Category Archives: Southwest Africa

Some Unbelievable Propaganda Against “Racemixing”

RL: Defects in what way?

Race Realist: In a study of 100,000 mixed-race adolescent school children, those who identified themselves as such had higher health and behavior instances than those of one race. The effect was still observed even when SES and other factors were controlled for. A problem with an obvious genetic component.

Yet another study done on white-Asian mixes notes that they have a two times higher rate to be diagnosed with psychological problems such as anxiety, depression and substance abuse.–baa081108.php

It was found, in agreement that black-white mixes engaged in more risky behavior than did mono-racial children. They also observe that mixed-race adolescents are stark outliers in comparison to whites and blacks, which still holds true despite being raised in similar environments to mono-racial children.

Black and white couples also conceive children at around half the success of white male/female couples. And the aforementioned bone marrow/blood transfusion problems.

That’s all 100% sociological. We do not have a lot of mixed race people in this country, so the kids have some psychological stuff. But if you look at places were mixed race people are everywhere or even the norm, you see no such behavioral problems, and I’ve never heard of any health problems.

Whites and Asians are mixed to Hell in Central Asia all the way to Mongolia and Siberia. Any problems? Nope. Whites and Australoids are mixed to Hell in India. Any problems? Of course not. Asians and Australoids are mixed in Japan (20% Australoid). Any problems? Of course not. Asians and Australoids are also mixed in Philippines, Indonesia, coastal Papua New Guinea, Melanesia, Polynesia and Micronesia? Any problems? Of course not. Whites, Australoids and Asians are mixing heavily now in Singapore and have been for some time in Malaysia in general. Any problems? Of course not. The entire Southeast Asian stock was created by recent mass-mixing of Australoids and Asians? Any issues? Of course not.

Whites and Indians are mixed to Hell all over Latin America. Any problems or issues? Well, of course not. Whites and Blacks are mixed all over the Caribbean, the Middle East and North Africa? Any problems? Well, of course not. White, Indians and Blacks are mixed in Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, and Brazil. And even in Argentina. Any problems? Well, of course not.

Where are all these horrible health and behavioral problems you guys keep yelling about? They don’t exist.

Black and white couples also conceive children at around half the success of white male/female couples. And the aforementioned bone marrow/blood transfusion problems.

Has this stopped people from making babies in the US, the Caribbean, Latin America, North Africa and nations of South Africa and Namibia?

Is it really that hard to get a blood transfusion? Give me some evidence that there is a huge problem with getting a blood transfusion in Latin America or anywhere on Earth for that matter due to race.

In a study of 100,000 mixed-race adolescent school children, those who identified themselves as such had higher health and behavior instances than those of one race. The effect was still observed even when SES and other factors were controlled for. A problem with an obvious genetic component.

There is no genetic component there, obvious or otherwise. There’s a sociological and cultural component that’s 100% of the problem and a genetic component that’s 0% of the problem.

Have any physicians ever noted how the racemixing that produced these kids caused any particular health problem? What particular health problem was caused by say mixing of Blacks and Whites? What particular health problem was caused by mixing of Asians and Whites?


Filed under Africa, Americas, Amerindians, Anthropology, Argentina, Asia, Asians, Black-White (Mulattos), Blacks, Brazil, Caribbean, Central America, Colombia, Ecuador, Europeans, Health, India, Japan, Latin America, Malaysia, Mestizos, Mixed Race, Namibia, NE Asia, North Africa, North America, Panama, Philippines, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, Siberia, Singapore, Sociology, South Africa, South America, South Asia, Southwest Africa, USA, Venezuela, Whites

A Look at the Ju|’hoan Language

Method and Conclusion. See here.

Results. A ratings system was designed in terms of how difficult it would be for an English-language speaker to learn the language. In the case of English, English was judged according to how hard it would be for a non-English speaker to learn the language. Speaking, reading and writing were all considered.

Ratings: Languages are rated 1-6, easiest to hardest. 1 = easiest, 2 = moderately easy to average, 3 = average to moderately difficult, 4 = very difficult, 5 = extremely difficult, 6 = most difficult of all. Ratings are impressionistic.

Time needed. Time needed for an English language speaker to learn the language “reasonably well”: Level 1 languages = 3 months-1 year. Level 2 languages = 6 months-1 year. Level 3 languages = 1-2 years. Level 4 languages = 2 years. Level 5 languages = 3-4 years, but some may take longer. Level 6 languages = more than 4 years.

This post will look at the Ju|’hoan language in terms of how difficult it would be for an English speaker to learn it.

Southern Africa

Ju|’hoan, a Khoisan language spoken by 5,000 people in Botswana, has one of the wildest phonological inventories on Earth. Some question whether these segments actually exist and say that they are instead spoken with a “breathy-voice.” However, voiced aspirated consonants do appear to be real.

In addition, Ju|’hoan has a closed class of only 17 adjectives since descriptive functions are done by verbs. They are the following:

other (those remaining)
other (strange)
a certain
the numbers one through four

Ju|’hoan scored very high on a study of the weirdest languages on Earth.
Ju|’hoan gets a 6 rating, hardest of all.

Leave a comment

Filed under Africa, Applied, Khoisan, Language Families, Language Learning, Linguistics, Regional, Southwest Africa

A Look at the Taa Language

Method and Conclusion. See here.

Results. A ratings system was designed in terms of how difficult it would be for an English-language speaker to learn the language. In the case of English, English was judged according to how hard it would be for a non-English speaker to learn the language. Speaking, reading and writing were all considered.

Ratings: Languages are rated 1-6, easiest to hardest. 1 = easiest, 2 = moderately easy to average, 3 = average to moderately difficult, 4 = very difficult, 5 = extremely difficult, 6 = most difficult of all. Ratings are impressionistic.

Time needed. Time needed for an English language speaker to learn the language “reasonably well”: Level 1 languages = 3 months-1 year. Level 2 languages = 6 months-1 year. Level 3 languages = 1-2 years. Level 4 languages = 2 years. Level 5 languages = 3-4 years, but some may take longer. Level 6 languages = more than 4 years.

This post will look at the Taa language in terms of how difficult it would be for an English speaker to learn it.

Southern Africa

!Xóõ (Taa), spoken by only 4,200 Bushmen in Botswana and Namibia, is a notoriously difficult Khoisan language replete with the notoriously impossible to comprehend click sounds. Taa has anywhere from 130 to 164 consonants, the largest phonemic inventory of any language. Of this vast wealth of sounds, there are anywhere from 30-64 different click sounds. There are five basic clicks and 17 accompanying ones. Speakers develop a lump on their larynx from making the click sounds.

In addition, there are four types of vowels: plain, pharyngealized, breathy-voiced and strident. On top of that, there are four tones. Taa appears on many lists of the wildest phonologies and craziest languages period on Earth.

Taa gets a 6 rating, hardest of all.

Leave a comment

Filed under !Xóõ, Africa, Applied, Khoisan, Language Families, Language Learning, Linguistics, Namibia, Regional, Southwest Africa

Caucasian/Non-Caucasian Mixing Zones Around the World

The heavy Caucasian-non-Caucasian mixing zone is from North Africa across Arabia, and then in a belt from the Urals in the north down through the Stans to Afghanistan, Pakistan and North India in the south and all the way to Siberia and even East Turkestan in China to the east.

One can say that there is a White/non-White mixing zone of recent origin in the Americas mostly from Mexico south in Mesoamerica down to Latin America all the way down to Chile, Uruguay and Argentina in the south, with more admixture to the north and much less at the south. Mesoamerica is quite thoroughly admixed or mestized as is Colombia, Venezuela, Peru and Paraguay. In Colombia, the Whites are also quite admixed with Black.

There is a White/Black mixing zone in the Caribbean and the Guyanas down to Brazil. In the Caribbean, White genes have been pretty much washed out by Black ancestry, and the Caribbean is quite a Black place. The same has occurred in Belize and to a lesser extent in Panama, both of which are seriously mulattized. Even Dominican “Whites” would probably not qualify as White to most people as they seem to have too much Black in them to be considered White. There are definitely White Puerto Ricans though and there are many White Cubans. The Guyanas are so mulattized that there are not many Whites left, similar to the Dominican Republic.

In North America, there has not been a lot of White/non-White mixing. The heavily mixed people are mostly recent immigrants from Mesoamerica, mostly from Mexico. Otherwise, Whites in the US, Canada and even Alaska have not mixed much with Indians, Inuits or Blacks.

Hawaii can be considered a White/non-White mixing zone of extremely recent origin as by this time most of the population is seriously admixed. The admixture is generally White/Asian mixes of all different sorts.

The Whites in New Zealand, Australia and even Europe are not much admixed other than recent immigrants in Europe, though there is some Asian/White admixture in the Sami. Nevertheless, I regard the Sami as Whites. Black-White mixing in Southern Europe is very negligible, despite the rantings and false science of Nordicists. Iranians are White. Turks are a bit admixed, but still they are overwhelmingly White.

There has been quite a bit of White/Black mixing in South Africa and Namibia, more than you might ever expect. The Namibian Whites in particular are quite admixed. Quite a few are so admixed that one wonders if they could be properly called White anymore as they tend to be in the “border zone” of Whiteness.


Filed under Afghanistan, Africa, Americas, Argentina, Asia, Australia, Belize, Brazil, Canada, Caribbean, Central America, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Europe, Europeans, French Guyana, Guyana, India, Iranians, Latin America, Mexico, Middle East, Mixed Race, Namibia, NE Asia, Near Easterners, North Africa, North America, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Puerto Rico, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Siberia, South Africa, South America, South Asia, Southwest Africa, Turks, Uruguay, USA, Whites

RIP Black Rhinoceros

From the link:

At some point in the next five or ten years, all sub-species of black rhinos will go extinct in the wild. He writes at one point that in order for Namibia’s black rhinos to survive, it isn’t necessary for local tribesmen to like the animals – it’s only necessary that they not hate them. But as long as there exists a black market in Africa, those tribesmen need only hate their own poverty (or feel a touch of a human emotion called greed) to keep going out into the scrubland and shooting rhinos.

The more the Namibian government clamps down on poaching, the more money the black market will offer for every dead animal. This would be bad enough if there were ten thousand black rhinos in the world, but there are very likely fewer than a thousand. There’s no way the animals can win.

Conservatives like this? They think this is ok, all right, no big deal, not a problem?

I don’t get it. But I will say, “Screw conservatives,” just for that one crap view right there.

On another note, primitive people of any type, African Blacks in particular, simply cannot be relied upon to preserve any wild animal of any type. To preserve wildlife goes against the human tendency to solipsism and short-term profit at the expense, and I think in the modern era, it requires a relatively high IQ. The Black African IQ, at 67 or 75 or whatever it is, is simply too low to preserve any wild animal. “What’s in it for me?” They will ask. “Nothing,” will be the answer.

Don’t give me the poverty argument. Georgia and Moldova are just as poor and they are not exterminating any animals on their land, though they could easily do so, particularly with the hated wolves.

The Blacks were never able to complete their goal of exterminating  everything wild in Africa but the cockroaches and flies not because they were nice people but because they had primitive weapons. When modern weapons showed up, the Blacks were all colonized, and the Europeans, believe it or not, kept the Blacks from exterminating all the animals, and even made parks to protect the creatures.

With decolonization in the mid-1960’s, the Africans quickly went about exterminating all non-human non-domesticated animals. After all, now they not only had guns, but they even had automatic weapons. Giving a 67 IQ human an AK-47 can never be a good idea. At the same time, they also went about exterminating a lot of their fellow humans. The extermination of wildlife was so extreme (painfully recorded in the great Italian film Africa Addio) that the Europeans, who had just been tossed out, were quickly called back in by some decent-minded Africans to serve as quasi-colonists to protect the animals from the Africans and the Africans from themselves.

European paternalism is the only reason that there are large numbers of wild animals left on the continent. I am still convinced that Africans are in need of some paternalism.


Filed under Africa, Animals, Blacks, Endangered Species, Environmentalism, Europeans, Intelligence, Mammals, Namibia, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Southwest Africa, Wild

Bigfoot News February 23, 2012

Two Bigfoot steaks turned in to Dr. Melba Ketchum’s lab from the Sierra Kills! I reported this at the very start, but then Derek Randles and others attacked me for “inaccurate reporting” and said I was wrong, so I backed away. But I just talked with a source again today, and it turns out that I was right when I first wrote that Sierra Kills article (so many things about that original story are turning out to be true in the end).

I can now say for certain that the Ketchum lab received two Bigfoot steaks. They may have received the auburn, brown and grey one (adult) first, and may have gotten the dark brown one (possibly from the juvenile) later on. At any rate, we know that the lab reported at one point that they were in possession of two steaks from the Kills. On one steak the hair looked like the hair on the adult, and on the other, it looked like the hair on the juvenile.

We don’t know that the two steaks were from two different bodies, but that seems to be a logical supposition. It’s possible once again that the adult had hair of varying colors – auburn, dark brown and grey in parts and pure dark brown in other parts – but that seems unlikely. Instead it seems that two steaks were sent to the lab – one from the adult and one from the juvenile.

The one from the adult was probably sent first, because one source received a report from the lab where they only had the steak with the adult colored hair. The other one, possibly from the juvenile, was probably sent later, because at one point another source stated that the lab was in possession of both steaks.

The logical assumption here is that the steaks were from the two bodies. If that is so, it follows that DNA testing was done on both steaks. We assume that both steaks tested presumptive for Bigfoot.

Thom Cantrall, Arla Williams, the Forest People and all sorts of nuttiness. Cantrall, of Washington state, and Williams, of Oklahoma, are forming some sort of a New Age Bigfoot religion of sorts.

Both of them are in contact with Bigfoot teachers. Each teacher is a Bigfoot who is actually 1000 years old. Both of these teachers are communicating telepathically, by mindspeak, to Arla and Thom. They believe that Bigfoots are “Star People” sent here by aliens long ago to teach us something very important about our planet (possibly some sort of environmental message).

Arla believes that Bigfoots speak all known human languages, including English, that they shapeshift, disappear and do all sorts of funny things. I assume that Thom believes all of this tomfoolery also.

Both of these folks are centered around a Facebook group called The Forest People, and they seem to be trying to create some new religion around the Bigfoots. The Forest People are opposed to evolution and probably most other science. They think Bigfoots are people just like us, and apparently they think they were put here by UFO’s (thereby negating evolutionary theory).

Most members are Whites or Indian-Whites from rural redneck areas who are presumably deep into Christian fundamentalism of some sort. This is probably the genesis of the anti-evolutionary message. Cantrall’s views on religion are unknown, but he probably lives in a fundamentalist milieu. Cantrall’s politics are of the extreme rightwing populist Libertarian – militia – Constitutionalist type, which I assume means he’s just a regular Bigfooter, as most Bigfooters are rightwing fanatics.

Clarification of Bigfoot MtDNA. As I mentioned earlier, Bigfoot MtDNA is apparently 100% human. I have only heard of 4 samples so far, but in all four, the MtDNA was 100% human. Skeptics are asking me how this could possibly be so. Why isn’t the MtDNA part human and part something else? If this DNA is human, that would mean that the original population would have had to be isolated from both proto-Bigfoots and humans, right?

A good theory can clear up most of the confusion. What appears to have happened is that the Bigfoots are a result of Homo Heidelbergensis (the updated version as Homo Rhodesiensis) X Homo sapiens sapiens. See Michael Claerr’s Homo Heidelbergensis theory. The crossing of these two species or lines presumably resulted in a speciation event whereby a new species was created, the Bigfoots.

These speciation events took place at different times and places. One took place in southern Africa in the Kalahari Desert ~50,000 YBP. Another speciation event took place in Southwestern Europe 15-20,000 YBP. In both cases, Heidelbergensis males mated with human females, eventually giving rise to a new species.

All modern humans go back to a single mitochondrial Eve in southwest Africa 180,000 YBP. This was probably a speciation event that created Homo sapiens sapiens out of archaic Sapiens and whatever else might have been involved. Why do humans go back to a single Eve, yet the Bigfoots go back to two or possibly more Eves? The answer is that there probably has not been enough time yet for the MtDNA in the Bigfoots to settle down enough so that all Bigfoots can be traced back to a single Eve. The speciation event was too young, too soon.

What then happened to existing Heidelbergensis populations? The best guess is that all pure Heidelbergensis populations probably went extinct, possibly driven extinct by modern humans. Mating with humans may have given Heidelbergensis a massive cognitive boost. That boost may have generated enough fitness for the new hybrid species that it was intelligent enough to somehow survive the depredations of modern humans.

What happened in November when Wally Hersom gave the go-ahead to Ketchum to “sequence the genome?” What probably happened at this time was that Ketchum sequenced the MtDNA genome only. The NuDNA genome was probably not done. For the recent Denisova sequenced genome that was in the news, only the MtDNA genome was sequenced.

We probably do not have full nuclear genomes of any species besides man. Sequencing the nuclear genome of man was a massive undertaking known as the Human Genome Project, which just completed at great expense. These are such massive and difficult undertakings that it is dubious that we have any other nuclear genomes done besides our own.

Given the difficulties sequencing the human NuDNA genome, I think it is dubious that Ketchum ran the whole Bigfoot nuclear genome. Instead, I think she ran the common and well known nuclear genes and extrapolated from that.

What’s the basis for the “alien DNA” supposedly found in the Ketchum study? This rumor comes from Wally Hersom first of all, later backed up by David Paulides. Both are deep into paranormal Bigfoot stuff. A source told us that the reasoning for this theory lies in the finding that the Bigfoot NuDNA only goes back 30,000 YBP, and then it stops. Apparently it should go back further than that. The theory then is that the only way this could have happened is if aliens landed and created or deposited the Bigfoots here say 30,000 YBP.

I don’t understand the meaning of the italicized bit above; that means nothing to me. Nevertheless, I am not a fan of Intervention Theory, alien DNA in the Bigfoots or Bigfoot Star People.

As you can see, some of the folks around the study are fans of this theory. However, I have no idea if Ketchum herself believes in it. I sure hope not. At any rate, I’m told there will be nothing about alien DNA in the forthcoming paper, thank God.

Ketchum’s comment, “There is no Erickson movie.” This comment, which appeared on her new webpage, is simply wrong, or else it is a typical Ketchum half-truth. She is right in a sense. There will be no Adrian Erickson “movie” as in the movie you go see at the theater. I am quite sure of that. Nevertheless, the documentary exists and has been finished for some time. How do I know it’s real? My friends have seen it, that’s how.

And we know that Hollywood is working on it right now, fixing it up. Since it won’t be shown at theaters, where will it be shown? Perhaps as a DVD for sale. That was the original plan. Or possibly as a TV movie, TV documentary or part of a TV show, say with Animal Planet or National Geographic. Ketchum’s statement implying that there is no Erickson cinematic or videographic endeavor is simply false. Why she wishes to mislead people like this, I have no idea.

Mike Greene writing the Sierra Kills book. Greene has a BA in English literature and an MA in Psychology, so he’s obviously a very bright man. The BA presumably means that he can write well. At any rate, he’s the guy who has been commissioned to write up the Sierra Kills book. I assume he will do a great job of it.

Bigfoots speak Old Chinese? According to one my sources, one of his contacts who has seen Bigfoots several times was listening to the Sierra Sounds tape at home when his Chinese wife came into the room.

She said, “Play that back again!” He did.

She then said, “That’s the language of my grandfather.”

Her grandfather spoke Cantonese. This man has since done quite a bit of research into the Sierra Sounds, and he thinks the Bigfoots’ language is related to Old Chinese. There are also supposedly some folks at universities working on the Sierra Sounds, and some of these people may also pursuing the Old Chinese hypothesis for Bigfoot language.

As someone with a Masters in Linguistics, I find the notion that the Bigfoots speak Old Chinese to be dubious at best. But you never know.

Scott Nelson’s analysis of the Sierra Sounds. Nelson is a bright man, a former cryptolinguist for the US Navy. However, I was not impressed with his presentation analyzing the Sierra Sounds. He played some of the recordings back at different speeds and claimed be hearing English words or “cognates” of English words in there.

I do not think that conclusion is justified. If you listen to any language on Earth, you will hear sound structures that sound like English words (or words in any other language on Earth for that matter). Unless the word was specifically borrowed from English, such resemblances tend to be merely coincidental. Bigfoots do speak a language of some sorts. Whether or not they speak any English at all in their language is very much up in the air.

Matt Moneymaker’s statement about Bigfoots and cows on Finding Bigfoot. On the FB show, Matt said that Bigfoots never eat cows because cows are people food. Instead, they prefer Bigfoot food, like venison for instance. This statement is silly and is also dubious.

Bigfoots are well known to predate on human livestock. This has been an ongoing problem for a long time. They kill pigs, goats, sheep, rabbits, chickens and turkeys, along with dogs and cats. And there are reports of them killing cattle, often calves. A cow is awfully large and weighs quite a bit, so it’s probably hard to lug around.

I doubt if Bigfoots care whether something is people food or not. When they want to eat, they eat. They’re not too picky.

Updated rundown of samples in the Ketchum study. This will be updated every time it changes.

Bigfoot samples submitted: Over 200
Presumptive for Bigfoot: Almost 100
# of Bigfoot individuals represented: 20-28?

Details of successful Bigfoot samples:

5 hair samples from Golden Ears Provincial Park in British Colombia, representing 5 separate creatures, gathered by Erickson Project.

1 toenail from Larry Jenkins in the Grand Canyon area of Arizona.

1 blood sample from JC Johnson in the 4 Corners area of New Mexico (skunk in a drainpipe sample).

1 blood sample from Crittenden, Kentucky, gathered by Erickson Project. Sample was obtained by gluing glass shards on a feeding plate.

1 hair sample from David Paulides’ NABS known as the Ulibarri sample from Hoopa Valley, California.

1 hair sample from Larry Surface in southern Ohio. Surface shot the controversial nighttime Bigfoot video that was pulled from the web recently.

1 hair sample from Joe Black in the Great Smoky Mountains, Eastern Tennessee.

1 slice of Bigfoot flesh from Mount Haskell, California from the adult male Bigfoot shot dead by Justin Smeja.

1 large sample of saliva from the Olympic Project obtained via a Bigfoot licking a camera.

1 hair sample from SE Oklahoma collected by TEXLA Cryptozoological Research, whoever they are.

1 blood, tissue and hair sample from a nailboard trap at Snelgrove Lake, Ontario, Canada (presumably successful).

That is only 15 of nearly 100 successful Bigfoot samples. I have no idea about the rest.

Best Bigfoot samples: Smeja’s Bigfoot steak and JC Johnson’s skunk in a drainpipe Bigfoot sample.


Filed under Africa, Americas, Animals, Anthropology, Apes, Bigfoot, California, Canada, Christianity, Conservatism, Europe, Evolution, Genetics, Linguistics, Mammals, New Mexico, North America, Physical, Political Science, Regional, Religion, Science, Sociology, South, Southwest Africa, UFO's and the Alien Invasion, USA, West, Wild

An Interesting NE Asian Phenotype

Repost from the old site.

White Nationalists like to go on and on and on about the glorious color of their skin: white. For some odd reason, this white skin is superior to darker-colored skins of folks who evolved in hotter zones. Truth is, darker skin color is a perfectly rational evolutionary response to high rates of UV radiation in areas where it is very hot.

And in some areas of the globe, people can have fairly light skins if they stay out of the sun, but they get dark quite easily if they go out in the sun. Italians and Greeks come to mind. Here are photos of Italians, Greeks and Spaniards who have stayed out of sun, and then the same folks after they got tanned.

The same page also shows identical phenotypes commonly seen as European-only, like Nordics, Mediterraneans and Alpines, in both their European and extra-European forms from Arabia, North Africa and Central Asia. Often the darker skin you see in a lot of Southern Europeans is nothing but a tan.

On the other hand, Northern Europeans, and possibly other Northern types, don’t tan very well (they often burn) and even when they do, they don’t get all that dark. The very dark skin of Blacks, Papuans, Melanesians, some Aborigines and some South Indians is simply a result of evolving in those parts of the Earth where the sun shines brightest of all.

But Whites ought to give up the fantasy of about their white skin being best of all – because other races have some very white skin too. See the Korean woman in the photo below for example.

A Korean woman. She has a shade of White on her skin that is lacking in almost all Caucasians – it is probably only seen in Ireland and Scotland and it’s probably even lacking in Sweden and Norway. But this very White phenotype seen in some Koreans and Northern Chinese differs from that of European Whites in that it is more glossy. European White skin looks more chalky or powdery.

This phenotype also has skin that looks more like porcelain and is reflective of light. The very light European skin tends to be less light-reflective.

Here’s a pretty cool chart showing degrees of skin lightness versus darkness around the world.

UV radiation chart along with zones of skin color. Zone 1 has the darkest skin of all . Zone 2, which includes Italians and Spaniards, has skin that tans easily. Zone 3 contains light skin that enables residents to absorb as much Vitamin D as possible from the sun due to lack of sunlight at higher latitudes.

Note that there is also pretty high UV radiation in parts of South America (Peru), in the heart of Mexico, in Southwest Arabia (especially Yemen), in Southern India and Sri Lanka and in Indonesia, Malaysia, Southern Philippines and New Guinea. Indonesians and Malaysians are known for being darker than many other SE Asian groups.

According to this chart, the darkest people of all are Blacks from Mozambique and Cameroon in Africa and Aborigines from Darwin in North Australia. A look at the same chart, much expanded, in the original paper, shows that the next darkest are Blacks, the Okavango in Namibia and the Sara in Chad (Table 6, p. 19). The chart shows that the lightest people are in Netherlands, followed by Germany and then the northern parts of the UK.

Note on the map that Tibet and parts of the Amazon should have some very dark-skinned people, but those who live there are lighter than you would expect based on UV. The paper suggests that the Tibetans are lighter because it is so cold there that most of their body is covered up all the time and only the face is uncovered.

The face is lighter to collect what Vitamin D it can as so much of the body cannot collect Vitamin D due to clothing. The Amazonian Indians are known to be shade-seeking and the paper suggests that this may account for their lighter skin.

Most Whites don’t really have White skin anyway. I am looking at my own skin here as I type, and it looks more pink than White.


Jablonski, N. and Chaplin, G. (2000) The Evolution of Human Skin Coloration. Journal of Human Evolution. Available on this blog here.


Filed under Aborigines, Africa, Americas, Amerindians, Anthropology, Asia, Asians, Blacks, Britain, Cameroon, Central Africa, China, Chinese (Ethnic), Europe, Europeans, Germany, Greeks, Health, India, Indonesia, Indonesians, Italians, Koreans, Latin America, Malays, Malaysia, Melanesians, Mexico, Middle East, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, New Guinea, North Africa, Northeast Asians, Nutrition, Oceanians, Papuans, Peru, Philippines, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Reposts From The Old Site, SE Asia, SE Asians, South Africa, South America, South Asia, South Asians, Southwest Africa, Spaniards, Sri Lanka, Tibet, White Nationalism, Whites, Yemen

Musings on Dual Loyalty, Judaism as Zionism, and Anti-Semitism

Repost from the old site.

Always-perceptive commenter James Schipper makes some astute, terse and cut to the chase comments on my post, The “New Anti-Semitism.” In it, he moves beyond the typically vulgar anti-Semitism that much modern anti-Zionism descends into and offers a perfectly logical explanation for the dual loyalty accusation leveled at Jews.

He also brings up some very difficult questions about the differences between Judaism and Zionism and whether there is really any difference at all.


If criticism of Israel = anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism, then we should be proud to call ourselves anti-Semites.

What is really wrong with Israel? It is not such a bad country for Jews, or even for the Arabs in Israel proper. I would rather be a Jew in Israel than an Arab in any Arab country. Israel was born in sin, but so was every country in the Western hemisphere. Israel is oppressive in the occupied territories, but by historical standards, this oppression is hardly unique.

The real reason for opposing Israel is that it does not see itself as the country of its citizens but as the country of all the Jews in the world. According to Israel, Jews in other countries are living in exile, are really Israelis and should be loyal to Israel.

In other words, Israel expects the Jewish citizens of other countries to behave like Israel’s fifth-columnists, and that is exactly what Zionists outside Israel are.

No political party outside Israel should accept Zionists as members, and no government outside Israel should appoint Zionists to a senior government job. Instead, Zionist should be encouraged to put their bodies where their loyalties are: in Israel.

Suppose that Italy saw itself as the country of all Catholics in the world and expected Catholics everywhere to defend Italian interests, then it would be behaving exactly as Israel does. That would also be a good reason for non-Catholics in other countries to look at Catholics with suspicion and to regard Italy with hostility.

The late Arthur Koestler wrote in an essay that after 1948 all Jews should choose one of two options: go to Israel or abandon Judaism altogether. He is right insofar as Judaism implies Zionism.

Judaism has always posited that Jews are a people and that Israel is their promised land, which is also the position of Zionism. If Judaism implies Zionism, then Jews outside of Israel, it they want to remain Jewish, should emigrate to Israel or else detribalize and deterritorialize Judaism, which may be denaturing it.

Theological question: Why does Obama allow bad things to happen and evil people to prosper?

More seriously, why did Obama appoint a hard Zionist as his chief of staff? It is not a good sign.

I agree with several things in this post.

First of all, he attacks some of the usual broadsides leveled at Israel and dismisses them.

What I find disturbing, and many Zionists have noted this, is the particular vehemence many Israel-critics level at Israel’s oppression of Jews inside Israel, while they are silent or even supportive of even worse oppression by states against minorities outside Israel.

White nationalists think it’s awesome for Whites to treat non-Whites like shit, except when it comes to White Jews versus “muds” in Israel. Kurds in the Arab World are treated awfully bad, Berbers less so but still poorly, and the Shia are oppressed all over the Arab World. There is open oppression and violence against Christians in Egypt and Iraq.

Baha’i are treated horribly in Iran, Sunnis less so but still poorly, and the Ahwaz have some good beefs. Turks treat Kurds horribly in Turkey. Russia has massacred 20% of the population of Chechnya in what can only be termed a genocide. China’s treatment of the Uighurs and Tibetans is disgraceful. Treatment of Hindus in Pakistan is shameful, and NE Indian Asians are treated poorly by the Indian state.

Japan treats its Koreans, Burakumin and Ainu pretty badly. The Hmong are still treated like shit in Laos, and the Montagnards are not done well by Vietnam. Pygmies are openly genocided and cannibalized as a matter of custom in Zaire, and the Khoisan are nearly murdered at will in SW Africa.

There is a real genocide of Arabs against Africans in Darfur, and another one, Arabs versus Christians, has just ended in South Sudan. Africans are routinely enslaved by Arabs in the Sahel.

We could go and on, but you get the picture. What is disturbing about all of this is that most Israel-critics are either indifferent to, ignorant of or even supportive of, the maltreatment of minorities above. Zionists are correct that this is either ignorance or anti-Semitism.

All, or most all, modern nations were born in sin.

This was due to the nature of the modern nation-building exercise, which typically involved ethnic cleansing or some sort of mass killing or genocide of any existing indigenous people, sidelining, subjection, forced assimilation (cultural genocide) or outright genocide against anyone not part of the dominant nation of the nation-state, and forced destruction of all languages but the one chosen by the nation-state or that is the dominant nation.

The Modern Left in the West, which has adopted Third-Worldism, minority-hugging and European hatred with gusto, errs in singling out Europeans for particular abuse in terms of nation-building. It’s been bloody and awful everywhere and at all times.

Schipper also points out that although Israel is oppressive in the Occupied Territories, by comparative standards, they are relatively mild. Considering the outrageous provocations and attacks of the Palestinians, I am amazed Israel has gone as easy on them as it has.

Arabs do not believe in fighting wars in a civilized manner, and the Geneva Conventions are regarded by them as Western comedy. Any Arab state faced with Palestinian-type provocations by non-Arabs would have been vastly worse than Israel.

Truthfully, just about every nation fighting an insurgency has been more horrible that Israel by orders of magnitude.

Consider this: according to counterinsurgency doctrine, enshrined by the US military and state and promoted by the US media and both US political parties, any civilian who “supports” an insurgency needs to be arrested, beaten, tortured and killed. All counterinsurgencies supported by the US have routinely massacred, mutilated and tortured to death insurgency “supporters.”

This has been true in every counterinsurgency in Latin America, in Indonesia in 1965, the US counterinsurgencies in SE Asia during the Vietnam War, the counterinsurgencies in Mozambique, Algeria and Angola, Russia’s counterinsurgency in Chechnya, India’s counterinsurgencies in India proper and Kashmir, in Sri Lanka against the Tamils, in Indonesia against the Acehese and East Timorese, in the Philippines against the NPA, and in Nepal’s recent Civil War.

In these counterinsurgencies, hundreds of thousands of “supporters” of insurgencies were murdered, tortured and mutilated, while the US cheered, poured in money and looked the other way.

In contrast, almost 100% of Palestinians seem to support the Palestinian insurgency. Clearly, Israel has not been going around killing “supporters” of the insurgency. If they did, they would have killed tens of thousands of Palestinians so far.

Considering the provocations of the Palestinians, Israel has fought one of the cleanest counterinsurgencies in modern times.

Zionists are correct that these criticisms of Israel, combined with support for to indifference to much worse behaviors by non-Jews, are evidence of either ignorance or anti-Semitism.

But Schipper does hit it on the head.

The reason to oppose Israel is that it is not a state of its citizens. Israel openly says that it is the state of all Jews on Earth, not of its citizens. Hence, it is perfectly reasonable for non-Jews in every nation on Earth containing Jews to look upon their Jews as possible traitors and dual-loyalists. Dual loyalty, rather than being an “anti-Semitic canard” as many Jews shrilly screech, is actually grounded in immaculate reason.

Schipper also suggests that the wall between Judaism and Zionism may be little more than a wall of sand, and one that has been hit by so many waves that there’s almost nothing left.

Although anti-Zionist Jews offer various reasons for their non-support of Israel, the fact remains that Judaism has always said that Israel is the land of the Jews. Assuming the Messiah returns tomorrow, even Naturei Karta is willing to head to Israel and become fervent Zionists.

Hence the uncomfortable notion, typically parroted by ferocious anti-Zionists and some vulgar anti-Semites, that it is not just Zionism that is the problem, but Judaism itself, is lent some troubling weight. I don’t want to go near this thesis because to be honest, I’m a pussy when it comes to the Jewish Question.

Schipper finally suggests that the Jews of the world either renounce Judaism or practice what you preach and head to Israel. Once again, troubling stuff.

There’s nary a trace of anti-Semitism in Schipper’s comments, but the issues he raises are toxic as Hell.

Just some thought-meals.



Filed under Africa, Ainu, Algeria, Anti-Semitism, Arabs, Asia, Asians, Baha'i, Blacks, Chechens, Christianity, Darfur, Democrats, Ethnic Nationalism, Europeans, Hinduism, Hmong, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Jews, Judaism, Kashmir, Koreans, Laos, Latin America, Left, Middle East, Mozambique, Nationalism, NE Asia, Near Easterners, North Africa, Northeast Asians, Obama, Pakistan, Palestine, Philippines, Political Science, Politics, Pygmies, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, Reposts From The Old Site, SE Asia, SE Asians, South Africa, South Asia, Southern Sudan, Southwest Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, The Jewish Question, US Politics, Useless Western Left, Vietnam, West Africa, White Nationalism, Zaire, Zionism

“Hired Guns,” by Alpha Unit

I know a man who served in Vietnam and got offered two job opportunities once he got home: police officer and mercenary. He turned down both. I guess he’d had enough of war. Plus, the Marines still owned him, and would for the next few years. He wasn’t about to cross the Corps by screwing up somewhere.

My impression of mercenaries used to be that they were trigger-happy adventurers who for some reason just loved the thrill of war. If only it were that colorful. Soldier of Fortune magazine is said to attract its share of poseurs. But some of the people seeking this employment are regular guys with wives, kids, mortgages, bills to pay. Warfare is what they know. Being a professional soldier is something they’d be good at. And the pay would come in handy.

If you get caught, though, you’re pretty much on your own. The Geneva Convention carefully defines what a mercenary is, but makes a mercenary an unlawful combatant – unless he’s a national of the country that has him in custody. He still has to be given a fair trial, in any case.

If he’s found to be a mercenary, he is no different from any other criminal.

A Vietnam veteran named Daniel Gearhart wanted to be a mercenary, for pressing reasons. He needed the money, badly. So he placed an ad in Soldier of Fortune magazine. He got hired not long after, and went to Angola.

Angola was in the middle of a civil war. A war which some might characterize as yet another proxy war war between the Soviet Union and the United States. The Angolan civil war had broken out not long after Angola had nominally been granted independence from Portugal.

To oversimplify, Gearhart was among those who were on the side of the USA-backed National Liberation Front of Angola (FNLA). The FNLA had been opposed to the Soviet-backed Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA).

Gearhart got arrested soon after he arrived in Angola. He was put on trial, along with other mercenaries. He denied ever firing a shot in Angola. But the ad he had placed in Soldier of Fortune was one of the things used against him.

He was executed by firing squad, along with three Britons.

Risky business, being a soldier of fortune. Anyone willing to put himself on the line in this way gets a kind of respect from me, and from many people. What I’ve found eye-opening, though, about the mercenary business are all the allegations lodged against XeServices LLC – otherwise known as Blackwater, labeled “The World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army” by author Jeremy Scahill.

Four “contractors” working for Blackwater were brutally killed in Fallujah, Iraq, in 2004. The families are suing Blackwater for wrongful death, accusing the company of taking cost-saving measures that may have led to these deaths.

You have to sympathize with these grieving families. And maybe in their place I’d do the same thing they’re doing. But anyone who chooses this line of work chooses all the risks and all the consequences, presumably. Are people signing up for this business unaware of what it might cost them? Are their families in the dark as well?

This country’s propensity for litigation means that it is increasingly unlikely that anyone is responsible for choices freely made. Not even the choice to rush into known war zones, placing yourself in the hands of a private outfit and with little or no legal protection in the event that something goes terribly wrong.


Filed under Africa, Alpha Unit, Guest Posts, Regional, South Africa, Southwest Africa, War

Great New Study of Ancient African Genes

Repost from the old site.

A new study of African genes shines some new light on the Out of Africa Hypothesis, which is now the dominant view. Most of the Multiregionalists are now isolated into racial or ethnic chauvinists, each of whom wants to believe that they came from a different kind of monkey. This includes European, Indonesian, Japanese and Chinese chauvinists. It’s all nonsense, and Out of Africa reigns.

Previously, the oldest human lineages were in the Khoisan or Bushmen, where they go back from 90,000-150,000 years. During this period, six separate extant lineages existed in parallel in the proto-Khoisan.

However, recent data has shown that the oldest human genes of all are in East Africans from Kenya and Tanzania.

When humans left Africa 60-70,000 years before present (YBP) from East Africa via the Gulf of Aden to Yemen, and from there along the Indian Ocean to India, SE Asia and Australia and New Guinea, there were at least 40 separate lineages going in Africa, each of which has continued to this day.

Finally, 40,000 YBP, newer, more modern lineages entered the Khoisan pool. The evolution of humans in Africa involves many lineages that were isolated from one another and were evolving separately.

A very early split in modern humans of two separate lines is suggested. This occurred from 140-210,000 years ago in Africa, and may have occurred near Lake Victoria, but we do not really know for sure. One line went to South Africa and the other line went to East Africa – Ethiopia, etc.

About 144,000 years ago, a South African line entered the gene pool in Ethiopia. This line then creates a joint East-South African line that later traverses westward from Ethiopia to the Sahara, West and North Africa. Although there has long been debate about whether the cradle of human development in Africa was in South or East Africa, as they were both contenders, the debate now appears to be settled. Humans arose about 180,000 years ago from a Southwest African site around Namibia.

Genes in Africa have been found in the Khoisan dating back 132,000 years, and they have not been found in any other groups of humans anywhere else. That proves Out of Africa right there.

However, we should note that the ancient South African humans did not look like either modern day Khoisan or Bantus.

Of the 40 separate lineages going in Africa 40,000 YBP, only two went on to become all modern non-Africans. Pygmies go back to a split with other Africans 70,000 YBP. The earliest male line among humans appears in the Khoisan in large numbers, but hardly exists outside of Africa anymore, as it has probably been drowned out by newer lines. Two great graphics are here.

The modern-day ancestors of the Africans who left Africa to populate the world are found in the Sudanese, Ethiopians and also the Bushmen. Note that the Bushmen once extended all over East Africa, and a few isolated groups like the Sandawe are still extant in Kenya.

In my opinion, it was Blacks in this part of Africa, the ancestors of the Tutsi and Masai, who left Africa 45,000 years ago, probably via the Horn once again, moved into Iran and the Caucasus, and went on to birth the Caucasian race after they received proto-Asian inputs from China.


Filed under Africa, Blacks, Central Africa, East Africa, Ethiopia, Ethiopians, Kenya, Khoisan, Masai, Namibia, Pygmies, Regional, Reposts From The Old Site, South Africa, Southwest Africa, Sudan, Sudanese, Tanzania, Tutsi