Category Archives: South Asians

Race in India: An Anthropological View

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genetically, they are Aborigines, Melanesians, and Papuans.

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

Hema Malini, a very White-looking Indian.

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

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

Raju, Bishop N John S D classic dravidian

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

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

3 Comments

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

Do Intelligent People Realize That They Are Smarter Than Anyone Else Surrounding Them?

Answered on Quora. Quora is neat because there is an IQ section and there are frequent questions about IQ, often directed at high or very high IQ people. A lot are on the lines of How do very high IQ people think/react/live/feel etc. about this or that? What is it like to have a very high IQ? Well, those are valid questions and they need answering, so lots of high and very high IQ people on there jump in and answer those questions. It’s completely socially acceptable to do that on there.

That’s neat because the whole rest of society is pretty much blocked out to discussions like that. You simply cannot talk about how smart you. You can talk about being superior in any other way (face it: high IQ people are superior at least on the one metric of intelligence), and most people will eat it up if you do it in the right way. Personally, I recommend false modesty. When discussing any accomplishments,  I often shrug my shoulders like I am talking about a glass of water or I even put my head down, lower my voice and act like I am embarassed or even ashamed of the accomplishment. Mostly I just discuss it matter of factly like it’s nothing. This usually goes over very well. But you can’t really talk about brains at all.

You certainly cannot discuss your IQ score most of the time. It’s a social taboo. I can’t even write about the subject on this blog, even though this is an IQ blog for Chrissakes, because writing about it on the blog falls under the same taboo as discussing it in public. You are “bragging” and you are violating the social taboo about as much as if you blurted it out in public.

However, Quora provides a completely socially acceptable forum for high and very high IQ people to discuss IQ and their intelligence without necessarily being seen as bragging (granted some still come off as braggarts due to the way they talk about it not because they mention the fact). I suppose the social taboo police types still think it’s horrible that we talk about in forums designed for that specific fact on Quora, but honestly, they can go to Hell. There’s nothing wrong with talking about anything on a public forum set up to discuss specifically that very thing.

Anyway, here is my answer. Hope you enjoy it and I hope at least one person finds some good advice here because there’s also a life hack technique discussed here about being a social actor to play a fake role and get along better with others.

You must realize that at any given time, I actually am smarter than everyone or certainly almost everyone around me, assuming that intelligence = IQ, which I believe it does. According to my IQ score, if you have 1,000 people in a room, I am smarter than all of them. You have get 2,000 people in the room to have one person who is on my level or higher.

So in my small city, there should be 60 people as smart or smarter than I am. That assumes my city has an average (100) IQ, which is highly dubious. I would say instead that the IQ of this city is more like 93, if it is even that high. Now I cannot do the math anymore because I only know how to do it with IQ set at 100, but the number is now less than 60. Edit: I just did the math and at my city’s 93 IQ, there are exactly four people in this city who are as smart or smarter than I am. Wow, that’s a powerful thought!

That means that if you got 1/4 of the population of my city together, I would be smarter than all of them! You would have to get half the town in one place to get one person as smart as or smarter than I am.

However, even though that is an objective fact, I rarely make myself aware of it. I simply blot it out of my mind. I live in a tough minority-heavy working class or even poor neighborhood. This place is like the hood or the ghetto, except it’s Mexicans, so it’s a barrio, so it’s much more livable than a Black ghetto. But the general vibes are the same. All of the men are very tough and hard.

There are gangs around here. There’s a lot of drinking and there are some drugs too. You can get hit anytime here for any reason if you disrespect someone or act like an idiot, so you have to be cool all the time. Gay men and lesbians are certainly not welcome here at all. Even feminine men would have a real problem because here if you are a man, you have to be hard because if you’re not, you might get hit. It’s a low class, hypermasculine, heavily ethnic, working class neighborhood. This place is anti-intellectual and I doubt if most people around here read one book last year.

The point is that I have to fit in here so I adopt more or the hard street tough hustler type mindset of the neighborhood. This means that most of the time, I shut down my own knowledge of my intelligence level and pretend that I am about as smart as those around me. The main reason is that I do not want to feel superior to these tough working class uneducated people around me. If I start feeling that way, I think they will pick up on it and regard it as arrogance and not be friendly. I want to be as friendly as possible so I try to get down to the same level of the salt of the Earth types.

On the other hand, most people around here have figured out that I am pretty damn smart because of the things that I like to talk about. We have Arabs around here and I ask them about their countries, US foreign policy and foreign affairs. They are amazed that I know so much about their country. They always ask me if I am from there or if I have been there.

Even the Mexicans and Salvadorans cannot believe that I know so much about their countries. They all assume I must be from their country because to them, no one not from there knows this much stuff about their land. The Indians are the same. They insist I must be Indian or must have been to India, otherwise there’s no way I could know all of this.

I must say that a lot of the Indians and Arabs are smarter and I can let down my hair with them pretty quickly. They often pick up that I am smart very quickly, and a lot of the Indian men are quite smart fellows. A lot of Arab men are also very smart. When I find another smart ethnic person, I show a lot more of my intelligence. They see this right away and sometimes switch into “intellectual mode” (especially the Indian men).

I am probably smarter than most all of even these Indian and Arab men but I refuse to think about or even recognize that because I want to be on their level. Instead I marvel at how much relatively brighter and more educated they are than most folks around here.

At times, I have to deal with some very smart people in this city, though they never live here. I mean physicians, pharmacists, judges, etc. I seem to be about on the same level as most of these folks. Especially physicians. Physicians are taken aback by me quite quickly, probably because I am a lot smarter than the average patient. They very quickly figure out that I am very smart, and they are often very surprised by how smart I am. They usually comment something along those lines.

If you have been reading this far, you can see that the smarter someone is, the quicker they realize that they are dealing with a very smart person on the other hand. I would say that the speed at which they recognize this almost correlates with IQ.

It’s not uncommon when meeting a physician that very quickly, maybe within a couple of minutes, he jerks his head back and shakes his head and is shocked at how smart I am. They appreciate it, and I can usually have some really neat conversations with my physicians because smart people (like physicians) like other smart people.

If you are very smart, like say a doctor, another smart person is going to be a lot more fun to be around because they are more on your wavelength. Also smart people, like physicians, like to learn new things, and smart people are always telling you new things. They also like to be challenged mentally, and smart people tend to challenge your mind.

A lot of people find this intimidating, but smart people, like say doctors, seem to find it as a sort of delightful challenge because they seem to like to crunch their brains, maybe almost even for sheer kicks. Also understand that smart people, like say physicians, are often also very curious and smart people are an endless source of fascination for a curious person because you can learn so many fun and cool things from them.

Do I know I’m smarter than most everyone around? I suppose I do, because it is a scientific fact. However, I often blind myself to this idea and a lot of the time, I even lie to myself, say it’s not true, tell myself I am an idiot, that I know nothing, exaggerate the intelligence of those around me, etc. This is a sort of acting or role-playing that I do so I can get along better with people around me.

Going around all the time consciously thinking you are smarter than most everyone around, even if it’s a fact, doesn’t seem to work very well. I seem to come off a bit uppity, superior or arrogant. I don’t want to come off that way because I want smooth relations with other humans. So a lot of the time I shut that fact out of my mind or even pretend it’s not true.

1 Comment

Filed under Arabs, Culture, East Indians, Hispanics, Intelligence, Mexicans, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Salvadorans, Sociology

Alt Left: In Support of Prejudice

I just found out that prejudice means “dislike for a group of people.” This typically means a racial, ethnic, religious, gender, sexual orientation or sexual identity. Prejudice usually means bigotry of some sort, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, sectarianism, and various forms of ethnic hatred.

For the life of me, I cannot see what on Earth is wrong with not liking some group of people. However, I would argue that this should be limited to dislike, it should not be obsessive and it should not be the sort of hot or cold hatred that hurts a lot of people.

This boils down to a basic limitation of freedom. Saying that prejudice is illegal or immoral or bad in some way is automatically an abrogation of human freedom. Obviously, we don’t have to like anyone. Isn’t that clear? Obviously, we can dislike anyone we want to, for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all. That is our right as a free citizen.

We have a right to our preferences. We have a right to have a preference for one particular group or a preference to not associate with some other particular group, although I would hope it would be phrased as,

“You know, I just don’t care to associate with [X group]. I wish them all the best and will work for equal rights for them because as humans they deserve it, but as far as I am concerned, it’s them over there and me over here. I simply prefer not to be around them too much and I do not wish to befriend them. If I have to deal with them, I will be as polite and friendly as possible, but I do not wish to take things any further than that.”

What in God’s name is wrong with such a mindset? Now obviously you cannot incorporate it into law. You cannot use your preferences to discriminate against certain groups in housing, employment, voting rights, etc. (even though such discrimination is rampant even now and is even officially sanctioned by a political party called the Republican Party). Sure, you can’t discriminate. But you don’t have to be friends with anyone. You don’t have to make the acquaintance of anyone. You don’t have to hang around with or associate with anyone.

I happen to have a certain dislike for some groups of people.

I am not wild about gay men, though I have a few online gay friends who I am very fond of. Friendships between gay and straight men are impossible in my book and fail every single time. How do I know this? Personal experience. I have also had a lifetime of bad experiences with gay men, and I just do not wish to deal with them anymore. I’ve had enough of gay men for one lifetime.

On their other hand, I support full rights for them, and I even work on their political campaigns! I support most of their political causes and in general think it should not be legal to discriminate against them.

But it’s still them over there, me over here, and never the twain shall meet. In my life, almost all straight men I have known have had little or nothing to do with gay men. I cannot think of anything more bizarre than straight men have gay friends, and the men I have known who befriended gay men almost always reported a catastrophic experience, bearing out my concerns. But then, I am Old School.

I don’t like Gypsies very much. In fact, I do not like them at all. I don’t hate them because they are not worth wasting my energy hating. I have met five Gypsies in my life. Four of them stole from me, and one just got out or jail. All were female. Based on that, I do not wish to meet anymore Gypsies in  this lifetime.

I’ve met plenty enough Gypsies for one life. As far as racism against Gypsies, it’s not something we deal with in the US, so it’s not an issue. It’s a nonexistent problem, so I have no opinion about it.

I don’t like Nigerians or Africans period very much, especially West Africans. I am done with them. Almost every African I met on the Net behaved horribly, and almost all of them tried to steal from either me or my friends.

We had a Yahoo group once and we let a lot of Africans, mostly Nigerians, into the group.

All except for one or two tried to steal from us.

A few others were trying to scam a White wife so they could get into the US. We called them wife-scammers and considered them to be about as low as the thieves.

The rest of them were always trying to chat with the women in our group. When the women would go talk to them, these men would have their cams on and would always be jerking their big Black cocks at these women, almost always White women. A number of our women got very upset by this, and some were out and out traumatized.

We threw almost all of them out of the group for stealing or trying to steal, wife scamming, and flashing and jerking off at our women without permission. We then put in a totally racist and discriminatory rule banning all Africans from joining the group.  We got accused of racism for this, and a lot of group members defected to go hang out with those wonderful Africans.

I suppose you think that because I am not fond of Africans, I dislike Black Americans. Actually, I have no particular opinion about Black Americans, and mostly I try to just not think about them, which I think is best. This is one group of Americans that I would say the less you think about them, the better.

Yes, we banned Africans from our group, but we also had a lot of Black Americans, men and women, in the group. Only one was banned, and he deserved it. The African ban did not apply to American Blacks. Why? Because they were not doing any of the things the Africans were doing! They were not stealing from us, wife scamming or jerking their dicks at our women.

In fact, the behavior of the US Blacks in our group was orders of magnitude better than the Africans! It was almost like we were dealing with two completely different races of people. This is why I think it is wrong to lump US Blacks in with Africans. Behaviorally, they are dramatically different, and US Blacks are much better behaved than Africans. I am not sure why this is, but I have some theories. As  you can see, theories of genetic race and behavior do not make much sense here, as US Black genes are not much different from African genes. What’s different? How about culture? How about 400 years of exposure to White culture here in the US?

I don’t have any particular preferences about any other groups of people, although to be completely honest, I suppose I am most comfortable with my own White people. I know that I am most comfortable with White women. I think it is just that they are most similar to me in many different ways. Also White women are far more likely to like me and want to get involved with me than are women of any other race. Why that is, I have no idea, but perhaps when it comes to dating and relationships, a lot of people simply prefer their own kind.

Which brings me to another type of preference. Why in God’s name can we not have racial or any other type of preferences when it comes to dating!? So you don’t want to date Catholics, or Arabs, or bisexuals, or transwomen, or Gypsies, or Gentiles, or atheists, or Nigerians, or, Hell, Midwesterners, or redheads, or people with blue eyes, or Republicans, or insurance salesmen, or banksters, or…anything or anyone for any reason or no reason?

I cannot think of anything more personal than dating, relationships, love, sexual behaviors, intimacy, and sex itself. The idea that we cannot have preferences or even actively discriminate in this area is absolutely insane, but we are starting to hear this now from the Cultural Left.

Apparently we men have no right to discriminate against transwomen in dating. As for me, sorry, I don’t date trannies. Real women are enough of a headache, believe me. I don’t need to deal with some chick who used to be a dude, sorry, I’m out as far as that goes.

Apparently, we White men are no longer allowed to say we prefer not to date Black women. We also cannot say that we do not find Black women attractive (a common belief among White men). I guess we have no right to have standards when it comes to attraction! The Cultural Left now says it is always racist for a White man to prefer not to date Black women, and it is always racist if a White man says he is not attracted to Black women.

I keep telling you that these Cultural Left freaks keep getting crazier every year. I think they are on some runaway Crazy Train. Apparently the nature of the Cultural Left is to get weirder and crazier every year, continually upping the ante and making more and more extreme demands. We meet a few of their nutty demands, and they don’t even bother to say thanks before they move the goalposts again and start making new even nuttier demands. It’s like a football field that stretches far off into the horizon with no end in sight.

24 Comments

Filed under Blacks, Civil Rights, Cultural Marxists, Culture, Discrimination, Homosexuality, Law, Left, Nigerians, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Roma, Romantic Relationships, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, Whites

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.

12 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

PUA/Game: Even in the Land of the Nerds, Women Still Probably Prefer Alphas

I spent a few days in Silicon Valley recently, mostly in Mountain View, where I spent four days. Mountain View was swarming with nerdy men of all races. Most of the White and Indian men there were quite nerdy. I would think that if you had great Game and you went to Silicon Valley, you might be able to clean up because so many of the men were such nerds, and you have to think that those women there are probably hungry for some Game-supercharged Alpha men, who seem to be in short supply.

Even in the Land of the Nerds, I am sure that most women still prefer Alphas. That’s just Mother Nature calling them home. They’re not even thinking about it or aware of it. It’s 40,000 years of evolution talking. In so many ways, we may as well  still be living in caves. We are not as different from cavepeople as we think.

7 Comments

Filed under California, East Indians, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Man World, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Romantic Relationships, Sex, South Asians, USA, West, Whites

Alt Left: Psychological Origins of White Gun Nut Culture

First of all, no matter what these rightwing liars tell you, gun culture is White culture. It’s rightwing White culture. It used to be mostly older rightwing Whites, but a number of younger Whites may be into it now too.

Gun nut culture is based in the South, Texas, the rural Midwest, West and East.

Blacks are not into gun nut culture, although I have heard that rural Southern Blacks love their guns. Urban Blacks are not part of gun nut culture other than the criminal class. I have some Blacks who live around me here, and none of them have guns.

Hispanics are not into gun nut culture. Yes, gangs and the criminal class have guns, but most others do not. I live in an Hispanic city right now. Almost all of my neighbors are Hispanic. I’ve never met one of them who had a gun. The only gun I ever saw was under the shirt of a 19 year old gangbanger.

Asian culture is not gun nut culture. They’re just not into guns.

American Indian culture is not gun nut culture. I worked for Indians for years in the mountains, and I got to know many of them. Never met an Indian who owned a gun.

South Indians are not a part of gun nut culture. This town is swarming with South Indians, and I’ve never met one who had a gun.

In general, urban Whites are not part of gun nut culture. Whites who live in big cities where crime is much higher than in rural areas usually do not have guns, although logically, they would have much greater reason for one. It’s not common to meet an urban White person who has guns in this state. Here in California, urban Whites in places like the Bay Area and LA generally do not have guns. In all the time I spent in LA and the Bay Area, I never met one urban White person who kept a gun.

A few White women have guns for personal protection. I doubt if it does much for the crime rate. I had a girlfriend who lived alone, and one night at 2 AM, she pulled a .38 out of a drawer and showed it to me.

“It’s loaded,” she told me.

There we were, standing there at 2 AM in this chick’s house, passing a loaded gun back and forth like it was nothing. She’s the only woman I ever met who had a person gun for protection.

That stupid gun you keep in your house is 30X more likely to be used to you or  someone in your house in a homicide or suicide than it is to defend you from a potentially lethal attack. It’s not worth it to keep a gun in your house. There’s no benefit, and there are huge risks of death associated with doing  that.

There is basically zero significant and potentially lethal violent crime in White rural America. It’s as safe as you can get.

I lived in a White town in the Sierra Nevada of rural California for 18 years. I got some news for you. There was zero crime there. None. No significant crime, certainly nothing you would need a gun to defend yourself against. And when I left there in 2005, I was still often not locking my door when I left. Why should I? Why lock the door?

What is most bizarre is that in this White rural town in lived in with no crime, guns were everywhere, and most everyone you met was a gun nut or gun kook. And they had no reason to have their guns.

The dirty little secret in California about the White mountains is that this is where Whites moved to get away from the “niggers and the Mexicans.” It was pretty common for them to come right out and admit that that was why they moved up there. It was also fairly common for them to say that the reason they were armed to the teeth was because Blacks and Mexicans were going to come up to the mountains in small armies and prey on moneyed Whites.

A fair number of them were White Supremacists who ranted and raved about rightwing conspiracy theories all the time. Most of these people were armed to the teeth, and many had stocked up years of food. They insisted that society was about to collapse any time now, and with the collapse, whole armies of “niggers and beaners” would drift up out of the crime-ridden cities into the White mountains to prey on the Whites.

One of their notions was that after the collapse, society would run out of food, and the White psychos who had been stockpiling food for years would be the only people in society with any food left, so starving hoards of armed “niggers and beaners” would drift up from the ruin and emaciated cities to steal the food of the Whites in order to survive.

I heard a number of these psychos outline for me how this was going to happen and how they were going to make a last stand for it in their barricaded mountain retreat piled with guns. They would hole up in the mountain base with a living room full of guns as the starving “niggers and beaners” flooded into the mountains to kill the Whites and steal their food. In their mountain abode, they would hole up with sniper rifles as the living dead Black and Brown zombies teemed below, hungry for White bodies and food. They would be up on the hill, firing down at the Orcs below. Most of them expected to die defending their mountain home from darkies.

Millions of White people actually believe this crap. Isn’t that incredible?

So there you have it. America’s gun culture is senseless, based on paranoia, racism and wild cataclysmic conspiracy theory. It doesn’t even have a rational basis.

14 Comments

Filed under American, Asians, Blacks, California, Conservatism, Conspiracy Theories, Crime, Culture, Hispanics, Political Science, Psychology, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Sociology, South Asians, West, White Racism, Whites

Indian Hindus – Portrait of a Parasitical People

Excellent post from the comments from Angie Cohen, a physician in New York City.

Angie Cohen: Bhabiji: This is going to be a lengthy post.

I have noticed that you have conveniently ignored a lot of Robert’s points in his post. Allow me to address them with facts and evidence. I will mention some of Mr. Lindsay’s points and address them vis-a-vis your convoluted rants defending Hinduism:

#1: Robert’s point on the sheer hypocrisy and hideousness of upper caste Hindus, especially the Brahmins.

He clearly mentioned their disdain for people whom they consider lower castes or “dalits,” while both defending the caste system, and when cornered with logic and facts, even denying the existence of Casteist- based discrimination and atrocities against lower castes by Brahmin & other upper caste thugs in India.

You seem to have ignored that and instead deviated to defending the evils of Puranic Hinduism and the idiotic mythical Ramayana rubbish.

#2: Robert’s point on the Brahmins’ hatred for Western culture and Christianity while glorifying a mythical idealistic ancient Hindu Vedic civilization extolling the superiority of Hindus vs the others (Christians, Muslims etc).

The Brahman-dominated Hindutvadi losers do all these while ironically doing everything they can to dump their failed Hindurashtra and then leave for Judeo-Christian-based secular nations such as the United States, Australia, UK, Canada and even some EU nations. That is a strange dichotomy. Almost a walking contradiction!

#3: Robert’s point on Hindu savagery and backwardness.

Despite what Brahmin supremacists love to claim online under anonymity or in some pathetic RSS/BJP/ Ultra rightwing Hindu club eulogizing the greatness of Vedic civilization and the genius of the upper caste Hindu mind, all evidence points to quite the opposite.

Show me ONE place, just one place on Earth where Hindus (upper castes or otherwise), despite being easily able to congregate together (Heck they have a whole freaking nation for themselves, i.e. Modi’s Brahman-dominated upper caste-run India – a failed shithole!) have been able to build a decent or successful society which is both fully functional and advanced. Pretty sure there is NOT one.

The Evidence:

What do White Christians create in terms of advancement & beauty?

The holiest sites for Hindu Brahmans – Varanasi & River Ganges created, maintained, and run by Hindu Brahmins, is the utopia we create and then delude ourselves of our supposed superiority.

Brahman-supported Hindu Supremacist leader Modi’s beloved Gujarat – we do believe in Rupee for Poopee!

Hindu dominated India’s staggeringly low IQ:

Hindu-dominated India has a very low IQ of just 82, far lower than ANY Western nation (North & South Americas, Europe, Russia, Australia & New Zealand). This point explains Indian incompetence in the medical and technical fields, which is why we the western world have to pretty much share all our science, technology & civilization with these arrogant ingrates.

http://www.searchindia.com/2016/04/28/are-indian-h1bs-low-iq-chutiyas/

Hindu incompetence in the engineering and tech fields:

http://www.gadgetsnow.com/jobs/95-engineers-in-india-unfit-for-software-development-jobs-claims-report/articleshow/58278224.cms

Hindu incompetence in the medical field:

From Great Britain – incompetent Hindu doctors wrecking havoc there:

http://www.unz.com/article/bad-medicine-the-sickening-truth-about-britains-foreign-doctors/

Not only are they highly incompetent in their technical work, they have this brash, arrogant attitude mixed with a rude demeanor which makes them very unwelcome here. Not just the IT sector filled with unintelligent Hindu zombies, but even the medical industry has suffered the plague of Hindu incompetence. A few years back the Australian government suffered the outcome of inviting one such upper caste Hindu, Dr. Jayant Patel, who would turn out to break the world record for the highest number of cases of death and medical negligence owing to his sheer medical incompetence. He was labelled “Dr. Death” by the media which made his horrible work into international headlines.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/General/The-scandal-of-Dr-Death/2005/05/27/1117129900672.html

Even in India, take a cursory look at the number of so called medical doctors who have been banned or jailed for medical incompetence and negligence by the Medical Council of India – all happen to be upper caste Hindu doctors. Just look at the list below – excepting one random Muslim name, it pretty much reads from a telephone directory of some Hindu Brahmin or Baniya matrimonial column from New Delhi. It is interesting to note that NOT one Indian-Christian doctor made it in that shitlist of shame.

Now ask yourselves this question: Why does America, UK or Australia need more incompetent upper caste Hindu doctors or technocrats when it is plainly evident that these losers can’t hack it in terms of quality?

Just so that you know, the minority of Indian Christians still stuck in India are easy targets for persecution by the upper caste-dominated Hindu fascists of the ruling BJP government. The Indian Christian community is a highly intelligent, educated and industrious lot who have actually helped advance India into the 21st century. The Hindu fascists are the same folks who burnt alive and killed an Australian Christian man and his two young sons for helping poor & maligned leprosy patients in Orissa, India.

The Indian Christian community is actually a breath of fresh air here in the West. They are nothing like their Hindu countrymen. Generally highly competent, intelligent and very well-assimilated into Western culture, they are welcome here anytime. Can’t say the same for the Hindus, Sikhs, and especially the savage Muslims though.

angelinamendes87.wixsite.com/indianchristians

Studies and statistics like those listed above should be shared and shown to official authorities and friends, colleagues, and families – just so we can all be secure in the knowledge of making an astute decision as to the current immigration trends.

Conclusion:

Indians, especially the Hindus, are highly parasitical. If and when some among them thrive or are successful, at best they migrate to somebody else’s land, neighborhood or club built, designed and created by someone else. Thus for all the spikes and bile they upper caste Hindu losers spew against Christendom, they are the first bunch of parasitical hypocrites who crawl on their rancid bellies and beg, borrow, or steal to dump Hindu India (Bharatvarsh) & instead migrate to Christian lands in the West.

And once there, these ingrates will do everything they can to undermine the host culture and people vis-a-vis their concomitant attacks against Christianity, our institutions, our jobs and especially against our women and culture. Unlike the Muslims, the Hindus are a lot more sly and do these acts in a covert manner. Except that people are waking up to their BS.

These Brahman hypocrites will steadily vote for the Left in Western countries while steadfastly supporting ultra rightwing policies and governments back in their homeland of India. Another walking contradiction.

So, if Hinduism is so great, “Bhabiji”, tell me when you book the next one-way ticket to “the enlightened land of Bharatvarsha” (India) and live, thrive and work in Hindustan without returning back to us inferior Jews & Christians of the West?

134 Comments

Filed under Asia, Australia, Britain, Christianity, Conservatism, Culture, Death, East Indians, Europe, Fascism, Health, Hinduism, Immigration, India, Intelligence, Legal, Medicine, Political Science, Politics, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Social Problems, Sociology, South Asia, South Asians, USA, Whites

The Race of the Paleo-Indians of the Americas

Don: I heard that the Tierra del Fuego Amerinds were considered Paleo-Indians. ‘Luzia’ was found only to be 10,000 yrs. old and not Australoid, proven by a number of different institutions. Many scientists that work in anthropology all agree she is Paleo-Indian.

Luzia is 12,500 years old.

Your statement is a tautology because Paleo-Indians = Australoids, racially speaking, by skulls. They are probably looking at genes, and yes, on genes, they are Indians. It’s just that the Indians if you go that far back Indians look like Australoids, as did the NE Asian populations from which they derived. See for instance the Australoid Ainu, basically depigmented Veddoids originally from Thailand 16,000 YBP, then later to the Australoid Jomon 13,000 YBP, who also occupied Japan. These were and are very robust people. The Ainu are NE Asian by genes and Australoid by skulls.

Leave a comment

Filed under Ainu, Americas, Amerindians, Anthropology, Asia, Asians, East Indians, Japan, Latin America, NE Asia, Northeast Asians, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, South America, South Asians, Thailand

Excellent Proof of the Aryan Invasion Theory

From here.

Aryan invasion

Around 1500 BC, the Indus civilization came, after 2,000 years of prosperity, to a comparatively abrupt end. Conclusive evidence shows that the reason for this decline, in fact the sole reason for it, was an invasion by highly barbaric Aryans. They invaded, destroying the Indus cities and exterminating the native peoples.

1. Archaeological Evidence

1.1 Thick Ash Layers

Thick ash layers occur in the upper strata of many Indus cities. At Nal the last phase of the Zhob-ware was burnt down so much that the mound is known as the Sohr Damb, or the Red Mound, from the reddening of fire. At Dabar Kot the upper 6 feet show 4 thick ash layers that indicate repeated destruction by conflagration and the layers were is associated with the last settlements of Harappa [Piggott 215].

At the Rana Ghundai Mound everywhere overlying the foundation level of the RG IIIc phase there are pockets of ash. Above the RG IIIc phase the pottery is a markedly different from the preceding type, the RG IV phase pottery being painted with coarse bands. RG IV was again destroyed by fire, and the RG V phase is marked by another change in pottery. The RG V pottery is unpainted and contains patterns in relief [Piggott p. 214].

1.2 Fractured Skulls

At Mohenjo-daro, Harappa and Chanhu-daro, skeletons/fragments of skeletons indicate violent massacres in the final stages of the cities’ histories. Huddled skeletons of persons murdered in the streets indicate that the mass deaths were not due to poisonings etc. but were violent [Piggott p. 145].

1.3 Aryan Weaponry

Copper ax-adzes are intrusive at Harappan sites (Harappa, Shahi-tump and Chanhu-daro) but are similar to those found at North Persian sites (Hissar III, Shah Tepe, Turang Tepe) and Akkadian sites. At Assur Sialk B cemetery, the specimens are probably from as late as the 9th century BC) [Piggott p.228].

Swords 1.5 foot long and strengthened at the mid-rib are non-Harappan and are found only in the later strata of the cities. These swords at Mohenjo-daro have a tang and rivet to hold the handle exactly as found in Palestine, where such implements are associated with the Hyksos 1800-1500 BC [Piggott p. 229].

Copper harpoons found in the Indus Valley are similar to those found in Europe and elsewhere in Asia [Piggott p. 237].

1.4 Flooding by Aryan Destruction of Indus Dams

Signs of flooding were discovered in the Indus cities, mainly in the form of silt deposits. It was considered that this flooding could explain the fall of the Indus cities and this was considered the most viable alternative to Aryan Invasion. It was subsequently discovered, however, that flooding had been pinpointed as an alternative explanation to the Aryan Invasion Theory several decades before the actual discovery of the flooding. It is now accepted that the flooding was caused by the Aryans’ destruction of the Indus dam and irrigation system and was merely another aspect of the genocide.

+ He smote Vrtra who encompassed the waters [RgV VI.20.2].

+ He smote Vrtra who enclosed the waters, like a tree with the bolt [RgV II.14.2].

+ He is referred to as `conquering the waters’ (apsujit), which is his prime attribute.

+ Indra let loose the streams after slaying Vrtra [RgV IV.19.8].

+ He cleaves the mountain, making the streams flow [RgV I.57.6; X.89.7], even with the sound of his bolt [RgV VI.27; VI.57.6; II.14.2; IV.19.8; VI.20.2; VI.27.1; X.89.7. ST 368].

In Sanskrit, `vrtra’ is an `obstacle’, and denotes a barrage or blockage [ISISH 70-71]. It is thus a word for `dam’. Dams now called Gebr-band are found on many watercourses of the western parts of the Indus region. Aryans shattered the dam system of the Indus, leading to silt deposits in Mohenjo-daro [S & T 369].

+ When he [Indra] laid open the great mountain, he let loose the torrents and slew the Danava, he set free the pent up springs, the udder of the mountain. [RgV V.32.1-2].

+ He slew the Danava, shattered the great mountain, broke open the well, set free the pent up waters. [RgV I.57.6; V.33.1].

+ He releases the streams which are like imprisoned cows [RgV I.61.10].

+ He won the cows and soma and made the 7 rivers flow. [RgV I.32.12; II.12.12].

+ He releases the imprisoned waters [RgV I.57.6; I.103.2].

+ He dug out channels for the streams with his bolt [RgV II.15.3], let the flood of waters flow into the sea. [RgV II.19.3].

+ He caused the waters pent up by Vrtra to flow [RgV III.26.6; IV.17.1; McDonnell; S & T 368-9 quoting McDonnell].

Another verse explicitly mentions him as a destroyer of dams: rinag rodhamsi krtrimani = “he removed artificial barriers” [RgV 2.15.8].

Now, rodhas = “dam” elsewhere in the Rig Veda and in later Sanskrit [S & T 369]. The above evidence taken directly from the Rig Veda and not from any secondary source is sufficient to implicate the Aryans as the destroyers of the dam systems of the ancient Indus.

1.5 Aryan Settlements

Aryan settlements occur atop the destroyed cities towards the end of the civilization. They are primitive brick structures made of material taken from the ruins of the preceding towns.

1.3 Aryan Weaponry

Aryan weaponry, including the horse and chariot, occur towards the end of the Indus cities’ history.

2. Anthropological

2.1 Northern Dravidians

Several Dravidian tribes still inhabit isolated parts of northern India. The Brahui inhabit parts of Baluchistan and still speak a Dravidian language. The Bhils inhabit parts of southern Rajasthan. The black Gonds inhabit parts of central India about the Vindhyans.

2.2 The Black Sudroids ; Dravidians

The Aryans and Dravidians today still retain by and large their original features. The Aryans have fair-pale skin, leptorrhine (thin) noses and straight hair. The Dravidians have broad noses, curly-wavy hair and dark-black skin. [Winters;* Risley].

2.3 White Indo-Aryan Caucasoids

The Indo-Aryans belong to the Caucasoid or white race and are very similar to Latins. The Indo-Aryan languages belong to the Indo-European family of languages. Racially the Indo-Aryans possess white to fair skin, thin noses and lips and straight hair.

3. Literary

3.1 Sanskrit Literature

References to an Aryan invasion abound in Sanskrit literature.

The ancient singer praises the god who “destroyed the Dasyans and protected the Aryan color” [Rg.V. III.34.9; Ann. 114] and “the thunderer who bestowed on his white friends the fields, bestowed the sun, bestowed the waters” [Rg.V. I.100.18; Ann. 114].

There are numerous references to “the black skin” Krishnam Vacham [Rg.V. IX.41.1, Sama Veda I.491, II.242; Ann. 114] which is mentioned with abhorrence. Again “stormy gods who rush on like furious bulls and scatter the black skin” [Rg.V. IX.73.5]. The singers mention “the black skin, the hated of Indra”, being swept out of heaven [RgV. IX.73.5]: “Indra protected in battle the Aryan worshiper, he subdued the lawless for Manu, he conquered the black skin” [Rg.V. I.130.8; Ann.114].

The sacrificer poured out thanks to his god for “scattering the slave bands of black descent”, and for stamping out ” the vile Dasyan color” [Rg.V. II.20.7, II.12.4; Ann. 115]. See Dasam varnam adharam [Rg.V. II.12.4; Muir part I, p.43, II, p.284, 323 etc.; Ann. 114 ff].

Rakshas are aboriginals

  • Ravana = Rakshasendra [Ann. 111].
  • Rakshas = Ceylon aborigines according to Chinese travelers and Singhalese chronicles – Rakko or Yakko in the vernacular [An. 111].

Destruction of Cities

The Aryan gods are proudly presented by the Vedic “sages” as the destroyers of cities. Of these Indra, later considered an incarnation of the God Vishnu, is the prime culprit. Indra is called Puroha or Purandhara, `sacker of cities’ [S & T 366]. Indra overthrew 100 Puras made of stone (asmanmayi) for his worshiper Divodasa [RgV 4.30.20], evidently belonging to Sambara who is a Dasa (non-Aryan/demon) of the mountain [RgV 6.26.5] [Chanda; S & T p.364]

No regard was shown to the life of non-Aryans.

An Aryan poet says:

Ye mighty ones [Asvins]: what do you do there; why do you stay there among the people who are held in high esteem through not offering sacrifices; ignore them, destroy the life of the Panis [RgV I.83.3; S & T 365].

Indra’s Destruction of Harappa: The Vedic Harappa Hymn

The famous Harappa hymn of the Rig Veda describes with praise Indra’s destruction of Harappa:

“In aid of Abhyavartin Cayamana, Indra destroyed the seed of Virasakha. At Hariyupiyah he smote the vanguard of the Vrcivans, and the rear fled frighted” [Rg.V. XXVII.5].

This Hariyupiyah is likely to be the Harappa of the Indus Valley.

3.2 Dravidian Literature

The date of 1500 BC corresponds to the end of a sangam period when invasions by barbarians occurred.

4. Sociological

4.1 Caste System

The caste system is another`fossil’ of the Aryan Conquest, with the lower and exterior castes representing the aboriginal inhabitants that managed to survive the Aryan slaughter. Exactly the same occurred in other parts of the world where one race has subjugated others, e.g.. Latin America (Iberians conquered Aboriginals ), USA (Anglo-Saxons ruling over Hispanics and Afro-Americans), etc. These include the Adivasis (aboriginal tribals), the Dalits ( semi-settled aboriginals ), and the Sudras (the lowest caste). However, some of the Sudras were imported under Muslim rule from Southern India.

The caste system consists of several different “varnas” (Sans. “colors”), three of which are Aryan. The lowest caste, the Shudra, consists of aboriginals, as well as the exterior untouchable castes.

4.2 Sati and Child Marriage

The Aryans introduced tremendous restrictions on the life of women, including sati and child marriage. According to Aryan “Hindu” (i.e.. Vaishnavite) scriptures, a man must marry a maiden one-third his age.

4.3 Cow-Worship

Cow-worship is another feature introduced by the Aryans. This probably arose because the Aryans were nomads and hence required the cow.

5. Theological

5.1 Shiva and Shakti

Siva is the god of the Dravidians. Vishnu is the god of the Aryans. The star-calendar used by the Aryan-Vaishnavites today was adopted from the Semito-Dravidian Indus Valley civilization, since it is not referred to in the Rig Veda or Avesta. It was compiled when the Indus Valley was at its peak, before the Aryans came to India [Parpola].

The Indus people practiced astronomy because the streets are oriented towards the cardinal directions, presupposing the use of the sun-stick. A seal from Mohenjo-daro depicts an Indus deity with a star on either side of his head in the fashion of the Near East. Inanna-Ishtar, the goddess of love and war, for example, was associated with the planet Venus [Parpola]. This may have led to the cult of worshiping the planets, the astral religion of India.

5.2 Fire Altars

Fire altars occur late towards the Indus cities’ histories. They are primitive in nature, constructed from material from the destroyed Indus cities.

6. Global Aryan Invasions

Aryans invaded several parts of the world, putting an end to various brilliant civilizations. Babylonia was destroyed by Kassites, Hittites and Mittani, Egypt was devastated by the Hyksos, and Minoan culture by the Dorians.

7. Rival Theories

Several other explanations have been put forth to explain the demise of the Indus Civilization besides the Aryan invasion.

These are:

Environmental catastrophes – these include:

  • Comet impact
  • Flooding

Internal Decline – These claim that slavery or some other revolt destroyed the Indus Civilization.

All of these have severe problems, however.

Comet Impact. The problems with this theory are:

  • No crater/craters have been found with an age matching 1500 BC, nor of the requisite size. The size is narrowly constrained, for if the impact was too large, catastrophe would have been global, while if it were too small, the effect would have been negligible.
  • No iridium anomaly, the characteristic of all impacts from the mammoth K/T Chiczulub Crater [Alvarez] to the Sudbury Intrusive, has been found in the Indus valley of the required age.
  • No shocked glasses or tektites with the requisite shock deformation features have been found anywhere near the Indus Valley.

Thus, although a comet explanation for the extinction has been found in Comet Enke, this is a far-fetched theory to say the least. The destruction of several civilizations simultaneously requires a global catastrophe. But some civilizations, e.g.. in Central and South America, and China, survived the 1500 BC discontinuity. Asteroidal impacts tend to leave larger craters and more iridium, so the arguments against this theory apply more forcefully.

Flooding. Undisputed evidence of flooding has been found in the form of silt deposits and a barrage system erected as a defensive measure. Flooding thus remained a serious candidate until it was pointed out that several Vedic scholars noted that the Aryans had destroyed the irrigation and dam system of the Indus. Thus flooding is a natural consequence of Aryan invasion and not an independent mechanism.

Internal Decline

  1. To suppose that after two millennia of stability some internal revolt was the cause behind the downfall is stretching the imagination.
  2. No evidence has been found for this, and when indisputable evidence of violence perpetrated with new weapons exists, this theory disregards excellent evidence.

Other Opponents

Although the following may seem rather harsh, it is necessary to expose the real designs of some of the opponents of one of the most well-established theories of all time.

The opponents of the concept of Aryan invasion fall into two categories:

  1. Aryan Hindu Fanatics
  2. Neo-Nazis

These mostly have ulterior motives. The former oppose any vilification of their “gods” who are implicated in the worst massacres and atrocities recorded in history. They wish to see the Vedas, in actuality the songs of primitive cow-herders, as the repository of all science. The latter do not want to accept that their ancestors perpetrated such crimes. One religious fanatic who opposed the notion of Aryan Invasion during its infancy was Narendra Nath Datta, later known as Vivekananda. All he could do was to vilify honest scholars:

“And what your European pandits say about the Aryan’s sweeping from some foreign land, snatching away the lands of the aboriginals and settling India by exterminating them, is all pure nonsense, foolish talk. Strange, that our Indian scholars too say amen to them, and all these monstrous lies are taught to our boys. This is very bad indeed. In what Veda, in what Sukta, so you find that the Aryans came to India from a foreign country? Where do you get the idea that they slaughtered the wild aborigines? What do you gain by talking such nonsense?” [`Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda’, 1963, p.534-535] [Panda 70].

Another fundamentalist who opposed the notion of Aryan Invasions is Srivastava, who apparently conducted all of his research solely to prove the innocence of the Aryan gods:

Indra, therefore stands completely exonerated.

– Srivastava 441

Later, lacking any scientific evidence whatsoever, he degenerates into vilifying Wheeler himself:

“.. we see him as a brigadier in the British army during WW II, we feel he could not interpret the dubious evidence of Mohenjo-daro and Harappa in any other manner.”

– Srivas 442

A. K. Pateria writes:

“Both Dayananda and Aurobindo refuted in clear terms the historical doctrines of Aryan invasion and struggle of Aryans with Dravidian, which was originated by the Westerners and has even been popularized among a large section of the Indian Historians.” [A.K. Pateria, `Modern Commentators of the Veda’, p.63; Panda 70]

Who this Dayananda was must be fully exposed.

In terms of barbarism, the Aryans were so barbaric that they did not even have a word for brick in Sanskrit [S & T 372; Woolley].

5 Comments

Filed under Animals, Anthropology, Antiquity, Asia, Asian, Cows, Cultural, Domestic, East Indians, Hinduism, History, India, Indic, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Indo-Iranian, Indo-Irano-Armenian, Indo-Irano-Armeno-Hellenic, Language Families, Linguistics, Literature, Regional, Religion, Sanskrit, Sociology, South Asia, South Asians

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