Category Archives: Papuans

Setting the Record Straight About Pre-Contact Africa

John Engelman: Agriculture and civilization select a race for intelligence. Caucasians began agriculture about eleven thousand years ago. We began civilization about five thousand years ago. Negroes only adopted agriculture about four thousand years ago. They never developed their own civilizations. They have only recently been exposed to White civilization.

Agriculture was probably developed by Africans before it was developed by anyone else. There is evidence for agriculture or pre-agriculture in Africa (West African Guinea Highlands) as early as 12,000 YBP. You must realize that Africans originated many things that we as humans do. The next to develop agriculture were the Mayans (corn), the Chinese (rice) and the Papuans (yams), all at 9,000 YBP. The Egyptians and Mesopotamians were not far behind. Africans even had plantation agriculture as early as 900 CE in Tanzania.

I doubt if Caucasians developed agriculture 11,000 YBP. Are we referring to Mesopotamia, the Levant or Egypt here?

Animal husbandry was also developed very early on in Africa. It may have been developed in the Western Sahara before anywhere else on Earth. A figure of 9,000 YBP is suggested for animal husbandry in the Sahara. However, pigs may have been domesticated in Papua around this time also. Animal husbandry was widespread in Africa, particularly in the Sahara, the Sahel and Ethiopia, on contact. I don’t know much about animal husbandry further south, but I have heard there was a shortage of animals to domesticate.

At any rate, the invention of the hoe and subsequent hoe agriculture along with the spear played a major role in the history of Africa. Both derived from the early development of metallurgy in the form or iron. Indeed, the Iron Age came to Africa before it came to Europe. The development of iron metallurgy and the subsequent creation of those two iron tools allowed the Bantus to expand massively all over Central and South Africa in only the last 2-3,000 years.

Africans definitely had civilizations, that’s for sure. Mostly in West Africa but quite a few in the Sahel too. There was even a civilization in Rhodesia. Early European explorers drew drawings of large African cities. Looks like civilization to me. Civilizations were especially common in Nigeria. They had manufacture, trade, agriculture for export, all sorts of things.

5 Comments

Filed under Africa, African, Agricutlure, Amerindians, Anthropology, Antiquity, Asians, Blacks, Central Africa, Chinese (Ethnic), Cultural, East Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Europeans, History, Livestock Production, Near East, Nigeria, North Africa, Papuans, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, South Africa, Tanzania, West Africa

Race in India: An Anthropological View

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genetically, they are Aborigines, Melanesians, and Papuans.

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

Hema Malini, a very White-looking Indian.

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

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

Raju, Bishop N John S D classic dravidian

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

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

4 Comments

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

A Bit about the Hmong

David Duke Nukem: Turban sounds kind of Aryan. I’m most fascinated by Hmong. Most Asians I know are Hmong but I keep things light with them. I prefer skulls because genetics seem to mishmash, an Australoid and Mongoloid seem worlds apart but not always genetically. Not that I discount genetics, an understanding of both is ideal. Hmong are a mystery, I often ponder how they’d be if they defeated the Han or at least weren’t booted.

Hi David, I did a lot of ethnography work on the Hmong. The Hmong homeland seems to be in Xinjiang going way back a long time ago. This may be the Desert Clay Pottery culture the commenter is talking about. There is a single Hmong line that goes all the way back 42,000 years and is only found in the Hmong, just to give you an idea of how far back they go.

The turban may be from interactions with some Muslims or Turkic peoples. Turkic peoples have been wearing turbans for a long time. The Hmong may have had some interactions with Turkic peoples back in their Xinjiang homeland. The Hmong are partly Caucasian, possibly owing to their Xinjiang homeland. Periodically, Hmong babies are born with blue and green eyes and blond from pure Hmong parents. At one time, I had photos of such Hmong. This would not be possible unless they had some recessive genes for such things somewhere in their genome. The Caucasian genes probably date back to their Xinjiang homeland where Asians and Caucasians have been interbreeding for a long time. Check out the Tocharians, a completely White race that lived in Xinjiang long ago.

Skulls are by far the best way to determine race. Genes are not that good. For instance, the Mani Negritos of Thailand have genes that look Thai. The Ati Negritos of the Philippines have genes that look Filipino. But that’s not what either of them are. Both groups are Australoid Negrito types by skulls and the skulls line up well with Tamils, Senoi, Melanesians, Papuans, Aborigines, etc.

The reason that those Negritos have genes that look like that is because they have been genetically swamped by Thai genes in Thailand and by Filipino genes in the Philippines. On the contrary, Filipinos and Thais have few Negrito genes because they were such a huge group. When a huge group breeds with a tiny group, the tiny group gets swamped with the genes of the large group, but the large group hardly gets any genes from the small group. It makes sense if you think about it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Aborigines, Anthropology, Asia, Asians, Cultural, Filipinos, Genetics, Hmong, Melanesians, Negritos, Oceanians, Papuans, Philippines, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asians, South Asians, Thai, Thailand

Race and Body Hair

Barbara Domino: Are hair strands used for identification of ancestry…Caucasian, Negroid or Mongoloid classification?

Can be. The hairs of the races are different. For that matter, Negrito and Melanesian (woolly) hair is different from Black hair (kinky or coiled). Aborigine (wavy) and Papuan hair is different from Caucasian hair. And Negroid hair is different from Khoisan hair (very tightly coiled and spotty).

Mongoloid hair – straight, black, smooth and sparse, seems different from Caucasian hair.

Not that anyone has any hair on their bodies anymore anyway, but back in the days before body hair went extinct, Asian body hair was definitely different from that of Caucasians and Black body hair differed from Caucasians and Asians.

I know nothing of the body hair of Negritos or Aborigines. When the shaving fad finally hits the devastated Outback or the ruined Aeta villages on the jungle mountains, you will know that the whole world is now postmodern and globalized with nothing left to discover.

Sigh. Alas.

Speaking of which, anybody know where I can get me one of those Aborigine chicks? How bout those cute little Negrito ladies?

Bucket list, guys.

6 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Anthropology, Asians, Blacks, Europeans, Khoisan, Melanesians, Negritos, Oceanians, Papuans, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, SE Asians

The Confusing Genetics of East Indians

A-Man: Robert why did you say that south Indians are Caucasoid in genes? Aren’t they like a midway group between proto-Arabids (Caucasoid) and Australoid?

On some charts (autosomal DNA) the only Australoids are Papuans and Aborigines, and Indians look Caucasoid on those charts. That would be Cavalli-Sforza’s chart. However, they are some of the strangest Caucasoids of all as they are distantly related to the rest and closer to Asians than any other Caucasoids. Other charts have them an independent race between Asians and Caucasoids.

And yes, Indians are linked to Europeans, especially Southern Europeans, via Arabs. The link goes like this:

Greeks -> Arabs -> Indians

And honestly there is not a lot of genetic distance between any of those groups. The Asian and African sub-races are much further apart than Caucasoids. There is probably more distance between Samoyeds and Chukchi than between any of the three above.

Incidentally, the Chukchi somehow barely end up in the Caucasoid plot on Cavalli-Sforza’s autosomal chart! This indicates how closely related some of those ancient Siberians are to ancient Caucasoids. There is a group called Ancient Northeast Asians from 15-20,000 YBP that seems to be ancestral to both NE Asians and Caucasoids. There are also links between Orcadians (Scottish Islanders) and Siberians. Skulls from Europe from 21,000 YBP look more Amerindian than anything else. The closest match-up between those ancient European skulls is the Makah Amerindian tribe from the US. But the Amerindians are sometimes thought of as a NE Asian-Caucasoid link anyway.

Another interesting thing on Cavalli-Sforza’s chart is that the Berbers, a Caucasoid group, land barely in the African plot! This shows deep links between North African Caucasians and Black Subsaharan Africans.

There is a small Berberid group from Algeria called Mozabites. These are Caucasoids, but they are some of the weirdest-looking Caucasoids I have ever seen. They don’t really look like any other race of humans, but if you had to throw them anywhere, you would have to put them in Caucasians. Some of them look remarkably like people from India. In papers about the genesis of the Caucasian race, North Africa, the Middle East and India are mentioned as three hubs of the development of this race with many migrations back and forth over 30-40,000 YBP. And that Mozabite group gets mentioned over and over when they talk about the remains of ancient genetic groups along with the Uighur for some odd reason.

87 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Africa, Algeria, Amerindians, Anthropology, Arabs, Asians, Berbers, Blacks, Chuckchi, East Indians, Europe, Europeans, Genetics, India, North Africa, North Africans, Papuans, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Siberians, South Asia, South Asians, Uighurs

Simplification of Language with Increasing Civilization: A Result of Contact or Civilization Itself

Nice little comment here on an old post, Primitive People Have Primitive Languages and Other Nonsense? 

I would like to dedicate this post to my moronic field of study itself, Linguistics, which believes in many a silly thing as consensus that have never been proved and are either untrue or probably untrue.

One of the idiocies of my field is this belief that in some way or another, most human languages are pretty much the same. They believe that no language is inherently better or worse than any other language, which itself is quite a dubious proposition right there.

They also believe, incredibly, that no language is more complex or simple than any other language. Idiocy!

Another core belief is that each language is perfectly adapted for its speakers. This leads to their rejecting claims that some languages are unsuitable for the modern world due to lack of modern vocabulary. This common belief of many minority languages is obviously true. Drop a Papuan in Manhattan, and see what good his Torricelli tongue does him. He won’t have words for most of the things around him. He won’t even have verbs for most of the actions he sees around him. His language is nearly useless in this environment.

My field also despises notions that some languages are better suited to poetry, literature or say philosophy than others or that some languages are more or less concise or exact than others or that certain concepts or ways of thinking are better expressed in one language as opposed to another. However, this is a common belief among polyglots, and I would not be surprised if it was true.

The question we are dealing with below is based on the notion that many primitive languages are exceeding complex and the common sense observation that as languages acquire more speakers and civilization increases, one tends to see a simplification of language.

My field out and out rejects both statements.

They will tell you that primitive languages are no more complex than more civilized tongues and that there is no truth to the statement that languages simplify with greater numbers of speakers and increased civilization. However, I have shot these two rejected notions to many non-linguists, and they all felt that these statements had truth to them. Once again, my field violates common sense in the name of the abstract and abstruse “we can’t prove anything about anything” scientific nihilism so common in the intellectually degraded social sciences.

Indeed, some of the most wildly complex languages of all can be found among rather primitive peoples such as Aborigines, Papuans, Amerindians and even Africans. Most language isolates like Ket, Burashaski and Basque are pretty wild. The languages of the Caucasus are insanely complex, and that region doesn’t exactly look like Manhattan. Siberian languages are often maddeningly complex.

Even in China, in the remoter parts of China, language becomes highly differentiated and probably more complex. I know an American who was able to learn Cantonese and Mandarin who told me that at age 35, for an American to learn Hokkien was virtually impossible. He tried various schemes, but they all failed. He finally started to get a hold of the language with a strict eight hour a day study schedule. Anything less resulted in failure. Hokkien speakers that he spoke too said you needed to grow up speaking Hokkien to be able to speak the language well at all. By the way, this is another common sense notion that linguists reject. They say there are no languages so difficult that it is very hard to pick them up unless you grew up with them.

The implication here is that Min Nan is even more complex than the difficult Mandarin or even the forbidding Cantonese, which even many Mandarin speakers give up trying to learn because it is too hard.

Min Nan comes out Fujian Province, a land of forbiddingly high mountains where language differentiation is very high, and there is often difficult intelligibility even from village to village. In one area, fifteen years ago an American researcher decided to walk to a nearby village. It took him six very difficult hours over steep mountains. He could have taken the bus, but that was a four-day trip! A number of these areas had no vehicle roads until recently and others were crossed by vast rivers that had no bridges across them. Transportation was via foot. Obviously civilization in these parts of China is at a more primitive level, and it’s hard to develop Hong Kong-style cities in places with such isolating and rugged terrain.

It’s more like, “Oh, those people on the other side of the ridge? We never go there, but we heard that their language is a lot different from ours. It’s too hard to go over that range so we never go to that area.”

In the post, I theorized that as civilization increased, time becomes money, and there is a need to get one’s point across quickly, whereas more primitive peoples often spend no more than 3-4 hours a day working and the rest sitting around, playing  and relaxing. A former Linguistics professor told me that one theory is that primitive people, being highly intelligent humans (all humans are highly intelligent by default), are bored by their primitive lives, so they enjoy their wildly complex languages and like to relax, hang out and play language games with them to test each other on how well they know the structures. They also like to play tricky and maybe humorous language games with their complicated languages. In other words, these languages are a source of intellectual stimulation and entertainment in an intellectually impoverished area.

Of course, my field rejects this theory as laughably ridiculous, but no one has disproven it yet, and I doubt if the hypothesis has even been tested, hence it is an open question. My field even tends to reject the notion of open questions, preferring instead to say that anything not proven (or even tested for that matter) is demonstrably false. That’s completely anti-scientific, but that’s the trend nowadays across the board as scientistic thinking replaces scientific thinking.

Of course this is in line with the terrible conservative or reactionary trend in science where Science is promoted to a fundamentalist religion and scientists decide that various things are simply proven true or proven not true and attempts to change the consensus paradigm are regarded derisively or with out and out fury and rage and such attempts are rejected via endless moving of goalposts with the goal of making it never possible to prove the hypothesis. If you want to see an example of this in Linguistics, look at the debate around  Altaic. They have set it up so that no matter how much existing evidence we are able to gather for the theory, we will probably never be able to prove it as barriers to proof have been set up to make the question nearly unprovable.

It’s rather senseless to set up Great Wall of China-like barriers to proof in science because at some point,  you are hardly proving anything new, apparently because you don’t want to.

Fringe science is one of the most hated branches of science and many scientists refer to it as pseudoscience. Practitioners of fringe science have a very difficult time as the Scientific Establishment often persecutes them, for instance trying to get them fired from professorships. Yet this Establishment is historically illiterate because many of the most stunning findings in history were made by widely ridiculed fringe scientists.

The commenter below rejects my theory that increased civilization itself results in language simplification, as it gets more important to get your point across as quickly  as possible with increasing complexity and development of society. Instead he says civilization leads to increased contact between speakers of different dialects or language, and in such cases,  language must be simplified, often dramatically, in order for any decent communication to occur. Hence increased contact, not civilization in and of itself, is the driver of simplification.

I like this theory, and I think he may be onto something.

To me the simplification of languages of more ‘civilized’ people is mostly a product of language contact rather than of civilization itself. If the need arises to communicate with foreign people all of the time, for example in trade, then the language must become more simple in order to be able to be understood by more people.

Also population size matters a lot. It has been found that the greater the number of speakers, the greater the rate of language change. For example Polynesian languages, although having been isolated centuries or even millennia ago, still have only minor differences from one another.

In the case of many speakers, not all will be able to learn all the rules of a language, so they will tend to use the most common ones. And if the language is split in many dialects, then speakers of each dialect must find a compromise in order to communicate, which might come out as simple. If we add sociolects, specific registers for some occasions, sacred registers, slang etc, something that will arise in a big and stratified civilization, then the linguistic barriers people will need to overcome become greater. So it is just normal that after some centuries, this system to simplify.

We don’t need to look farther than Europe. Most languages of the western half being spoken in countries with strong trade links to one another and with much of the world later in history are quite analytic, but the languages of the more isolated eastern part are still like the older Indo-European languages. Basques, living in a small isolated pocket in the Iberian Peninsula, have kept a very complex language. Icelanders, also due to isolation, have kept a quite conservative Germanic language, whereas most modern Germanic languages are ridiculously simplified. No one can argue in his sane mind that Icelanders are primitives.

On the other hand, Romanian, being spoken in the more isolated Balkans, has retained more of the complex morphology of Latin compared to West Romance languages. And of course advance of civilization won’t automatically simplify the language, as Turkish and Russian, both quite complicated languages compared to the average European tongue, don’t seem to give up their complexity nowadays.

On the other hand, indigenous people were living in a much more isolated setting compared to the modern world, the number of speakers was comparatively low, and there was no need to change. Also, neighboring tribes were often hostile to one another, so each tribal group sought to make itself look special. That is the reason why places with much inter-tribal warfare like New Guinea have so many languages which are so different from one another. When these languages need to communicate, we get ridiculously simple contact languages like Hiri Motu.
So language simplification is more a result of language contact rather than civilization itself.

7 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Altaic, Amerindians, Anthropology, Applied, Asia, Basque, Cantonese, Caucasus, China, Chinese language, Cultural, Dialectology, Europe, Germanic, Indo-European, Isolates, Language Families, Language Learning, Linguistics, Mandarin, Min Nan, Near East, Papuans, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Russian, Science, Siberian, Sinitic, Sino-Tibetan, Sociolinguistics, Turkic, Turkish

Veddoid Skulls, Genes and Phenotypes

Ultra Cool writes:

The Ainu are related to the Japanese, I assume that makes Veddas Mongoloid by genes, Australoid by skull and Caucasoid by looks, correct?

Not really. I mean Veddoid genes either look NE Asian or Malaysian in the case of the Senoi in Thailand or South Indian in the case of South Indian tribals.

So Veddoid genes have no particular quality. They simply assimilate to the genetics of whatever larger group they are around.

Negritos are similar. The pure genetic Negritos are in the Andaman Islands, and indeed their genes are very distinct. However, the rest of the Negritos simply have genes that look like whoever they are around. Thai Negritos have genes that look Thai. Filipino Negritos have genes that look Filipino. Indonesian Negritos have genes that look Indonesian. New Guinean Negritos have genes that look Papuan. Australian Negritos have genes that look Aborigine, and so on. This is because everywhere they went, the Negritos, a small group, bred in the much larger group until their genes began to resemble the larger group.

Yes, Veddoids do tend to have similar looking Australoid skulls everywhere they exist.

And yes, they do tend to have a “Caucasoid” phenotype everywhere they exist simply because this is somehow what they evolved in India, which then carried on to other places they went to. This Caucasoid phenotype is a result of convergent evolution and in way whatsoever proves that any of these peoples are actually Caucasoid.

I feel that the range of possible human phenotypes is small, so “Asian”, “Caucasian”, or “Negroid/African” are three of the most common phenotypes resulting in humans. These phenotypes can probably evolve just about anywhere because the range of possible end-types for phenotypes may be small. If it’s small, sooner or later, you will have people who look “Negroid” or “Caucasoid” simply due to the law of averages. There are a lot of “Negroid” looking people in Melanesia, among Negritos, among Papuans, and even among some Central Americans such as we see in the Olmec statues. “Negroid” just appears to be a sort of phenotype that may evolve in very hot or tropical weather, possibly because a lot of Negroid attritubes are adaptive in the tropics.

Veddoids may have evolved in India over 18,000 YBP, so they are a very archaic race.

After that, they appear to have gone from India to Thailand, possibly by sea. Skulls from Thailand 18,000 YBP look very much like Jomonese skulls from Japan and Ainu skulls today.

Before 18,000 YBP: Veddoids evolve in India.

18,000 YBP: Veddoids go to Thailand. Their descendants become the Senoi.

13,000 YBP: Veddoids show up in far southern Japan (possibly Okinawa) as the Jomonese, the ancestors of the Ainu and the first people to settle Japan that we know of. They arrive here from Thailand. They appear to have gone from Thailand to Japan by boat. No one knows when they left Thailand or how look it took them to get to Japan, but sometime in that 5,000 year period from 18,000 YBP to 13,000 YBP, they move in between Thailand and Japan by boat. Old anthropological theory said that a long time ago, one of the early peoples of the Philippines resembled what to me look like the Ainu, so they may have stopped in the Philippines at some point between 18,000 YBP and 13,000 YBP en route from Thailand to Japan by sea.

17 Comments

Filed under Ainu, Anthropology, Asia, Asians, Australia, Genetics, India, Indonesia, Japan, NE Asia, Negritos, Northeast Asians, Pacific, Papua New Guinea, Papuans, Philippines, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asians, South Asia, Thailand

White Nationalists What’s Behind the Pretty-Faced Lies They Front with

But I think that White nationalism is such an extreme and brutal movement that even with the nicest of White nationalists, sooner or later, some really nasty racist talk is going to come out. There’s probably no way for them not to do it. It’s probably nearly a rule.

Let’s face it, the White nationalists are most racist of even all the racists. I did not know much about them when I first ran into them on the Net and I believed all their lies. They told me that they didn’t hate any non-Whites at all. Instead, they were lovers. They simply loved their own race and meant no ill will towards others. They simply wished to live with the people they loved. They told me that they were not racists at all really. Instead, they were cynical “race realists” who had reluctantly come around to basic differences between the races. They were not White Supremacists at all. They did not think Whites were superior to other races. They were careful to point out that White nationalists and White Supremacists were two different things and most White nationalists were not White Supremacists.

I soon realized that these were all lies. All White nationalists are White Supremacists. Sure not all White Supremacists are White nationalists, but nowadays a lot of them are. The longer you lurk around these White nationalist websites, the more you realize that these are exactly the same people that we used to call White Supremacists back in the day. Even on the mildest White nationalist sites like American Renaissance, there are references to folks we used to call White Supremacists, whom they see as heroes. David Duke is a hero; he was a KKK leader. There are frequent references to the 14 words. The links between the mild, polite face sites like Amren and the deeper and darker hardcore sites like Stormfront, VNN, and many of the Alt Right sites are much deeper than you think. They’re sort of all linked up together as far as I can see.

It’s not true that the only love their own race and don’t hate any non-Whites. They may well love their own race but they certainly also hate non-Whites. Not necessarily all non-Whites though, as Amren and Jared Taylor speak highly of Northeast Asians, and Taylor likes Jews and thinks Jews are White.

But they all have an extreme hatred for Blacks and a lot don’t like Hispanics much either. They don’t seem to care about Southeast Asians, South Asian Indians, or the Caucasoids of Central Asia. In fact, there was an Iranian forum at Stormfront for a while. They only dislike Turks, Arabs, etc. in that they are Muslims, otherwise they could care less about them.

Some of them are vicious Nordicists who hate all Mediterranean Whites, but that’s not the majority and it’s not even common on pro-Med Stormfront. Some of them are even sympathetic to American Indians. At any rate, they don’t have much hatred for them. They care next to nothing about Aborigines and they never talk about Polynesians, Micronesians, Melanesians or Papuans. Those people might as well not even exist.

The only people who hate Polynesians (sea niggers) and Aborigines (Lucys) are Australian White nationalists, and they are not common.

Some Canadian White nationalists hate Amerindians (prairie niggers), but there are not many White nationalists in Canada.

Latin American White nationalists don’t even hate Indians all that much, whom they regard as annoying and verbally violent at worst. As one said, “You give an Indian a six-pack and a handful of tortillas and he’s good for the night. That’s not so with Blacks.” White nationalists down south mostly hate Jews and Blacks. They also have a much more sensible view of who is White. Latin American White nationalists say that anyone who is at least 75-85% White is White in Latin America.

I do not know much about White nationalists in Europe except that they are very worried about Muslims and the one thing many of them hate more than anything else is Gypsies. This is especially true in Eastern Europe. Gypsies are seen as the “thieving niggers” of Europe.

What seems to tie all of the White nationalists together seems to be a hatred for Blacks.

After that, I would say probably a hatred of Jews. Blacks first, then Jews. They barely care about much of anyone other than that. But yeah, they’re haters all right. In fact, I had bought their line that they hated no one and I was stunned at some of the wild hateful statements they started making after a while. I almost fell out of my chair. The civil White nationalist type is mostly a front. There’s pretty much a Stormfronter behind most of those masks.

We’re not racists, we’re just race realists. This is another one of their lines. Well it’s not true. And anyway, almost all race realists are racists, and often nasty ones at that. Nonracist race realists exist, but they are not common and they seem to be swimming against a tide.

42 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Amerindians, Asians, Australia, Blacks, Canada, East Indians, Europe, Iranians, Jews, Latin America, Near Easterners, North America, Northeast Asians, Oceanians, Papuans, Race Realism, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Roma, SE Asians, South Asians, USA, White Nationalism, White Racism, Whites

Papuan Barbarism

Waltem writes: Read Lawrence Keeley. “Savage” warfare (like say, in New Guinea) is proportionately more lethal than “civilized” warfare.

Correct. Primitive man leads a short, nasty and brutish existence. As recently as the 1300’s in England, the homicide rate in the larger cities was 50 times higher than it is today in the US. Fifty times higher. We think Latin America is out of control because it has a homicide rate 10X hours. Now imagine a society that is 5 times worse than Honduras. That was urban England in the 1300’s.  Whites were unbelievably barbarous not so long ago themselves. So what happened? How did the homicide rate decline by 98%? Did our genes change? Come on hereditarians, let’s dish it up.

Yes, the Papuans engage in warfare continuously. At least until recently, they habitually molested most if not all of the children, and the children were exposed to incredible violence. Childhood was a time of frequent  beatings from your parents and even your siblings. You probably witnessed your mother murdering one of your newborn on 2-3 year old siblings. You may have even participated because some Papuans force the children to murder their own three year old siblings as some sort of an object lesson. There’s no escaping it warfare and violence in these places.

And when Papuans are put into modern culture, the result has been a complete catastrophe. They cannot function at all in modern society, and Port Moresby is one of the most brutal, savage, barbarous, and out and out dangerous cities on Earth. Many of the Papuans there have formed vicious street gangs and the city has one of the highest rates of violent crime on Earth. Port Moresby is worse than most cities in Africa.

These people are simply not suited for modern society, at the moment anyway, because they are too backwards, barbarous, savage, uncivilized, brutish, incompetent and violent. That 64 IQ no doubt does not help matters. African Blacks were not in a very different place centuries ago  with 67 IQ’s, but centuries in America had a profoundly civilizing effect such that hundreds of years out of Africa, a Black today would probably regard his ancestors from the 1700’s as so brutish and vicious that he probably would not to have anything to do with him.

I suppose 25% White genes in modern Blacks didn’t hurt, but that alone cannot be all of the story. The story is one of acculturation and the civilizing of a profoundly backwards and barbarous race. It is actually incredible how different US Blacks are from those early anthropologists’ findings of Africa. You almost wonder if humans can actually change that much, but apparently they can. Not everyone can become civilized, but people can sure get a Hell of a lot more civilized than they were before. It might take centuries, but it can be done.

All of you hereditarians, how can you possibly explain the almost unheard of transformation of these barbarous Africans into modern Blacks? Their genes are the same. You guys say everything is genes. Fine, well how did these people change so much then?

12 Comments

Filed under Africa, Anthropology, Blacks, Crime, Cultural, European, Europeans, History, Latin America, North America, Papua New Guinea, Papuans, Race Realism, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, Urban Studies, USA, Whites

The India-Australia Connection

The genetic link between India and Australia is not conclusive. Most recent Genetics paper on the earlier mentioned links has found no recent links.

Also Dravidian and Veddoid are 2 different races. Some Veddoid have taken up Dravidian languages just as other Veddoid have taken up Indo-Aryan.

In Sri Lanka is the only distinct Vedda population and they speak a creole that is neither Dravidian nor Indo-Aryan; it shares more with Indo-Aryan but has a substratum that is distinct and different from Dravidian and Indo-Aryan. India does not have distinct Vedda populations as they have linguistically and culturally assimilated into the surrounding Dravidian,Indo-Aryan and Munda speaking populations.

I would certainly agree that a recent India-Australia link is not proven.

My argument was that those people we call Aborigines are new people. Supposedly they supplanted most of the original people. They are said to have come from India and Thailand 12-17,000 YBP. Any genetic relation that far back will not show up in genes.

Furthermore, Veddoids and other primitive types in India (yes, there are some in India, not just Sri Lanka) have skulls that plot Australoid next to Papuans, Melanesians and Aborigines. If there is no connection, why do they have the same skulls? Tamils also have Australoid skulls showing the same connections.

There is a very ancient and primitive group in Nepal called the Nahali. The language was long thought to be an isolate and was recently thought to be extinct. However some speakers were found not long ago. More recent though highly controversial studies suggest that Nahali is an Indo-Pacific language related to the languages of New Guinea. I believe this connection is correct. If there is no connection between India and Australia, why the language connection?

Also, the Andaman Islanders are Australoids by skulls. So once again we have an Australian connection with the most primitive people of India by skulls. Some theories suggest that the Andaman languages, long considered isolates, are related to Indo-Pacific languages. Joseph Greenberg thought so. I am not sure how well that is backed up, but if it is true, once again, we see a connection between India and Australia.

7 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Andaman Islanders, Anthropology, Asia, Australia, Dravidian, East Indians, India, Language Families, Linguistics, Melanesians, Negritos, Nepal, Oceanians, Papuans, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asians, South Asia, South Asians, Sri Lankans