and not supporting any of them, and the Asian men are profoundly disgusted. To him, this behavior is barely even human. If asked, he will say that those Black men are acting like dogs. After all, male dogs simply run around impregnating any female dog who comes their way, and of course they don’t help raise the puppies. To be so far below human behavior that you are acting like a dog is profoundly repulsive and outrageous in Asian culture. It produces a nearly visceral response.

Black men probably like Asian women just fine, but those women are probably not available to them for the reasons above.

White men will use the baseline of White women to choose Asian women, as they are more feminine than White women, but they will reject Black women, as they are more masculine than White women.

Indian women, faced to compare White and Indian men, may well choose White men, as we are more masculine. As super-feminine women though, they may be outraged, offended and frightened by Black men, who they may well see as so masculine that they are brutal, violent, dangerous and animalistic. Indian society is highly mannered and the chaotic nature of many Black areas may be profoundly offensive to proper, dainty, fussy,  and submissive Indian women.

Indian and Asian men, faced with rejection by their women, may look elsewhere, but as the least masculine races among men, women outside those two races are going to see them as less masculine than their own kind. It’s their own women or nothing.

Black women ought to be just fine, but the problem is that many Black men are looking elsewhere, although Black men are quite happy with Black women. White women are more feminine than Black women compared to the Black baseline, so Black men’s desire for a White woman may just be a choice of a more feminized race of women.

Further, many Black women are incredibly loyal to their race and want Black men or nothing. Of course they prefer Black men, as they are the most masculine of all. Who wouldn’t? But what happens when they look elsewhere? White men seem a lot less masculine than the Black male baseline. That makes them a  lot less desirable for Black women because women’s choices tend to be towards more masculinity, not less. Further, as the least feminine of women, non-Black men are going to regard Black women as too masculine for them. Men’s choices will tend to be in favor of more feminine women and against less feminine ones.

Black women do not have a lot of choices outside their own men. For Black women, it’s Black men or nothing.

This dynamic even seems to be working with other races. There are reports that in Europe, White women are choosing Arab or Berber men over White men simply because they are more masculine. And in Argentina, Argentine White men are reporting that many Argentine women are leaving White Argentine men in favor of more masculine Hispanic mestizo men. There are reports that in Mexico, many White women are preferring macho mestizo brutes over mannered and affected White men.

As you can see,  Black women as the least feminine women and Asian and Indian men as the least masculine men get the short end of the stick. A Black woman/Asian man pairing would be bizarre. You are asking the most masculine women to pair with the least masculine men. Black women probably see Asian men as severe wimps. You are also asking the least masculine men to hook up with the most masculine women.  For an Asian man to date a Black must nearly feel gay, as if he is with a man. The people at the far ends of the spectrum are the least likely to choose each other.

10 Comments

Filed under Arabs, Argentines, Asians, Berbers, Blacks, Cultural Marxists, Culture, East Indians, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Hispanics, Mexicans, North Africans, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Romantic Relationships, Sex, South Asians, Whites

The White Low Income, Working Class and Poor Are Not As Bad As You Think

Jason Y: Actually, though small towns are not as safe as you can get, unlike what Robert is saying. If you’re in the right area, you could very well get around poor Whites who are very little different than gangbangers. Their whole scheme is identity theft, plain old theft, and extortion (sometimes using their children to gain the sympathy of people).

They also exploit the liberal economic system (giving it a bad name among conservatives), basically getting all they can for free (via using children). Yet these same whites often hate NAM’s worse than the Klan.

Actually, I lived around many poor Whites up in the mountains for many years. Those rural White areas are full of poor and low income Whites. That’s mostly who lives there.

There was almost no crime among those poor and low income rural Whites up there. I was not aware of any identity theft. There was very little theft. We even had a bunch of homeless young Whites living out in the park, and none of them ever stole either. The one guy who stole was very stupid, the worst one out of all of them, and he happened to be half-Indian. I hate to say it, but that’s when I really started thinking about biology, race, and crime. There were all these poor as dirt people living around me, almost all of them young Whites, and the only one who stole anything was a damned Indian.

There were a lot of drugs in those towns too. Meth was everywhere. I actually knew a number of meth users and most of them were extremely nice people, believe it or not. There was not a lot of crime associated with meth up there for some weird reason.

I did see some serious crime relating to interpersonal fights. One guy I knew very well was very badly beaten in the head with a metal bar to the point of unconsciousness. He was screwing some woman, he was at her house, and someone came in and nearly beat him to death. It was thought that the guy who beat him was maybe the girl’s boyfriend. I figure there is going to be serious violence or even homicide related to interpersonal conflict everywhere you go.

One thing I noticed was that there were some extremely scummy people up there. We had some as neighbors for a while. But they were mostly just destructive towards themselves. Young men went to jail pretty regularly, but it was usually for drunk driving and sometimes for fistfights with other young men. One time we called the cops on the neighbors. They had a wild fight at 3 AM and smashed out the front window. Mostly they were just gross. They would do meth and play loud music all night and were always going to be balcony and spitting down below. A lot of the spit landed on the cars below. They were disgusting and we were starting to get pretty mad about their sheer grossness.

You could talk to those guys though, and I had some pleasant conversations with them. Some were missing teeth due to meth use. They were friendly enough if you were friendly to them. Actually some were remarkably friendly. It was sort of amazing how friendly they were. And these were the meth-heads.

A young woman later moved in got pregnant soon after. She hung out with some lousy people. She was known for borrowing small amounts of money, like $5-10, and then never paying it back. In that low income White culture up there, that is considered to be extremely scummy behavior. It’s considered to be “niggerish” behavior associated with low income Blacks and Hispanics. Low income Whites are expected to be better than that, and if you act like that, you are “acting like a nigger,” and a lot of those poor Whites will ostracize you.

There were others up there who sometimes borrowed say $25. They would pay it back later as a matter of principle, always with interest. That’s how deeply moral they were.

I think people fail to understand the deep moral roots a lot of the White lower and working classes have. You have to live around them a while to see it.

These poor, low income and working class Whites also have a pretty complex moral code about politeness and appropriate behavior. It’s pretty easy to violate their rules, which is considered to be rather serious, though it is often chalked up to ignorance. A lot of the rules are unspoken, and they are communicated to you by nonverbal means that are often very hard to understand. If you break a rule, people will act upset, but they will communicate it to you in strange nonverbal ways that don’t seem to make sense. You have to figure out that they are communicating a message to you in code, and you are supposed to figure out the code.

They’re  interesting people. One great thing to say to people like that is, “You sure got a real nice family.” That always goes over very well. You are not supposed to diss someone’s family.  That is considered to be very serious social violation. They place family pretty high up in moral order.

I was not aware of a lot of welfare fraud and abuse up there. Some of the young women were on welfare. My mother said that although there were many young single Moms up there, few of them were on welfare. She said that though the young White men would not live with or marry the mother and often they broke up with them, they often supported their children despite their low incomes.

Those poor, low income ,and working class Whites have a hardcore work ethic. You are supposed to work. Refusing to work and choosing instead to live off others is considered lowlife behavior. Many work long hours, sometimes at more than one job. Quite a few of even the meth heads that I knew worked regular jobs, sometimes up to 50 hours a week.  They worked at jobs like house painter, things like that.

I also noticed something else. We had very little crime up there until a lot of Hispanics started moving into the mountains. Quite a few of them were illegals. They did not bring a lot of crime with them, but soon after they moved up there, I heard that a lot of car stereos were being stolen. If you live around Mexicans in California, you will find that most are not dangerous or criminal at all, and it is pretty safe to live around them, with the exception that Mexicans steal car stereos and car hubcaps. A few years after I moved here, all four of my hubcaps were stolen. They were stolen slowly, like one every 9 months or so. They cost ~ $25 each. I consider that a small price to pay for living around these Mexicans. It’s not like you need hubcaps or they are unaffordable.

After I moved down to this Hispanic town, I noticed that poor Whites seemed to attack themselves or direct their aggression inwards towards self-destructive behaviors, which can get pretty gross. But they did not act aggressive towards others much. But I saw that poor Hispanics and Blacks were much more likely to direct their aggression outwards towards other people and victimize them. They often seemed to show little no guilt about victimizing other people. It was like there was nothing wrong with it. Often they got outraged and angry at the victims for getting upset about being victimized!

Poor Blacks and Hispanics also “set the bar much lower” as far as acceptable behavior was concerned.

The poor Whites set a bar as far as acceptable behavior goes. Below that, you are a scum.

The Hispanics seemed to set the bar of acceptable behavior lower, and they considered worse behaviors than the Whites to be nonetheless acceptable. They allowed one to engage in more bad behaviors before they would consider you a scum.

And I hate to say it, but the Blacks around here set the bar even lower than that – they set the bar the lowest of all. They always asked for loans, and they never paid them back, ever. They saw nothing wrong with this. They walked into your house and started pointing at things you own and demanding that you give that object to them. Or they came into your house, and when your back is turned, they steal your stuff. Mexicans did this too, but it’s mostly Black or half-Blacks who did it.

I have never had a White person come into my house and start demanding that I give them my possessions even one time. That is such a profound violation in White society, even poor White society, that I cannot  put it into words. You will be thrown out of the house and never allowed back in again. Furthermore, you will be called a “nigger,” as that behavior is associated with low class Blacks, and Whites are supposed to be above that.

In all my life, I only had people come to my house and steal my stuff once, and that was an 18 year old delinquent drug user, but I blew it with him because I went to get my stash of pills when he was in the room with his friends, so he saw where I kept it. He later stole a bunch of pills from my stash.

But in general, the idea that you invite someone into your home and they rip you off when your back is turned is so outrageous in White society that it is nearly unmentionable. Once again, it is considered “niggerish,” and you will in a sense be evicted from the White race for engaging in that behavior. Among a lot of Whites, saying “you act like a nigger” is an extreme insult (you might get hit), and even poor Whites will go to great extremes to avoid engaging in behavior that would earn them that insult.

11 Comments

Filed under Blacks, Crime, Culture, Hispanics, Mexicans, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Social Problems, Sociology, Whites

Normal and Below Normal IQ Levels and Race

Trash: People say the average Black or Hispanic has an IQ of 90 and is borderline-retarded

Look! 90 IQ is not borderline retarded! 90 IQ is average.

50% of the population is 90-110 IQ. It is 100% normal and average. This is considered the Normal range.

67% of the population is 84-116. This is also considered a broadly Normal range.

I believe 80-90 is Low Normal. Not Borderline Retarded at all. Normal people.

70-80 is Dull. I guess there are your Borderlines. But I have had girlfriends in this range, and they are quite functional and do not seem retarded at all. Not real smart but not retarded by any means. And they are often insanely horny, want to have sex all the time, and are seriously dirty in bed. Basically total nymphos with porn star sex habits.

Average Black IQ =   85
Average Mexican IQ = 90
Average human IQ =   89

The average Mexican has a Normal IQ.

The average Black has a Low Normal IQ but is nevertheless within the broad Normal range, albeit on the low end of it but not Borderline Retarded at all.

By saying 90 IQ is Borderline Retarded, you just called the average human on Earth a borderline retard.

7 Comments

Filed under Blacks, Hispanics, Intelligence, Mexicans, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity

“From Andalusia to Far West Texas,” by Alpha Unit

The wild ancestor of modern cattle is the aurochs. This nearly seven-foot-tall beast ranged throughout North Africa and Eurasia. Domestication occurred independently in Africa, the Near East, and the Indian subcontinent between 10,000 and 8,000 years ago. Humans have been raising cattle for their milk, meat, tallow, and hides ever since.

But the practice of raising large herds of livestock on extensive grazing lands didn’t begin until around 1000 CE, in Spain and Portugal. Cattle ranching, in particular, was unique to medieval Spain.

During the Spanish Reconquista, members of the Spanish nobility and various military orders received grants to large tracts of land that the Kingdom of Castile had conquered from the Moors. Pastoralists found that open-range breeding of sheep and cattle was most suitable for these vast areas of Castilla-La Mancha, Extremadura, and Andalusia.

It was in Andalusia that cattle ranching took hold, with cattlemen owning herds as large as 1,000 head or more. Those cattlemen oversaw the first cattle drives. Cattle could be driven overland as much as 400 miles from summer pastures in the North to winter ones in Andalusia. The vaqueros who herded the cattle were freemen hired for the year and paid in coin or in calves.

Andalusian ranchers introduced the use of horses in managing cattle – a necessity in the long overland drives to new pastures. They also established the customs of branding and ear-marking cattle to denote ownership. By the time Columbus left Spain on his first voyage, the cattle industry of Andalusia had undergone a few centuries of trial-and-error improvement. On his second voyage Columbus unloaded some stallions, mares, and cattle on the island of Hispaniola, introducing cattle to the New World.

Conquistadors who arrived in the New World in search of gold continued what Columbus began, turning Andalusian cattle loose throughout the Spanish West Indies and other parts of Spain’s colonial empire.

In 1521 Gregorio de Villalobos defied a law prohibiting cattle trading in Mexico and left Santo Domingo for Veracruz with several cows and a bull, importing the first herd of Spanish cattle to Mexico. Hernán Cortés brought horses and cattle to Mexico as well, and by 1540 Spanish cattle are permanently in North America.

Cortés had set about using enslaved Aztecs to herd cattle. Slave labor to herd cattle was overseen mostly by Spanish missions, which came to dominate ranching. Under Spanish law no Indian slave was permitted to ride horses, but this obviously impractical law was ignored. Aztec Indians became the first vaqueros of New Spain (Mexico), where conditions for raising cattle were even better than those in the West Indies.

By the 1600s there weren’t as many Native slaves, as thousands had died over time from exposure to smallpox, measles, and yellow fever, in outbreaks that began among the Spaniards and to which Natives had no immunity. As a result, the vaquero labor force came to include mission Indian converts, African slaves, and mestizos.

New Spain’s borders spread northward into what is now the US Southwest. The sparsely populated northern frontier regions of northern Mexico, Texas, and California didn’t have enough water for farming but the climate and acres of wild grass and other vegetation made them ideal for cattle ranching. Cattle and horses were now a feature of American life and were beginning to shape American identity.

Beginning in the 1820s, Anglo settlers moved to the Texas region of Mexico in search of inexpensive land. Texas was severely underpopulated, so Mexico had enacted the General Colonization Law of 1824, permitting immigration to all heads of households regardless of race, religion, or immigrant status. Anglo Texans were largely farmers and didn’t warm initially to the Spanish-Mexican concept of large-scale ranching. But ranching became popular among Anglos after immigration agents began promoting it. Texas cattle were so plentiful and cheap that most people could begin raising livestock without a large investment.

Anglo Texan cowhands and their counterparts throughout the US were the latest incarnation of the vaquero that got his start in southern Spain. The vaquero rides on, whether he’s Native, mestizo, Black, Hispano, or Anglo.

12 Comments

Filed under Africa, Agricutlure, Alpha Unit, Americas, Amerindians, Animals, Blacks, Caribbean, Colonialism, Cows, Domestic, Eurasia, Europe, European, Europeans, Guest Posts, Hispanics, History, Horses, Immigration, India, Labor, Latin America, Livestock Production, Mestizos, Mexicans, Mexico, Mixed Race, Near East, North Africa, North America, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, South America, Spain, Spaniards, Texas, The Americas, USA, West, Whites

Rioting at Trump Rallies, 2015

Here.

Put together by Trump supporters. Most footage from Fox News and local channels. It is said to be a compendium of video of the violence that Trumpsters have been “suffering” for about a year now.

That’s fake news right there.

Most of the video appears to be from a large Trump rally in San Jose that took place last year, I believe in the Spring. There was some pretty serious rioting at the rally from anti-Trumpsters.

Black bloc antifa are present but only in very low numbers.

Instead the rioters are regular Californians, mostly young people. Most of the rioters and protesters are Hispanics, and I would gather that almost all of them are Mexican-Americans. Chicanos in other words. I can assure you that there were few to no illegal aliens at that rally. I know how illegals look and act, and further, the language of the protesters is all or almost all perfect unaccented English. The only accent you can here is “Barrio English,” which is just a dialect of English adopted by Chicanos, almost all of whom have English as a first language. The dialect is an affectation and is not the result of interference from Spanish.

There are broadly two types of Chicanos, where Chicanos refers to mostly 2nd and 3rd generation Mexican Americans especially in California. These people have traditionally been ~70% White and ~30% Indian. The more Indian types have come in large numbers only in recent years.

These Chicanos are all native English speakers, and by the third generation, most no longer have fluent Spanish skills. So the language is going out in the 3rd generation, which is typical for any assimilating US immigrant group. These Chicanos are assimilated Americans in that they for the most part have given up Mexican culture for American culture. They retain somewhat more conservative values as far as sexual activity (favoring monogamy, especially for the females), sex roles (traditional roles are preferred), family ties (the family structure is usually very strong), and respect for elders (still strong, especially for parents).

The problem is not that Chicanos are not assimilating. It is that they are assimilating to something lousy. A lot of them assimilate to Barrio Culture. This is a subculture that is heavily gang-involved and is present in a lot of the poorer Chicano neighborhoods. However, many other Chicanos, even those who live right next to the barrios, are assimilating more or less to regular American culture, and they act little different from you, me or any other White person, which the exception of some the conservatism you see above.

This crowd is clearly a mix of Barrio types and more assimilated Chicanos. The Barrio types are mixed between overtly gang-involved types and others who are simply barrio dwellers who are not gang-involved.

Believe it or not, not everyone in a barrio is a gang member. Gangsters are only a small group, mostly young men, and most of them stay in the game for only a few years, often on the fringes, before they marry at age 18-23+, move in with a woman with kids or have kids or their own, and retire, usually completely, from gang life. Most so-called gang members are just wannabes who form their own fake sets by claiming a legitimate gang and try to say that they control some neighborhood. They are considered poseurs by the true gang members who might beat them up if the poseurs tried to claim the gang because all true sets have to be approved by the official gang in the area.

Even among the wannabes, most are not even members of the fake set. Instead they are hangers-on or so-called gang associates, who much outnumber gang members. Most of these types see almost no inter-gang warfare, do not spray much graffiti and do not victimize neighbors. They’re just trying to look hard by claiming Nortenos or whatever.

There are also quite a few of the more assimilated Chicanos mixed in with the Barrio types. Barrio Chicanos are pretty hard and tough, and you do not want to mess with them. Many have street gang experience. Beatings, knifings and shootings are quite common and Barrio Chicanos kill an awful lot of people, mostly rival gang members. Police often call these crimes as “NHI” or “No Humans Involved.” They are also referred to as “Public Service Killings.” It’s just one scumbag killing some other scumbag and doing society a favor in the process.

Most of the violence here seems to be coming from the Barrio types. These people have few inhibitions and low self-controls. They get riled up very easily. If these Barrio Chicanos ever start rioting over Trump, it is not going to be pretty. These guys don’t mess around.

There are also some militant young people there, often young White women. But these are in the minority. These are more or less university-aged SJW’s.

I was very surprised to see ordinary White SJW’s, Barrio Chicanos and Assimilated Chicanos burning US flags. I’m not sure if I have ever seen them do that before. That’s not a good sign, as a lot of these folks are pretty assimilated. When a lot of your assimilated, relatively nonpolitical citizens start burning your flag, that’s a bad sign for your country.

Some of the video also shows what looks like anti-Trumpsters blocking a highway in Arizona to try to stop a Trump rally there. This happened over the summer.

Bottom line is this is not the Left or liberals or even Democratic Party people. These rioters young people are on the fringes of active politics, if they even vote at all, and many of them don’t even bother to do that. This is more of an out and out ethnic riot between two ethnic groups, Chicanos and their White supporters versus mostly White Trumpsters. Sort of a Chicanos vs. Whites street battle if you wish. On the other hand, more or less openly ethnic riots pitching mostly one ethnic group against another is not a good sign at all. That is called ethnic strife, and it can lead to some pretty bad things, like Yugoslavia.

178 Comments

Filed under California, Crime, Cultural Marxists, Culture, Hispanics, Law enforcement, Left, Mexicans, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Republicans, US Politics, USA, West, Whites

Trump’s First Days in Office Have Been Objectively Very Racist and Bigoted

 

Technically, Trump is not a fascist. Yet. But he’s close enough for me. I believe that Trump is the most fascist president this nation has ever had. We have never been this close to fascism before.

Trump is a Proto-Fascist or Pre-Fascist

Experts on fascism say that Trump is a rightwing populist. But when you go further right from rightwing populism, the next stop is overt fascism. Rightwing populism is just a way station on the Fascist Highway. Others have called him a pre-fascist or a proto-fascist. All fascism experts agree that Trump shows a number of fascist characteristics in spades. There’s just not enough to make the full diagnosis. But as he cements his dictatorship, his underlying  brown t-shirt may become increasingly clear. Anyone who cannot see the fascist elements in Trump and for that matter, the criminal organization called the Republican Party does not know the meaning of the term.

Trump’s Objective Racism and Bigotry against Blacks, Hispanics and Muslims

Trump has been quite hostile to US Blacks, and the recent Holocaust Memorial statement was odd towards Jews. Trump got sued for housing discrimination against Blacks. His father engaged in housing discrimination against Blacks for decades. His Dad was also a White Supremacist, worse, an out and out Nordicist. Trump’s father was a member of the KKK and participated in anti-Catholic and anti-Italian riots in New York in the 1920’s.

Trump has nominated a very racist man, Mr. Sessions, for Attorney General. His hostility to Blacks has been palpable his whole career. The mere act of nominating Sessions as Atty General shows extreme hostility towards Blacks.

Trump called a Black man at one of his rallies a thug and told supporters to throw him out. Actually he was a Trumpster himself.

Trump got into a huge fight with John Lewis the civil rights icon soon after his election. On Martin Luther King Day of all days, he sent out tweets bashing Lewis. He also declined to make a statement about MLK as is usual or to pay a visit to the MLK Museum. The symbolism is not hard to figure out.

Trump is obviously extremely hostile to Muslims bordering on the fanatical.

Trump seems to be displaying an awful lot of racism against Mexicans and Mexican-Americans. He called them criminals and rapists in his speeches.

Trump’s right-hand man Bannon took over the Breitbart website and soon turned it much more racist. There were articles celebrating the Confederate flag and there is a section of the site called “Black Crime.” Bannon openly stated that he wished his site to be the flagship of the White Supremacist Alt Right. Under Bannon’s tenure, the site became much more racist against Blacks and hostile to gays and feminists. A Jewish former editor said the comments section became overrun with open Alt Right White Supremacists under Bannon’s tenure. Bannon stated in the past that we should restrict voting to property owners only. He noted that this would considerably reduce the Black vote and Bannon said that would be a good thing.

The Alt Right, of which Bannon says his website is the flagship website, is an actual fascist grouping whose end goal is indeed fascism, the real deal. So Bannon has lined  himself up with actual fascists with a fascist project for the country.

I am dubious that Bannon is actually an out and out White Supremacist, and I think a lot of the Left’s charges against him and Breitbart are idiotic.

Trump’s cabinet is almost 100% White men. There are not even many Jews.

10 Comments

Filed under Blacks, Civil Rights, Conservatism, Democrats, Fascism, Hispanics, Islam, Jews, Mexicans, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Religion, Republicans, US Politics, White Racism, Whites

Fight Over “Faggot!” Remark One, Two and Three

Jason Y: Only massively hypermasculine men would kill someone accusing them of being gay. Other people possibly get hurt by it, but either ignore it or maybe try to insult them back, but in a low-key manner, maybe with some “Fuck you” remark or something.

White Dawg: I agree with you, Jason. If you are remotely masculine and not mentally ill, you would counter with a put down of some sort. One might choose to ignore but usually, one does say “Fuck you, blow me” in one way or the other. Sometimes, during the fighting ages – teens, late adolescence or early twenties, calling someone something similar to this would be the last words used to start the actual fistfight.

But, murder, no. Maybe accidental manslaughter.

Keywords are “not mentally ill”.

I live in the hood. It’s full of Mexicans, who are massively hypermasculine, and Blacks, and you know what they are like. We also have a fair number of Arabs. Do you think Arabs are hypermasculine? The few Whites around here are essentially the dregs. The very few good-looking White girls around here are all hooked with really lousy, ghetto, thuggish Black guys. The guys look like total scum, but the White girls eat em up like chocolate.

A good way to get punched or even killed in Latin America is to challenge a man’s masculinity in any way. In fact in a number of those countries, you can just about get away with such a crime, as it is considered an honor crime, and a man has a right to defend his honor down there, with his fist or maybe even with a gun or a knife.

Down there, some guy calls another guy a faggot pussy, and the other guy pulls out a knife and stabs him. Most men down there will have no sympathy for the guy who got killed. They will say that he was asking for it, and what did he expect was going to happen? No sympathy for idiots. He would be treated like a guy who jumps into the polar bear exhibit as the zoo and gets killed. So what! Darwin Award!

About the guy who did it, a lot of guys will just shrug their shoulders and say, “Yeah, well, a man has to defend his honor…I might do the same.”

They would agree that it is a tragic situation for both parties, and it is a rather sad and not joyous occasion, but they will tend to have a “What do you expect?” attitude towards the killer. They might be inclined to let him go. They won’t cheer for him, and they will think it is all a tragic mistake, but they will not want to persecute him either.

Fight Over “Faggot!” Remark One

When I was 19, I went out with a couple of my friends. My friends were quite good-looking Alpha type guys (surfer/stoner/drug dealer types), and actually that description in the parenthesis would be a good description of me too. I don’t know if I was good-looking or not, but people were always raving about how handsome I was, so perhaps I looked good.

One of the guys knew these two single chicks who lived alone. Problem was they were fat, but they were very nice and sort of pretty too. They were about 19. We went in the apartment and the vibes were  crazy. These two fat chicks were giving off vibes like, “Whoa! We won the lottery! When do we get a chance to get guys like this? How do we get these guys to fuck us? Goddamn, we want to fuck you hot guys so bad! We are going to tie you guys up and rape you here!” and we were giving off vibes like, “Um, don’t think so, you chicks are really nice, but you’re fat, sorry lol.” The sexual tension was so thick you could cut it with a knife. Nobody said much along those lines, but you could feel the sexual cold front like a heavy fog.

So nothing really happened.

We went to this party across the way. I think we went with those girls. There was booze, hard liquor and I think a lot of pot. By 11 PM I was seriously wasted, and the room was rotating on its axis. All three of us guys were in the kitchen, and all of us were straight. The two other guys were seriously macho, almost scary. Some guy tried to one-up or AMOG us. He pointed to all three of us, noted that we were all together, had been together all night and had not gotten any women, therefore, we must be faggots. He was not very nice about it either.

My friend suddenly turned around and hit him hard. They guy flew back against the wall, and there was a serious fight for awhile. We left later and were talking in restaurant and decided that a comment like that could only have been answered with a punch. I said I was not sure if I would hit someone who called me that, and the guy who threw the punch said, “I sure hope you would,” and looked at me disdainfully and dubiously. The other guy agreed. Their attitude was, if you do not answer that comment with a punch, you are seriously pussy or probably a fag yourself. You are disgusting and disreputable, you are not any sort of man at all, and we will not associate with you anymore. You are a worm. Oh and you’re probably a fag yourself.v

Fight Over “Faggot!” Remark Two

This guy named RG was one of meanest and evilest bullies around. Basically your worst nightmare of an antisocial juvenile delinquent. He called me a fag in the 8th grade one day after school. I am not sure what else he did. I think he started something physical or challenged me to fight.

At any rate, he did something provocative, and there was a huge fight between him and me. I held my own somehow. It wasn’t fun at all, but a huge crowd of guys gathered around, and they were all cheering and yelling like it was a football game. Good times! The fight ended with no one winning. Everyone agreed that I had to hit him in those circumstances. My net worth at the school increased exponentially after that fight. Before I was a wimp, but now there was this new respect. I was still sort of geek, but now I was a dangerous and honorable geek and plus I was probably not a fag either, and that at least earns a nod.

Fight Over “Faggot!” Remark Three

A couple of years after incident one at age 21, I was at this party my friends threw. We were all drinking beer, and it was about 10-11 PM. RG came up to me.

Well, RG could never get laid ever for some reason even though he was a psychopathic bully. He was almost too mean and ugly to get laid if that’s even possible. He was a doper all through high school, and I think even the booze set in which was unusual for high school, as alcs were rare. After high school, he turned full-blown alcoholic, dressed poorly, never combed his hair, smelled bad, was as ugly as ever and stumbled around drunk most of the time. Of course he was just as mean as ever, but now he was regarded as a pity case, being a drunk.

He staggered up to me at the party outside and said, “Lindsay LOL. You faggot LOL.” Well that’s one thing, and who knows how to respond? But while he is doing this, he took his beer and poured it down the front of my open  shirt. Now where I grew up, if someone does that, you have to hit them. You must. No two ways about. If you don’t, you are a pathetic, sissy fag and no one will talk to you anymore. Well, I hit him about as soon as he did that, and a wild fistfight broke out.

Somehow the fight migrated into the kitchen, and the women as usual were yelling, “Both of you guys are going to jail!” the way they always do.

Some people were asking what to do, but one guy said, “Don’t worry. Just leave them alone. Bob will kick his ass.”

The kitchen cleared out fast, and the fight got seriously nuts and even dangerous. I was so mad I picked up a kitchen table, lifted it over my head and smashed the table right down on his head! Yep. I hit a man over the head with a table! With a table. I can’t believe I did that. I did it with such force that the wooden table broke into many pieces, and RG crashed to the ground, nearly out cold and badly hurt but not dead or even close. Eventually, RG picked himself up, staggered over to me and shook my hand. I guess he wasn’t going to call me a faggot anymore that night.

There was some frenzied discussion about what I did.

“Geez man. Bob broke the damn table! Is that ok? Should we let him get away with that? He should pay for it.”

The attitude of most including the owners of the house was, “So what, who cares if he smashed the  table to bits? It was worth it for RG to get his ass kicked. Bob should not be made to pay for the table. Just forget it.”

I would be careful calling people that. Those are fighting words where I was brought  up.

50 Comments

Filed under Arabs, Blacks, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Hispanics, Homosexuality, Man World, Mexicans, Race/Ethnicity, Sex, Whites

An Example of Anti-White Propaganda: “White Men Raped Their Way around Most of the World”

Chinedu: And yet hundreds of millions of people, populating entire continents and regions, are the products of white rape.

That was a long time ago though, was it not? Anyway, the newest theory on Black-White mixes in the US is that most came after the Civil War and most were consensual even before the Civil War. Yes there were rapes but they were not common. Heading up until the Civil War, in the 1830’s-1860’s, there were many White men working for money in the fields next to the slaves. There were many unions derived from this close contact. Further, many Black females desired to have sex with the slaveowners in order to become house Negroes, etc. Southern White culture was very conservative and Southern wives did not take well to their husbands taking up Black mistresses. Most White Black unions post Civil War were obviously consensual.

There is no reason to think that things were any different in Mexico, Honduras, Belize, Nicaragua, Panama, anywhere in the Caribbean, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Argentina or even Brazil.

We have no reports of mass rapes of Black women by White men in any of those places.

I am not aware of any mass rape of Black women by White men in Colonial Africa, even in South Africa. The problem in the East was exacerbated by Islamic slavery, and I suppose many of those were rapes, or maybe they were consensual. No one seems to be able to figure this out when it comes to slaves. Probably your best case for mass rape of Black women by White men would be in the Middle East, especially Arabia and then Mesopotamia and the Levant. And I am quite sure this was the case in North Africa as well.

There isn’t any more raping of Black women by White men anywhere on Earth and certainly there is no mass raping.

As far as raping Indian women, this is very hard to figure. I know that here in California, many Whites simply married Indian women and become squawmen who were much derided by their fellow men. These unions were quite consensual. There were some rapes in this area and maybe some enslavement but it was mostly consensual. Before we had Spaniards and missions run by priests in which there was almost zero rape. The Spaniards did not even do much to Indians other than capture them and send them to missions.

As far as the rest of the US, I have no idea, but I have not heard a lot of reports of mass rape of Indian women by White men in the records. The breeding seems to be once again White men taking Indian brides and becoming squawmen. In Canada there was little to no rape or mass rape.

It is often said that the mass unions of Mexico were the product of rape but no one knows if this was true. There were very few Spaniard males and many Indian women. The Spaniards hardly had to rape with 100-1 or 1000-1 ratios.

I do not know much about the colonization of Central America to comment. However, Costa Rica tried to keep itself delberately White for a long time. Also the Indians were wiped out very early. Obviously there was mass mixing through this whole region, but I know nothing about the details.

I have not heard many reports of rape or mass rape in the Caribbean. Yes there was mass rape in the beginning in the context of a genocide, but Caribbean people now have little Indian blood. Barbadians are 1% Indian. Cubans are probably even less. Jamaicans, Haitians, Dominicans, Dominican Republicans, etc. have almost no Indian blood. Puerto Ricans have a lot of Indian blood, but I do not know how it got there.

Yes Whites conquered Indian nations in South America. Obviously a process of mestizisation occurred there, but I have no details on it. The wars were short and over with quickly. The mestizisation process appears to have been slow and I have no details on how it even worked. In Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, the Guyanas, I have no details at all. In Brazil what little I heard was that it was mostly consensual. An early Brazilian colonist, a Portuguese man, was reported to have twenty quite happy Indian wives. This was said to be pretty normal. In the 1800’s there was a Banquismo campaign, a very racist compaign intended to mass import Whites from Europe to swamp out and breed out Indians but mostly Blacks. Apparently it worked quite well.

In Argentina, the Black-White mating was so unrapey that many Blacks present in Argentina in the late 1800’s seem to have vanihsed into thin air. Argentines are now 3% Black, so you can imagine what really happened to the Blacks. Much the same happened in Uruguay.

In Mexico it was much the same thing. Mexico was pretty Black in 1820. In 100 years, there was little left. Now there’s almost nothing left and Mexicans are 4% Black. They are quite Blacker in other areas such as Veracruz. It doesn’t sound like a lot of rape went on in these “vanishings.”

In Chile the Indians were slowly bred in after the wars in the late 1800’s and now Chileans are maybe 20% Indian. In Argentina, the Indians were also defeated but many remained in the Pampas and the gaucho was typically a mostly White mestizo, the product of unions between Whites and Indians on the Plains.

Peru and Guatemala are still heavily Indian. Bolivia is probably mostly Indian.

There is not much evidence of mass White rape of non-Whites in Asia either. We have no reports of such from the Russian East or Siberia. We have no such reports from Malaysia, Indonesia or India either, and there were few Whites or Dutchmen anyway. Nor do we have reports of such from Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia. Nor do we have mass rape reports from the Philippines, where Spanish colonists were apparently few in number. There are also no reports from the US colonization of the Philippines.

Although it would not surprise me, I would like to see some data that the mass mixing of Aborgines and Whites in Australia was the result of rape. Aborigines are now 50% White on average and their 85 IQ’s reflect that. The 64 IQ reports are from unmixed Aborigines.

I have not heard any reports of mass rapes of Maori women by Whites in New Zealand.

Hawaii was indeed colonized by Whites, but I have not heard any reports of mass rape.

I do not know much about the history of Polynesia.

Central Asia is mass mixed between Mongol type Asians and Whites but there is no evidence that Whites mass raped Asians. In fact, much of the mixing may have been the other way around, as Mongols mass raped the Iranid Whites already present in those places. So in one place on Earth where we do have evidence of mass rape producing White-non-White mixes, it was the Whites who were getting raped and not the other way around!

Possibly the best case for mass rape of non-Whites by Whites may have been with Aryan Whites and Australoid South Indians in India. There was a lot of interbreeding, but there was also a Hell of a lot of rape especially were South Indian women were enslaved and made to serve as temple prostitutes for Aryan men. Even today Australoid Dalit women are commonly raped by more Aryan and higher caste men.

All in all, I do not think there is much remaining evidence for mass rape of non-Whites by Whites. There were a lot of unions in the last 500 years for sure but most were consensual.

334 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Africa, Americas, Amerindians, Argentina, Argentines, Asia, Australia, Black-White (Mulattos), Blacks, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, Caribbean, Central America, Chile, Christianity, Colombia, Colonialism, Cubans, Dominicans, East Indians, Ecuador, Eurasia, Europeans, Guatemala, Guyana, Haitians, Hispanics, History, India, Indonesia, Islam, Jamaicans, Jamaicans, Laos, Latin America, Malaysia, Maori, Mestizos, Mexicans, Mexico, Middle East, Mixed Race, NE Asia, North Africa, North America, Oceanians, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Political Science, Polynesians, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Russia, SE Asia, Siberia, Sociology, South America, South Asia, South Asians, Spaniards, Uruguay, US, USA, Venezuela, Vietnam, Whites

Adios, Santa Ana

Here.

Alas, poor Santa Ana, we knew thee well.

I am sure Santa Ana was White at some time or another, but honestly, I keep trying to remember when Santa Ana was not like this. To me, it’s been this way forever now. I hung out there in 1979 and 1980, and it was pretty damn Mexican then even. More Mexican-American, but still. I worked in Santa Ana in 1989-90 at Stewart and Barnett, a major law firm downtown. It was already completely gone that way even that far back. I might as well have been working in Mexico. It was a very alienating place to work, like working in a foreign country.

I don’t think I ever taught in their school system, but I’m not sure. Maybe I did. I think I was actually teaching in Garden Grove schools though. They were very heavily Southeast Asian, especially Vietnamese and Khmer. I don’t mind teaching Viets and Khmer at all. They’re perfect students and the older ones who work at the school are quite easy to work with. When you meet the SE  Asian aides, they practically bow down in front of you, apparently because you are this revered thing called a teacher. They’re really nice too, even the men. Bend over backwards nice.

Leave a comment

Filed under Asians, California, Education, Hispanics, Khmer, Mexicans, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, SE Asians, Sociology, Urban Studies, USA, Vietnamese, West, Whites

Immigration Is Not That Important of an Issue

Stalin Tonks writes:

Fine Robert. Go vote for Hillary and bring in millions of non-whites to depress wages for the average person.

It’s not that important of an issue. I never vote for conservatives ever, for any reason, and I’m not changing. Conservatives are my class enemies. Why should I vote for my enemies? Not only that, but I am opposed to the whole basic conservative way of looking at life and the world, which I think sucks. Yes, the conservatives are more correct on immigration, but even there they are insane (Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it? WTH?). They are right on immigration and wrong on just about everything else. Being right on immigration is not enough to make me vote for them. It’s not important for me to switch my vote.

  1. They’re already here.
  2. 2. The country’s already gone politically on this issue. The whole thing is a dead issue to me as I think US society is totally gone on this issue. US society seems to be majority in support of illegal immigration and high levels of legal immigration, if not H -1B’s. Both parties seem to be dead set in favor of mass immigration, both legal, illegal and Hindu 1B. It’s just hopeless and there’s nothing to be done.
  3. 3. Obama deported more illegals than any other President. More illegals have gone back to Mexico than have come in since 2009, so the # of illegals is actually declining in the US. I know in my area this summer, they said a whole bunch of them left.
  4. 4. We are already dealing with it. The INS was in my town about 1-2 years ago, and they stayed for a month in the Best Western downtown. They raided all over my city the whole month and they rounded up 2,300 illegals. It was brutal – they were stopping mothers walking their kids to school and asking them for papers, etc. This raid occurred under Obama.
  5. 5. It’s already been done and it’s already over with. The country’s already gone on this issue anyway on the ground from my POV. You fail to understand that I live in California. This is already post-White America. We’ve already imported millions of non-Whites to drive down wages. We’ve already imported hundreds of thousands of H-1B’s to drive down upper middle class workers’ wages. Our cities already look like the UN. We’re already living in Mexico or the UN and you are jumping up and down yelling that Hillary is going to turn this place into Mexico and the UN. You are yelling about something that’s already happened. It’s like yelling at a cancer patient that they are going to get cancer. My own city is 67% Hispanic. It’s not great, but honestly, it’s not the end of the world. I can live with these Mexicans. Anyway, in Mexican society, Whites rule, so if you are a White in an Hispanic city, you are ruling class de facto. Mexican is not a race. I could be a Mexican. Or I could turn into one. Just start speaking Spanish and call yourself a Mexican. Real simple. That’s all you have to do. White Mexican culture is not that different from White US culture anyway.
  6. Now, if you can find me a nice leftwing nationalist or even left wing of the Alt Right candidate to vote for, maybe we are talking. Get Marine Le Pen’s ass over here and run her for office. Then I will vote “rightwing” in a New York minute.

34 Comments

Filed under American, California, Conservatism, Culture, Democrats, Fake Guest Workers, Hispanics, Illegal, Immigration, Labor, Law enforcement, Left, Mexicans, Obama, Political Science, Politics, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Sociology, Urban Studies, US Politics, USA, West, Whites