Yeah! I love it! The fight I've been waiting for all my life! All my life, I've been waiting to fight you extroverted bastards, and now I can finally do it, online even!
An (obviously extroverted, or at least thinks they are) commenter noted that my piece on race and personality was contaminated with personal experience, notably, my jihad against extroverts. Commenter suggested that I split up the piece into two posts. Good suggestion! Done!
However, I want to point out that commenter makes the usual extroverted error. I discuss problems in my life (inevitable in any existence) which commenter then labels with the extroverted slur of "personal problems". "Personal problems" is an extroverted slur that extroverts use to describe anyone who is honest and up front about their normal problems in living that anyone experiences.
Got problems? Course you do. You're alive. You got problems. Duh. If you're an extrovert, you're problems are all other people. After all, you're fine. No wait, you're actually perfect! You're fucking perfect!
But if you're an introvert and you don't shut up, then you have "personal problems".
That means the problems are inside of you, and all your fault, whereas, with the extrovert, it's the same, but they manage to project it all out to where it seems like it's everyone else.
There were few "personal problems" on display in that post.
Instead, the post discussed the obvious and inevitable problems that all introverts face when dealing with opposite species known as extroverts.
To say that introverts having problems with extroverts is a "personal problem" is a gross misrepresentation. Instead, it is an interspecies conflict. No one assumes that a human - coyote conflict is a "personal problem", so no one should assume that an introvert - extrovert conflict is "personal problem" either.
And yeah, extroverts are the human equivalent of coyotes. Precisely. Is it a blast to watch a coyote running around in the wild! Damn right it is. Do you want to invite that same coyote into your home to share some quality time with you? Don't think so. Same with extroverts.
That's it for now! This is fun! Hopefully some extroverts will come around so we can have some all-out world war type conflict.
I've been waiting all my life for this fight, and I have a lifetime's worth of hate saved up for all of you extroverted fucks.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.+
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Manuel Marulanda (Sure Shot), Presente!
One of my all-time heroes, and one of the Great Men of the Latin American revolution, is dead.
RIP Pedro Antonio Marin (Tiro Fijo).
New leader? Alfonso Cano, an anthropologist and the group's chief ideologist. There were many anthropologists among Sendero Luminoso's top ideologists too, as I pointed out in a previous post. Nothing like field work among the oppressed to turn one into a raving revolutionary.
And yes, I do support the FARC, of course. Unequivocally and 100%, and so should all of you.
This movement is grotesquely misunderstood. If it existed in any kind of real democracy instead of in a terrorist death squad state, they never would have had to fire a shot, or at least would have laid down their weapons long ago. As is, they'd be insane to give up the gun. For the time being in Colombia, there is no other way.
In the 1980's, a section of the FARC disarmed and formed a legal political party called the Patriotic Union. Despite unbelievable repression, they managed to gain a respectable showing in some elections.
They were slaughtered like flies by the Colombian state with US military and intelligence assistance until 5,000 UP activists lay dead. The movement disbanded and scattered and has not been heard from since. The FARC is not insane. They already tried to lay down their guns. Look at what happened. At this point, the FARC is not going to lay down their guns until they get a say in running the country.
There is hardly anyone on the Left running for any office anywhere in Colombia. Anyone who does can be and may well be targeted for death by US-Colombian military intelligence terror machine.
Any Left organizations, including environmental groups, labor unions, peasant organizations, Indian movements, neighborhood and citizens' groups or peace communities who have declared themselves neutral, can be and may well be routinely targeted with death by the US and Colombia.
If I were a Colombian, I would either not write this blog, or, if I did, I would arm myself and join the FARC. After a while, it doesn't make sense anymore to wait for the government to come out and kill you. If the US-Colombian military-intel death machine is going to come out and try to kill me anyway, I may as well be armed so I can fight back.
As you can see in the case of the Wayuu Indians, they got tired of the US-Colombian military coming out to kill them, so large numbers of them joined the FARC, and many others formed their own guerrilla organizations. Attacks on the group dropped way down after they took up arms to defend themselves.
Often, the US-Colombian military death squads will start to raid villages and stage killings and massacres of villagers. At some point, at least lately, a FARC unit will intervene and drive the attackers away, saving many lives. You can see that the FARC is the only thing keeping the US-Colombian military from staging vast massacres across the land.
It is said that the FARC adds to the violence in Colombia. Far be it. The FARC had an autonomous zone carved out for it a few years back. The main city in this jungle, a town of only 25,000, had an incredible homicide rate of 1 killing/day. After the FARC came in, that was reduced to 1 killing/year. Some murderous guerrillas!
The FARC has been an armed self-defense group from its origins in the peasant community of Marquetalia in 1964. The leftwing peasants of Marquetalia, tired of the mad violence that was sweeping the land in La Violencia, essentially seceded from the war and made their own private Idaho on some land they owned in Western Colombia.
It's true that they were Communists, but there were only a few hundred of them, and they were nonviolent. The US and Colombian governments became alarmed at these live Communists existing openly on Colombia's land, and plans were made to exterminate them. The US Ambassador and US military cooperated closely in these plans. The US recommended everything be thrown at the peasants, including chemical weapons.
The US-Colombian army (with US advisors on board) finally attacked the area, but the peasants of Marquetalia were not all killed. Some survived and armed themselves to fight back. This was the beginnings of the FARC, and this has been the story ever since.
There was a march a while back against the US-Colombian death squads that haunt the land. A huge number of persons showed up in cities all across Colombia. Very quickly afterwards, with only a couple of weeks, the US-Colombian military killed about a dozen marchers and leaders. Just like that. This is what happens to the unarmed opposition in Colombia.
If the FARC falls apart, nothing will change. Colombia will be as big of a shithole as ever, but now there will be no way for the people to fight back against the US-Colombian state and its killers.
I read this article in English a while back, but now it's disappeared into some memory hole somewhere. Here it is in Spanish if you can read Spanish. Upshot of the piece is that the FARC does not depend on dope. They tax all crops in the areas they control, which is normally about 40% of the country.
This includes drug crops like coca. People grow coca because the state has not provided them the wherewithal to make a decent living growing anything else, despite the fake US-Colombian crop substitution program of recent years. During Plan Colombia in Putumayo Province, much of the land was devastated with herbicide, including perfectly legal crops, and most of the residents became ill with chemical poisoning.
US-Colombian death squads quickly appeared in the area and started murdering peasants right and left. This was around 2002. After a couple years of that, about 8,000 Indians in Putumayo had signed up with the FARC.
This is why people join the FARC, my doubting readers. Not because they feel like turning terrorist and destroying some glorious democracy because they are evildoers, but because the army keeps coming out to try kill them and spray poison all over them and their crops.
This article (dead link) lays out what Colombia is really like. It portrays a rural region in Colombia. The US-Colombian state does not touch the coca plantations of the rich in this region. Here, the rich own all the land, and the poor live in wretched misery.
It was not always this way. There used to be vast numbers of small landowners scattered through this whole region. They're mostly gone now, part of a project by the US-Colombian military to steal the people's land for the rich and kill anyone who resisted.
Most of this area has gone over to vast cattle ranches in the hands of a few ultra-rich landowners. These landowners hire death squads to keep this sick state of affairs as it is. This is why the FARC is always kidnapping these wealthy landowner "innocent civilians". They are not so innocent! These are the people who run the death squads.
There are still peasant farmers in this region, but they are now crammed into miserable and tiny plots that are a shadow of the ones they farmed. It's barely enough to feed oneself. The many peasants who were run off the land altogether now live crammed in teeming urban slums that never existed before.
If you drive through the area, there seems to be open land everywhere - for cows. You see a few miserable peasants with tiny plots, and then you see vast and teeming slums. On the highway is a death squad and US-Colombian military checkpoint to keep the peons from rising up about this fucked-up bullshit. To accomplish the sickening state of affairs in this blighted region, the US-Colombian military killed 100's to 1000's of people.
Now let us go to a large city - Medellin. The FARC militias were all run out a few years back, and the death squads run the show now. The poor are crammed into horrid slums on hillsides with no paved roads, no water, no sewage, no electricity, no nothing. The shit runs down the gutters, people gather rain for water, and when it rains, the hills slide down on the makeshift shanties.
Down below, watching the Dickensian slums above with cold eyes, are the death squads. If any slum dweller raises a peep about their miserable situation, they may just get a bullet. The death squads are put there by the US and Colombia to make sure that that disgusting state of affairs stays just the way it is.
Westerners have the temerity to ask why there is a revolution in Colombia.
How could there not be one?
The FARC has definitely been hit hard lately in a lot of ways. The Colombian military has doubled in size since 2000 (mostly due to an infusion of US money) and the FARC has been experiencing, since 2005, the most concerted military offensive that any Latin American revolutionary army has ever faced.
They may conceivably not make it, but if they don't, the violence will not end. The state will continue to kill the people, and it will still be impossible for the Left to organize or run for office without getting killed. If the FARC goes, there will only be successors; there will be no justice.
Personally, dire as things are, I think that the FARC will pull through. One of the ways that they reacted to the offensive was to branch into other nations. The FARE is in Ecuador1, the FARV, with 1000's of members, is in Venezuela2, the FARP is in Peru and doing very well3, and the FARB is in the Dog's Head region of Brazil4. FARC is in Panama and Guyana, and they have activists in Bolivia helping Morales' party.
A previous post gives details on all of these FARC splinters.
Great blog on Colombia. Machetera is also great and so's People's Movement Support Group.1. This report from 2000 describes how both the FARC and the ELN had a growing presence across the border in Ecuador and how the FARE had just formed to protest against Plan Colombia. On May 15, 2000, the Ecuadorian military intercepted a FARE patrol in Sucumbios Province on the Peruvian border.
Two FARE members were killed and five more were wounded or captured in the shootout. In early 2000, the FARE blew up an oil pipeline in Ecuador. On August 28, 2002, the FARE set off a leaflet bomb in a McDonald's in Guayaquil that caused serious damage to the property. As of 2000, it was still a small group in the country. Whether or not the FARE still exists in not known.
2. The FARV is nothing but the name of the FARC in its rear guard zone inside Venezuela. The FARC has such zones and forces in all of the countries bordering it.
3. The FARP is nothing but the FARC inside Peru. They have penetrated deep into Peru and has recruited many former members and supporters of Sendero Luminoso. Former commanders of the MRTA have also joined the FARC's army in Peru. For now, they are not doing much except laying down base areas, but they are very popular with rural Peruvians who got sick of Sendero's mad violence.
4. The FARB is very little known, but it probably just the name of the FARC in its rear-guard area inside Brazil (Dog's Head region) There is another FARB inside Brazil that has been threatening and even killing some PT mayors and officials. It is supposedly a far Left group of PT dissidents angry at some PT officials for selling out the people.
Others think that the group does not even exist and instead is merely a fake name for rightwing death squads that rampage all across Brazil.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
RIP Pedro Antonio Marin (Tiro Fijo).
New leader? Alfonso Cano, an anthropologist and the group's chief ideologist. There were many anthropologists among Sendero Luminoso's top ideologists too, as I pointed out in a previous post. Nothing like field work among the oppressed to turn one into a raving revolutionary.
And yes, I do support the FARC, of course. Unequivocally and 100%, and so should all of you.
This movement is grotesquely misunderstood. If it existed in any kind of real democracy instead of in a terrorist death squad state, they never would have had to fire a shot, or at least would have laid down their weapons long ago. As is, they'd be insane to give up the gun. For the time being in Colombia, there is no other way.
In the 1980's, a section of the FARC disarmed and formed a legal political party called the Patriotic Union. Despite unbelievable repression, they managed to gain a respectable showing in some elections.
They were slaughtered like flies by the Colombian state with US military and intelligence assistance until 5,000 UP activists lay dead. The movement disbanded and scattered and has not been heard from since. The FARC is not insane. They already tried to lay down their guns. Look at what happened. At this point, the FARC is not going to lay down their guns until they get a say in running the country.
There is hardly anyone on the Left running for any office anywhere in Colombia. Anyone who does can be and may well be targeted for death by US-Colombian military intelligence terror machine.
Any Left organizations, including environmental groups, labor unions, peasant organizations, Indian movements, neighborhood and citizens' groups or peace communities who have declared themselves neutral, can be and may well be routinely targeted with death by the US and Colombia.
If I were a Colombian, I would either not write this blog, or, if I did, I would arm myself and join the FARC. After a while, it doesn't make sense anymore to wait for the government to come out and kill you. If the US-Colombian military-intel death machine is going to come out and try to kill me anyway, I may as well be armed so I can fight back.
As you can see in the case of the Wayuu Indians, they got tired of the US-Colombian military coming out to kill them, so large numbers of them joined the FARC, and many others formed their own guerrilla organizations. Attacks on the group dropped way down after they took up arms to defend themselves.
Often, the US-Colombian military death squads will start to raid villages and stage killings and massacres of villagers. At some point, at least lately, a FARC unit will intervene and drive the attackers away, saving many lives. You can see that the FARC is the only thing keeping the US-Colombian military from staging vast massacres across the land.
It is said that the FARC adds to the violence in Colombia. Far be it. The FARC had an autonomous zone carved out for it a few years back. The main city in this jungle, a town of only 25,000, had an incredible homicide rate of 1 killing/day. After the FARC came in, that was reduced to 1 killing/year. Some murderous guerrillas!
The FARC has been an armed self-defense group from its origins in the peasant community of Marquetalia in 1964. The leftwing peasants of Marquetalia, tired of the mad violence that was sweeping the land in La Violencia, essentially seceded from the war and made their own private Idaho on some land they owned in Western Colombia.
It's true that they were Communists, but there were only a few hundred of them, and they were nonviolent. The US and Colombian governments became alarmed at these live Communists existing openly on Colombia's land, and plans were made to exterminate them. The US Ambassador and US military cooperated closely in these plans. The US recommended everything be thrown at the peasants, including chemical weapons.
The US-Colombian army (with US advisors on board) finally attacked the area, but the peasants of Marquetalia were not all killed. Some survived and armed themselves to fight back. This was the beginnings of the FARC, and this has been the story ever since.
There was a march a while back against the US-Colombian death squads that haunt the land. A huge number of persons showed up in cities all across Colombia. Very quickly afterwards, with only a couple of weeks, the US-Colombian military killed about a dozen marchers and leaders. Just like that. This is what happens to the unarmed opposition in Colombia.
If the FARC falls apart, nothing will change. Colombia will be as big of a shithole as ever, but now there will be no way for the people to fight back against the US-Colombian state and its killers.
I read this article in English a while back, but now it's disappeared into some memory hole somewhere. Here it is in Spanish if you can read Spanish. Upshot of the piece is that the FARC does not depend on dope. They tax all crops in the areas they control, which is normally about 40% of the country.
This includes drug crops like coca. People grow coca because the state has not provided them the wherewithal to make a decent living growing anything else, despite the fake US-Colombian crop substitution program of recent years. During Plan Colombia in Putumayo Province, much of the land was devastated with herbicide, including perfectly legal crops, and most of the residents became ill with chemical poisoning.
US-Colombian death squads quickly appeared in the area and started murdering peasants right and left. This was around 2002. After a couple years of that, about 8,000 Indians in Putumayo had signed up with the FARC.
This is why people join the FARC, my doubting readers. Not because they feel like turning terrorist and destroying some glorious democracy because they are evildoers, but because the army keeps coming out to try kill them and spray poison all over them and their crops.
This article (dead link) lays out what Colombia is really like. It portrays a rural region in Colombia. The US-Colombian state does not touch the coca plantations of the rich in this region. Here, the rich own all the land, and the poor live in wretched misery.
It was not always this way. There used to be vast numbers of small landowners scattered through this whole region. They're mostly gone now, part of a project by the US-Colombian military to steal the people's land for the rich and kill anyone who resisted.
Most of this area has gone over to vast cattle ranches in the hands of a few ultra-rich landowners. These landowners hire death squads to keep this sick state of affairs as it is. This is why the FARC is always kidnapping these wealthy landowner "innocent civilians". They are not so innocent! These are the people who run the death squads.
There are still peasant farmers in this region, but they are now crammed into miserable and tiny plots that are a shadow of the ones they farmed. It's barely enough to feed oneself. The many peasants who were run off the land altogether now live crammed in teeming urban slums that never existed before.
If you drive through the area, there seems to be open land everywhere - for cows. You see a few miserable peasants with tiny plots, and then you see vast and teeming slums. On the highway is a death squad and US-Colombian military checkpoint to keep the peons from rising up about this fucked-up bullshit. To accomplish the sickening state of affairs in this blighted region, the US-Colombian military killed 100's to 1000's of people.
Now let us go to a large city - Medellin. The FARC militias were all run out a few years back, and the death squads run the show now. The poor are crammed into horrid slums on hillsides with no paved roads, no water, no sewage, no electricity, no nothing. The shit runs down the gutters, people gather rain for water, and when it rains, the hills slide down on the makeshift shanties.
Down below, watching the Dickensian slums above with cold eyes, are the death squads. If any slum dweller raises a peep about their miserable situation, they may just get a bullet. The death squads are put there by the US and Colombia to make sure that that disgusting state of affairs stays just the way it is.
Westerners have the temerity to ask why there is a revolution in Colombia.
How could there not be one?
The FARC has definitely been hit hard lately in a lot of ways. The Colombian military has doubled in size since 2000 (mostly due to an infusion of US money) and the FARC has been experiencing, since 2005, the most concerted military offensive that any Latin American revolutionary army has ever faced.
They may conceivably not make it, but if they don't, the violence will not end. The state will continue to kill the people, and it will still be impossible for the Left to organize or run for office without getting killed. If the FARC goes, there will only be successors; there will be no justice.
Personally, dire as things are, I think that the FARC will pull through. One of the ways that they reacted to the offensive was to branch into other nations. The FARE is in Ecuador1, the FARV, with 1000's of members, is in Venezuela2, the FARP is in Peru and doing very well3, and the FARB is in the Dog's Head region of Brazil4. FARC is in Panama and Guyana, and they have activists in Bolivia helping Morales' party.
A previous post gives details on all of these FARC splinters.
Great blog on Colombia. Machetera is also great and so's People's Movement Support Group.
Notes
Two FARE members were killed and five more were wounded or captured in the shootout. In early 2000, the FARE blew up an oil pipeline in Ecuador. On August 28, 2002, the FARE set off a leaflet bomb in a McDonald's in Guayaquil that caused serious damage to the property. As of 2000, it was still a small group in the country. Whether or not the FARE still exists in not known.
Others think that the group does not even exist and instead is merely a fake name for rightwing death squads that rampage all across Brazil.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Friday, May 30, 2008
I Don't Like You Extroverts
At. All.
I mean I like you, from a distance, but as far as the relationship thing, well, it's just never going to work, you know?
It's interesting that in the US, we introverts are considered weird, sick, mentally ill, unhappy, dangerous and creepy. We are potential killers, criminals and especially nowadays with Child Molester Mania, pedophiles!
The truth is that despite all the lone gunman stuff, the vast majority of violent crimes, and real crimes period, are committed by extroverts. I'm leaving out non-crimes like drug use here. Most sociopaths are extroverts, in fact, the two things are nearly synonymous. Sociopath, narcissist, histrionic, borderline, these are some of the logical pathological endpoints of extroversion taken its to its predictable extremes.
The reason America hates introverts so much is because we are an extroverted nation. The Northeast Asian nations are almost the direct opposite of that - introversion is considered to be the norm.
The main problem is that extroverts just can't understand us.
A while back, I was ill (chronic fatigue) was not working, and was just hanging out at my place alone most of the time. Everyone insisted I was depressed (this causing the fatigue, but actually it was being caused by chronic sinusitis), but honestly, I was not at all.
A relative confessed that she insisted I must be depressed because she could not fathom how anyone could have such a crappy life as I had and not be depressed about it. Truth is I had plenty to do, plenty to read, a computer, computer friends, a newspaper and a coffee shop to spend an hour or two a day for the social fix.
Life wasn't exactly optimal, but I expect almost zero out of life anymore anyway, so can make some fine lemonade out of some pretty horrid lemons.
I'm actually kind of a mixture. Long ago, I used to throw parties with live bands, kegs, and 200 people that kept on getting busted by the cops. Later I would go to eight or nine parties in a night. I would go out in the evening and visit five or six different people on the endless round of parties.
This was before I got OCD pretty bad, but it's still a part of my personality. I still talk to strangers out of the blue all the time, and my introverted friends think that is just horrible.
But yet, I still don't get along with extroverts well. They just don't understand us. They insist I must be miserable, hurting and in terrible pain, but truth is, that's just normal life for me. Life's a bitch and then you die, but I don't mind that much, and I'm just going to be happy anyway. I really suspect most older introverts expect very little out of this world anyway, so the tiniest positive thing seems like manna.
I've never gotten along with extroverts. Most of them treated me pretty badly at least part of the time we were together, and I never did anything to deserve it (other than being lame and being an introvert with HIT ME on my back), nor did I ever do anything aggressive to them.
I still resent all their crappy insults and stupid mood swings. Why can't they control themselves? You can hardly even tell if an extrovert likes you or not. One day they do; the next day they don't. One hour they do; the next hour they don't. I guess if they really hate you, they just blow you off totally.
Anyway, at 50, I'm at peace. They are what they are and we are what we are, and nothing can be done about it, so no worries.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
I mean I like you, from a distance, but as far as the relationship thing, well, it's just never going to work, you know?
It's interesting that in the US, we introverts are considered weird, sick, mentally ill, unhappy, dangerous and creepy. We are potential killers, criminals and especially nowadays with Child Molester Mania, pedophiles!
The truth is that despite all the lone gunman stuff, the vast majority of violent crimes, and real crimes period, are committed by extroverts. I'm leaving out non-crimes like drug use here. Most sociopaths are extroverts, in fact, the two things are nearly synonymous. Sociopath, narcissist, histrionic, borderline, these are some of the logical pathological endpoints of extroversion taken its to its predictable extremes.
The reason America hates introverts so much is because we are an extroverted nation. The Northeast Asian nations are almost the direct opposite of that - introversion is considered to be the norm.
The main problem is that extroverts just can't understand us.
A while back, I was ill (chronic fatigue) was not working, and was just hanging out at my place alone most of the time. Everyone insisted I was depressed (this causing the fatigue, but actually it was being caused by chronic sinusitis), but honestly, I was not at all.
A relative confessed that she insisted I must be depressed because she could not fathom how anyone could have such a crappy life as I had and not be depressed about it. Truth is I had plenty to do, plenty to read, a computer, computer friends, a newspaper and a coffee shop to spend an hour or two a day for the social fix.
Life wasn't exactly optimal, but I expect almost zero out of life anymore anyway, so can make some fine lemonade out of some pretty horrid lemons.
I'm actually kind of a mixture. Long ago, I used to throw parties with live bands, kegs, and 200 people that kept on getting busted by the cops. Later I would go to eight or nine parties in a night. I would go out in the evening and visit five or six different people on the endless round of parties.
This was before I got OCD pretty bad, but it's still a part of my personality. I still talk to strangers out of the blue all the time, and my introverted friends think that is just horrible.
But yet, I still don't get along with extroverts well. They just don't understand us. They insist I must be miserable, hurting and in terrible pain, but truth is, that's just normal life for me. Life's a bitch and then you die, but I don't mind that much, and I'm just going to be happy anyway. I really suspect most older introverts expect very little out of this world anyway, so the tiniest positive thing seems like manna.
I've never gotten along with extroverts. Most of them treated me pretty badly at least part of the time we were together, and I never did anything to deserve it (other than being lame and being an introvert with HIT ME on my back), nor did I ever do anything aggressive to them.
I still resent all their crappy insults and stupid mood swings. Why can't they control themselves? You can hardly even tell if an extrovert likes you or not. One day they do; the next day they don't. One hour they do; the next hour they don't. I guess if they really hate you, they just blow you off totally.
Anyway, at 50, I'm at peace. They are what they are and we are what we are, and nothing can be done about it, so no worries.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Illegals, Unions, TINA and National Sovereignty
Excellent commenter Uncle Milton notes presciently about illegal immigration. Comments at the end:
Frosty Wooldridge notes that the 1965 Immigration Act resulted in immigration going from 170,000 - 1.1 million per year. That's a damn good reason to oppose it right there, even if you care nothing about the racial angle.
Mass illegal immigration from Mesoamerica started under Reagan in 1980, picked up tremendous speed after 1990 and has exploded since 2000.
The US union movement began to go into a serious decline around 1973 (Any relation to the 1965 immigration act?), about the same time that US wages started to seriously stagnate and wealth began being distributed upwards. Yes, even the Jimmy Carter "Atari Democrats" were in on this bullshit. We've now had 35 years of this insanity.
Plunging wages have combined with wildly increasing inequality, a flood of illegal immigration, an evisceration of our social democracy and what little Social Contract we ever had to produce 28 years of varying degrees of reactionary politics, with a brief intercession for a Eisenhower Republican Democrat named Clinton (actually, Ike was much more progressive than Bill Clinton).
Does any of this make sense? Of course not.
Why does a population where the bottom 60-80% are getting eviscerated march off and vote for the eviscerators every year? Well. They do it in the 3rd World. They used to do it in Latin America. Can you see where we are headed?
The ageism in IT is disgusting. You get about 10 years and then no one will hire you anymore because you are too expensive. 90% of new IT hires are going to H-1B job thieves anyway, and one of the Senate's paragons of Democratic liberalism, Barbara Mikulski, recently introduced a bill to greatly increase the number of H-1B job thieves to the US in order to destroy even more US jobs and lay off even more US workers.
Does that make sense? Of course not.
It only makes sense in a Democratic Party whose liberal wing has utterly abandoned US workers.
I disagree that the illegal immigration flood is only beneficial to the top .1%. Sure, they love it, but I think the entire top 20% benefits, and further, the entire US business class, from small business all the way to corporations, just loves it to death. Hispanic-Americans generally don't benefit a bit, and I insist that most of them are actually harmed by illegal immigration, but they line up on racial grounds anyway.
One of the worst things about Reagan-Thatcherism's TINA (There Is No Alternative) neoliberalism is that everywhere on Earth it has been tried, it has generally benefited only the top 20% of the population. The bottom 80% gets screwed no matter what. From 1980-1992 in the US, the top 80% gained a lot of money and the entire bottom 80% of the US population lost money!
It's been this way everywhere and as regular as clockwork. That's why Latin America is turning their back on this shit. They've had a couple decades of this poison and they are not buying anymore. These "dumb Latinos" are not as stupid as Gringos think they are! Hell, they are smarter than most White Americans.
Anyway, this nasty 20% bastard class has been created everywhere, and everywhere it has done quite a bit of damage. This class is deeply invested in neoliberalism and makes up the overwhelming majority of the professionals and movers and shakers in society. They seek to keep neoliberalism in place forever by whatever means they can.
Even in the UK, a nasty 20% elite has been created since Thatcher. They have nice new foreign cars and second homes in the country. The result has been the rightwing Labor governments of Blair and Brown. In Latin America, the masses actually voted these professional and business elites out, but it hasn't happened everywhere.
The notion of national sovereignty being the source of a nation's wealth is an interesting one, but I do not know where to start on that subject. Maybe someone else can chime in.
It's clear that in Corporate World, there is no national sovereignty anymore. The corporation is the ultimate traitor - it has no national allegiance whatsoever. How do drive around that nasty speed bump is a pretty difficult question.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Uncle Milton: Unions didn't gain any real power in this country until the immigration doors were slammed shut in the 1920s. In the modern era (the last three decades) you don't have to look very far to see how cheap Latino labor has suppressed the wages of meat packers, janitors, construction workers, etc.Uncle makes a fantastic point here! The US labor movement only really got going after we seriously restricted immigration in the mid-1920's. We then massively loosened up immigration in 1965, at least racially speaking. At some point after that, we began to experience mass immigration.
When critiquing illegal immigration, I find it much more productive (and appealing or at least tolerated) by a wider audience when you bring up what it has done to wages and how employers have profited.
Now with the globalization of computer technology many things can be done overseas: accounting, programming, tech support, architecture. In theory, this is done for lower costs, but I know multiple cases were companies brought labor back to the US.
We hear all the time about how the US isn't producing enough engineers. What you don't hear as much is that the average engineer only stays in the field for about a decade instead of a 30 to 40 year career. Quite a bit of ageism in the field.
Our country's currency is being debased, our technology distributed (and frequently "borrowed" with no recompense in the process) to other nations, and unrestrained immigration (and attendant high birthrates of "migrants" subsidized by US taxpayers) are straining resources.
It's generally profitable to those in top 1/10 of 1% of wealth but not so great for everyone else. The concept of national sovereignty being the source of ones wealth seems to have been tossed out the window. At least Japanese and Chinese people seem to have a better grasp on the concept that a stable cohesive nation is your most important source of wealth.
Frosty Wooldridge notes that the 1965 Immigration Act resulted in immigration going from 170,000 - 1.1 million per year. That's a damn good reason to oppose it right there, even if you care nothing about the racial angle.
Mass illegal immigration from Mesoamerica started under Reagan in 1980, picked up tremendous speed after 1990 and has exploded since 2000.
The US union movement began to go into a serious decline around 1973 (Any relation to the 1965 immigration act?), about the same time that US wages started to seriously stagnate and wealth began being distributed upwards. Yes, even the Jimmy Carter "Atari Democrats" were in on this bullshit. We've now had 35 years of this insanity.
Plunging wages have combined with wildly increasing inequality, a flood of illegal immigration, an evisceration of our social democracy and what little Social Contract we ever had to produce 28 years of varying degrees of reactionary politics, with a brief intercession for a Eisenhower Republican Democrat named Clinton (actually, Ike was much more progressive than Bill Clinton).
Does any of this make sense? Of course not.
Why does a population where the bottom 60-80% are getting eviscerated march off and vote for the eviscerators every year? Well. They do it in the 3rd World. They used to do it in Latin America. Can you see where we are headed?
The ageism in IT is disgusting. You get about 10 years and then no one will hire you anymore because you are too expensive. 90% of new IT hires are going to H-1B job thieves anyway, and one of the Senate's paragons of Democratic liberalism, Barbara Mikulski, recently introduced a bill to greatly increase the number of H-1B job thieves to the US in order to destroy even more US jobs and lay off even more US workers.
Does that make sense? Of course not.
It only makes sense in a Democratic Party whose liberal wing has utterly abandoned US workers.
I disagree that the illegal immigration flood is only beneficial to the top .1%. Sure, they love it, but I think the entire top 20% benefits, and further, the entire US business class, from small business all the way to corporations, just loves it to death. Hispanic-Americans generally don't benefit a bit, and I insist that most of them are actually harmed by illegal immigration, but they line up on racial grounds anyway.
One of the worst things about Reagan-Thatcherism's TINA (There Is No Alternative) neoliberalism is that everywhere on Earth it has been tried, it has generally benefited only the top 20% of the population. The bottom 80% gets screwed no matter what. From 1980-1992 in the US, the top 80% gained a lot of money and the entire bottom 80% of the US population lost money!
It's been this way everywhere and as regular as clockwork. That's why Latin America is turning their back on this shit. They've had a couple decades of this poison and they are not buying anymore. These "dumb Latinos" are not as stupid as Gringos think they are! Hell, they are smarter than most White Americans.
Anyway, this nasty 20% bastard class has been created everywhere, and everywhere it has done quite a bit of damage. This class is deeply invested in neoliberalism and makes up the overwhelming majority of the professionals and movers and shakers in society. They seek to keep neoliberalism in place forever by whatever means they can.
Even in the UK, a nasty 20% elite has been created since Thatcher. They have nice new foreign cars and second homes in the country. The result has been the rightwing Labor governments of Blair and Brown. In Latin America, the masses actually voted these professional and business elites out, but it hasn't happened everywhere.
The notion of national sovereignty being the source of a nation's wealth is an interesting one, but I do not know where to start on that subject. Maybe someone else can chime in.
It's clear that in Corporate World, there is no national sovereignty anymore. The corporation is the ultimate traitor - it has no national allegiance whatsoever. How do drive around that nasty speed bump is a pretty difficult question.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
R-K Scale or Introversion-Extroverion Scale?
There are clearly some differences between the races, at least between Northeast Asians, European Caucasians and Blacks. Those differences are obvious to me and to many others, and show up in many statistics on a variety of societal variables.
Whether or not there are global personality differences between the races is very controversial, but it seems obvious to many folks just looking around at the world, and as a former US schoolteacher who taught classes full of Anglo-Americans, Japanese Americans and Afro-Americans for years all over Los Angeles, after a while you have to really lie to yourself to believe that such a thing does not exist.
At Gardena High School, there were many Blacks and many Japanese-Americans, and the contrast simply belts you in the face with a knockout punch. Even those experts who agree that there are differences go on and on about whether they are genetic or cultural, when it's clear that they are both.
Some recent studies have come out (by Jewish psychologists, of course) claiming that there are no significant personality differences between Blacks and Whites. I don't even care to read such a study, as it flies in the face of common sense observation.
Philippe Rushton is a racist who dislikes Blacks and his books are very controversial. He has suggested r-strategy versus k-strategy for the differences between Blacks, Whites and Asians. R-k selection theory is a theory in biology relating different modes of adaptation that animals use to survive in the environment.
I'm going to stay agnostic on the r/k thing and I don't wish to align myself with the oily Mr. Rushton, who, by the way, wishes to do away with all civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, but one thing I think Rushton makes clear is that there is an extroversion-introversion scale that closely mirrors that r/k scale.
As introverts have a vastly lower crime rate and extroverts tend to make up the vast majority of criminals (even among Whites) that makes good sense to me.
Also, extroverts are much more likely to be bored with school, tend to use and manipulate others more, have a "strong prey on the weak and that's ok" mindset, are vastly less moral and mannered, less inclined to repay debts, have much more regard for self than others, are more promiscuous, gamble, drink and take drugs more, take worse care of their health, are less cautious, have more accidents, take way more risks, are much more aggressive, impulsive prone to wild and excessive mood swings (wild emotionality) and are financially irresponsible and have a lowered life expectancy.
It's clear to me that all of these are true even within a race, say, with Whites (that's the race I'm most familiar with).
It's obvious to me that Blacks are the most extroverted race, NE Asians the least, and Whites in between.
Honestly, I have no idea what to do with most of the other races. SE Asians psychologically resemble NE Asians, though I think they are somewhat more extroverted. I haven't the faintest idea what to do with Amerindians, Hispanics, Polynesians, Micronesians and Papuans. I suspect that Papuans and Aborigines may be more like Blacks in extroversion.
Polynesians are very odd. They're obviously part-Asian and can be pretty quiet and introverted, yet at the same time, they are collectivist, love parties and are surrounded by people all the time. Filipinos are much the same. East Indians, Arabs, North Africans and South Asians are pretty much like Whites, cultural baggage aside.
Culture seems to intervene a lot here, as with everything else, and it gets real hard to disentangle everything. Sure, there are introverted Blacks (I've known a few of them!) and there are extroverted NE Asians, but we are looking at these groups globally here.
Whether or not there are global personality differences between the races is very controversial, but it seems obvious to many folks just looking around at the world, and as a former US schoolteacher who taught classes full of Anglo-Americans, Japanese Americans and Afro-Americans for years all over Los Angeles, after a while you have to really lie to yourself to believe that such a thing does not exist.
At Gardena High School, there were many Blacks and many Japanese-Americans, and the contrast simply belts you in the face with a knockout punch. Even those experts who agree that there are differences go on and on about whether they are genetic or cultural, when it's clear that they are both.
Some recent studies have come out (by Jewish psychologists, of course) claiming that there are no significant personality differences between Blacks and Whites. I don't even care to read such a study, as it flies in the face of common sense observation.
Philippe Rushton is a racist who dislikes Blacks and his books are very controversial. He has suggested r-strategy versus k-strategy for the differences between Blacks, Whites and Asians. R-k selection theory is a theory in biology relating different modes of adaptation that animals use to survive in the environment.
I'm going to stay agnostic on the r/k thing and I don't wish to align myself with the oily Mr. Rushton, who, by the way, wishes to do away with all civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, but one thing I think Rushton makes clear is that there is an extroversion-introversion scale that closely mirrors that r/k scale.
As introverts have a vastly lower crime rate and extroverts tend to make up the vast majority of criminals (even among Whites) that makes good sense to me.
Also, extroverts are much more likely to be bored with school, tend to use and manipulate others more, have a "strong prey on the weak and that's ok" mindset, are vastly less moral and mannered, less inclined to repay debts, have much more regard for self than others, are more promiscuous, gamble, drink and take drugs more, take worse care of their health, are less cautious, have more accidents, take way more risks, are much more aggressive, impulsive prone to wild and excessive mood swings (wild emotionality) and are financially irresponsible and have a lowered life expectancy.
It's clear to me that all of these are true even within a race, say, with Whites (that's the race I'm most familiar with).
It's obvious to me that Blacks are the most extroverted race, NE Asians the least, and Whites in between.
Honestly, I have no idea what to do with most of the other races. SE Asians psychologically resemble NE Asians, though I think they are somewhat more extroverted. I haven't the faintest idea what to do with Amerindians, Hispanics, Polynesians, Micronesians and Papuans. I suspect that Papuans and Aborigines may be more like Blacks in extroversion.
Polynesians are very odd. They're obviously part-Asian and can be pretty quiet and introverted, yet at the same time, they are collectivist, love parties and are surrounded by people all the time. Filipinos are much the same. East Indians, Arabs, North Africans and South Asians are pretty much like Whites, cultural baggage aside.
Culture seems to intervene a lot here, as with everything else, and it gets real hard to disentangle everything. Sure, there are introverted Blacks (I've known a few of them!) and there are extroverted NE Asians, but we are looking at these groups globally here.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Rapproachment Between the Orthodox Church and the USSR
The relationship between the USSR and the Orthodox Church was complex to be sure. Keep in mind that Stalin had studied to be an Orthodox priest in Georgia, and conservative Orthodox culture heavily informed his regime and worldview, particularly in reversing the radical experiments in family and sexual life that had begun under the heavily-Jewish Bolsheviks.
It makes the best sense to say that the Jewish era in the USSR was already over by 1927, as Stalin represented a reversal of all of that. There were quite a few Jews in the NKVD for a few years in the 1930's, but that soon dropped to a very low number. Jews suffered very heavily during Stalin's wild, insane and horrible purges on 1937-38.
The Jewish Bolsheviks had brought about radical changes in sexual culture.
Homosexuality and abortion was legalized, and divorce was made simple. A cult of free love reigned in the party, which was naturally exploited by the male comrades: "If you are a real Communist, you will have sex with me." A very similar free love cult with similar dynamics was present in the early days of the Afghan Communist regime in the late 1970's and early 1980's.
It's quite fascinating the way that a total Communist revolution can change some of the world's most sexually repressive societies into sexually liberated zones in just a few years. This indicates that at least young folks do not like to live under puritanism, Orthodox, Islamic or any other kind, and as soon as the shackles go off, they naturally just start fucking like rabbits in tune with our bipedal ape nature.
The early Bolsheviks also attempted radical experiments in family life, with the ultimate goal of getting rid of the family altogether, as the family was a bourgeois institution intimately tied in with capitalism. Kids were sent off to day care all day, and families of workers all ate together in the evening at communal dining halls.
It is interesting that the family dynamic that has been shown to produce the fewest number of sociopaths is the kibbutz system of Israel, where the parents work all day while the kids are in school or day care, and then the parents and kids are at home in the evening.
In the Soviet case, the Bolsheviks actually promoted children questioning and even rebelling against their parents, especially for questioning their parents' bourgeois ways. Even runaways were championed as some sort of Communist heroes. The kids liberation and attempted destruction of the family failed, of course.
You have to consider that whatever its faults, the family has probably been around for as far back as we can go in human history. An institution like that no doubt has some intrinsic merit.
The kids' liberation failed too, similar to the way the hippies of the 1960's promoted this nonsense and then went on to become parents themselves and became the biggest bunch of kid-coddlers the world has ever seen. Parents now wait at bus stops with their high school kids so a murderer doesn't abduct them.
1/3 of all kids are now sent to school with these little cleanliness packs to wipe themselves clean of all the horrible germs in the school bathrooms, as if the soap wasn't good enough. And on and on. One wonders what kind of super-Mama's boys this nonsense will produce.
Well, anyway, the church, and Soviet society in general, especially the peasants, were largely appalled at all the sexual and family liberalism of the Bolshevik Era, and there was a backlash.
Stalin came in in the late 1920's, and by the mid-1930's, he had reversed all of this. What's important is that Stalin, while officially an atheist, was still something of a cultural Georgian Orthodox Church. Note that Putin is still an Orthodox Christian, though he was head of the KGB under the USSR.
One of the most essential aspects of Russian culture, and part of its rejection of and war with the West, is its emphasis on the Orthodox religion. The Orthodox Church is different enough from the Roman Church and certainly the Protestant Church that this alone is enough to set the Russians apart.
There are other aspects to the stew: asceticism, nihilism, authoritarianism, mysticism, contempt for democracy, and opposition to materialism, but Orthodoxy is surely a part of it all.
The West views state and society as separate things, while in Russia they have always been one, and the Church has always been part of the state - these differing views are a product of the Roman Catholic-Byzantine split in the first millennium. Similar to Indian culture, Russians believed that the matters of the world were of little importance, as we can do little to alter these things.
There is a corresponding belief in fate, the Devil and sin. There is a rejection of the West's optimism, the notion of salvation, the elevation of the individual above all else and the idea of good works, and there is a contempt for the senses as a worldly and hence contaminated and inaccurate mechanism for measuring reality. This corresponded to a dismissal of such things as science and mathematics.
The notion that the material world is evil in and of itself, taken to a homicidal extreme by the nihilists of the late 1800's, is similar to the Gnostic view, where man and the world are pure evil. This state of affairs is redeemed in Gnosticism by a tiny spark of good inside each of us, waiting to be lit. Lighting it brings us out of the darkness, at least somewhat.
This classic Russian POV can be seen in Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. Dostoevsky takes it to an extreme - his characters are almost monastic in outlook and psychologically tend towards masochism or even self-flagellation.
Really this is the struggle between God and the Devil inside of each man. As this struggle will never end, the only expectation is for a life of suffering. This is similar to the Buddhist view enunciated by Jack Kerouac: "All of life is suffering."
Tolstoy actually held that all property and all sex was evil, even inside marriage. This radical view caused his marriage to eventually fall apart. As a nihilist who rejected most everything, he felt that the only solution to the pain of being a man is passive resistance in the face of evil, following Christ's injunction. This leads to a sort of spiritual pacifism.
All of this nihilism and contempt for the violence, materialism and selfishness we in the West hold dear surely seems odd to Westerners raised on such things. Yet this nihilism actually has its roots in Plato himself, and from there to Greece to the Neoplatonists of early Christianity to Byzantium to Orthodoxy.
Plato, after all, held that objective reality had little importance outside of its subjective symbolic truth.
There was a part of Stalin that never left the seminary. A good overview of all of this on Peter Myers' site. It kind of goes on and on, but you can get the picture.
Much has been made of how Stalin utilized religion and nationalism to motivate his people during the German invasion. This has been somewhat overblown, as JP Slavyanski points out here.
Document follows:
Reverend bishops, priests and delegates of the faithful of the Russian Orthodox Church! The Government of the USSR has instructed me to greet in its name this exalted assembly and to convey its wishes for the success of your labours in organising the higher administration of the Church.
The Soviet Government has also asked me to greet the guests of honour of the local Council, who have come from the Orthodox East - Patriarch Christophoros of Alexandria, Patriarch Alexander m of Antioch, Metropolitan Germanos representing the Ecumenical Patriarch, Archbishop Athenagoras representing the Patriarch of Jerusalem - as well as those who come from our Georgia - Catholicos Callistratos of all-Georgia - and from the Slav nations, our brothers - Metropolitan Joseph representing the Synod of the Serbian Church, and ail the bishops and priests who accompany them.
The present local Council, called to elect the Patriarch of Moscow and ail the Russians, and to adopt a rule for the administration of the Orthodox Church, will be a landmark in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church.
I am deeply convinced that the decisions of this Council will be of value in strengthening the Church, and will form an important starting point for the further development of its activity in helping the Soviet people to fulfill the major historical tasks which confront them.
The local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church has met at a time when ail the nations of our great country, together with ail the freedom-loving nations of the world, are fighting a holy war of liberation against the imperialist German bandits and are straining every nerve for victory at the cost of lives and possessions of millions of people sacrificed on the altar of patriotism.
Throughout the sore trials to which our country has so often been subjected in the past, the Russian Orthodox Church has never broken its links with the people: it has shared their needs, wishes and hopes and contributed its full measure to the common task.
It was in its churches and monasteries that learning arose and the earliest chronicles of the life of our country were completed; the walls of our churches and monasteries have more than once withstood the assault of foreign invaders, and many eminent churchmen have given their lives for their country.
And now, when the Hitlerite bandits have viciously attacked our sacred soil, when all the nations of the Soviet State have risen and surged forward to fight this great patriotic war in defence of their honour, their freedom and their independence, the Russian Orthodox Church has from the first taken the fullest part in defending the country with ail the means at its disposal.
Having fully grasped the significance of the events, that eminent churchman, that wise and venerable man who was first Metropolitan, then Patriarch Sergius, bestowed his blessing upon the faithful in their task of participating in the defence of the frontiers of their country.
In his many sermons and messages to the Church, he ceaselessly called upon her loyal sons to fight to the death against the barbarous enemy of the Soviet land - Hitlerite Germany. Last year, the Patriarch Sergius died to the great loss of the Russian Orthodox Church.
In accordance with his testament, the government of the Church passed into the hands of the senior Bishop, Metropolitan of Leningrad and Novgorod, Alexis, an outstanding churchman and an ardent patriot who never once left his post during the 900 days of the siege of Leningrad and who, in total unanimity with the other members of the Holy Synod, has guided the Church from the death of the Patriarch to this day.
The Church has not confined its patriotic action to letters and sermons but has collected funds for building tanks and aeroplanes and for helping the sick, the wounded and those crippled or orphaned by the war.
The Soviet Government has shown and continues to show deep interest in the Church's part in the struggle against the enemy. In our country, the triumph of the new regime, a Socialist regime unprecedented in history and the most righteous in the world, has also brought about a new relationship between Church and State.
The great Socialist October Revolution which liberated our people from slavery and gave them freedom, has also freed the Church from the shackles which impeded its internal activity. Freedom of conscience, promulgated by the Decree of 23 January 1918, has been consolidated by the basic laws of our country as embodied in the Soviet Constitution.
The Council of Church Affairs which, by Government decision, has been created and attached to the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, forms a link between the Government and the Patriarch of Moscow and ail the Russians, and provides liaison in ail matters needing government approval.
Without in any way interfering with the spiritual life of the Church, the Council promotes normal relations between Church and State by seeing to the proper and timely application of government laws and decrees concerning the Russian Orthodox Church.
There is no doubt that the normal relations established between the Council and Patriarchate have helped to strengthen the Church administratively; the Council will continue in future to take all necessary steps to remove obstacles of whatever sort which may hinder the Soviet citizen in the exercise of the liberty of conscience granted by the Constitution.
Once again, I sincerely wish the members of the Council success in the task which awaits them.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
It makes the best sense to say that the Jewish era in the USSR was already over by 1927, as Stalin represented a reversal of all of that. There were quite a few Jews in the NKVD for a few years in the 1930's, but that soon dropped to a very low number. Jews suffered very heavily during Stalin's wild, insane and horrible purges on 1937-38.
The Jewish Bolsheviks had brought about radical changes in sexual culture.
Homosexuality and abortion was legalized, and divorce was made simple. A cult of free love reigned in the party, which was naturally exploited by the male comrades: "If you are a real Communist, you will have sex with me." A very similar free love cult with similar dynamics was present in the early days of the Afghan Communist regime in the late 1970's and early 1980's.
It's quite fascinating the way that a total Communist revolution can change some of the world's most sexually repressive societies into sexually liberated zones in just a few years. This indicates that at least young folks do not like to live under puritanism, Orthodox, Islamic or any other kind, and as soon as the shackles go off, they naturally just start fucking like rabbits in tune with our bipedal ape nature.
The early Bolsheviks also attempted radical experiments in family life, with the ultimate goal of getting rid of the family altogether, as the family was a bourgeois institution intimately tied in with capitalism. Kids were sent off to day care all day, and families of workers all ate together in the evening at communal dining halls.
It is interesting that the family dynamic that has been shown to produce the fewest number of sociopaths is the kibbutz system of Israel, where the parents work all day while the kids are in school or day care, and then the parents and kids are at home in the evening.
In the Soviet case, the Bolsheviks actually promoted children questioning and even rebelling against their parents, especially for questioning their parents' bourgeois ways. Even runaways were championed as some sort of Communist heroes. The kids liberation and attempted destruction of the family failed, of course.
You have to consider that whatever its faults, the family has probably been around for as far back as we can go in human history. An institution like that no doubt has some intrinsic merit.
The kids' liberation failed too, similar to the way the hippies of the 1960's promoted this nonsense and then went on to become parents themselves and became the biggest bunch of kid-coddlers the world has ever seen. Parents now wait at bus stops with their high school kids so a murderer doesn't abduct them.
1/3 of all kids are now sent to school with these little cleanliness packs to wipe themselves clean of all the horrible germs in the school bathrooms, as if the soap wasn't good enough. And on and on. One wonders what kind of super-Mama's boys this nonsense will produce.
Well, anyway, the church, and Soviet society in general, especially the peasants, were largely appalled at all the sexual and family liberalism of the Bolshevik Era, and there was a backlash.
Stalin came in in the late 1920's, and by the mid-1930's, he had reversed all of this. What's important is that Stalin, while officially an atheist, was still something of a cultural Georgian Orthodox Church. Note that Putin is still an Orthodox Christian, though he was head of the KGB under the USSR.
One of the most essential aspects of Russian culture, and part of its rejection of and war with the West, is its emphasis on the Orthodox religion. The Orthodox Church is different enough from the Roman Church and certainly the Protestant Church that this alone is enough to set the Russians apart.
There are other aspects to the stew: asceticism, nihilism, authoritarianism, mysticism, contempt for democracy, and opposition to materialism, but Orthodoxy is surely a part of it all.
The West views state and society as separate things, while in Russia they have always been one, and the Church has always been part of the state - these differing views are a product of the Roman Catholic-Byzantine split in the first millennium. Similar to Indian culture, Russians believed that the matters of the world were of little importance, as we can do little to alter these things.
There is a corresponding belief in fate, the Devil and sin. There is a rejection of the West's optimism, the notion of salvation, the elevation of the individual above all else and the idea of good works, and there is a contempt for the senses as a worldly and hence contaminated and inaccurate mechanism for measuring reality. This corresponded to a dismissal of such things as science and mathematics.
The notion that the material world is evil in and of itself, taken to a homicidal extreme by the nihilists of the late 1800's, is similar to the Gnostic view, where man and the world are pure evil. This state of affairs is redeemed in Gnosticism by a tiny spark of good inside each of us, waiting to be lit. Lighting it brings us out of the darkness, at least somewhat.
This classic Russian POV can be seen in Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. Dostoevsky takes it to an extreme - his characters are almost monastic in outlook and psychologically tend towards masochism or even self-flagellation.
Really this is the struggle between God and the Devil inside of each man. As this struggle will never end, the only expectation is for a life of suffering. This is similar to the Buddhist view enunciated by Jack Kerouac: "All of life is suffering."
Tolstoy actually held that all property and all sex was evil, even inside marriage. This radical view caused his marriage to eventually fall apart. As a nihilist who rejected most everything, he felt that the only solution to the pain of being a man is passive resistance in the face of evil, following Christ's injunction. This leads to a sort of spiritual pacifism.
All of this nihilism and contempt for the violence, materialism and selfishness we in the West hold dear surely seems odd to Westerners raised on such things. Yet this nihilism actually has its roots in Plato himself, and from there to Greece to the Neoplatonists of early Christianity to Byzantium to Orthodoxy.
Plato, after all, held that objective reality had little importance outside of its subjective symbolic truth.
There was a part of Stalin that never left the seminary. A good overview of all of this on Peter Myers' site. It kind of goes on and on, but you can get the picture.
Much has been made of how Stalin utilized religion and nationalism to motivate his people during the German invasion. This has been somewhat overblown, as JP Slavyanski points out here.
Document follows:
Rapprochement between The Orthodox Church and Soviet Government.
Speech of M. G. Karpov at Council of the Orthodox Church, 1945.
Reverend bishops, priests and delegates of the faithful of the Russian Orthodox Church! The Government of the USSR has instructed me to greet in its name this exalted assembly and to convey its wishes for the success of your labours in organising the higher administration of the Church.
The Soviet Government has also asked me to greet the guests of honour of the local Council, who have come from the Orthodox East - Patriarch Christophoros of Alexandria, Patriarch Alexander m of Antioch, Metropolitan Germanos representing the Ecumenical Patriarch, Archbishop Athenagoras representing the Patriarch of Jerusalem - as well as those who come from our Georgia - Catholicos Callistratos of all-Georgia - and from the Slav nations, our brothers - Metropolitan Joseph representing the Synod of the Serbian Church, and ail the bishops and priests who accompany them.
The present local Council, called to elect the Patriarch of Moscow and ail the Russians, and to adopt a rule for the administration of the Orthodox Church, will be a landmark in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church.
I am deeply convinced that the decisions of this Council will be of value in strengthening the Church, and will form an important starting point for the further development of its activity in helping the Soviet people to fulfill the major historical tasks which confront them.
The local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church has met at a time when ail the nations of our great country, together with ail the freedom-loving nations of the world, are fighting a holy war of liberation against the imperialist German bandits and are straining every nerve for victory at the cost of lives and possessions of millions of people sacrificed on the altar of patriotism.
Throughout the sore trials to which our country has so often been subjected in the past, the Russian Orthodox Church has never broken its links with the people: it has shared their needs, wishes and hopes and contributed its full measure to the common task.
It was in its churches and monasteries that learning arose and the earliest chronicles of the life of our country were completed; the walls of our churches and monasteries have more than once withstood the assault of foreign invaders, and many eminent churchmen have given their lives for their country.
And now, when the Hitlerite bandits have viciously attacked our sacred soil, when all the nations of the Soviet State have risen and surged forward to fight this great patriotic war in defence of their honour, their freedom and their independence, the Russian Orthodox Church has from the first taken the fullest part in defending the country with ail the means at its disposal.
Having fully grasped the significance of the events, that eminent churchman, that wise and venerable man who was first Metropolitan, then Patriarch Sergius, bestowed his blessing upon the faithful in their task of participating in the defence of the frontiers of their country.
In his many sermons and messages to the Church, he ceaselessly called upon her loyal sons to fight to the death against the barbarous enemy of the Soviet land - Hitlerite Germany. Last year, the Patriarch Sergius died to the great loss of the Russian Orthodox Church.
In accordance with his testament, the government of the Church passed into the hands of the senior Bishop, Metropolitan of Leningrad and Novgorod, Alexis, an outstanding churchman and an ardent patriot who never once left his post during the 900 days of the siege of Leningrad and who, in total unanimity with the other members of the Holy Synod, has guided the Church from the death of the Patriarch to this day.
The Church has not confined its patriotic action to letters and sermons but has collected funds for building tanks and aeroplanes and for helping the sick, the wounded and those crippled or orphaned by the war.
The Soviet Government has shown and continues to show deep interest in the Church's part in the struggle against the enemy. In our country, the triumph of the new regime, a Socialist regime unprecedented in history and the most righteous in the world, has also brought about a new relationship between Church and State.
The great Socialist October Revolution which liberated our people from slavery and gave them freedom, has also freed the Church from the shackles which impeded its internal activity. Freedom of conscience, promulgated by the Decree of 23 January 1918, has been consolidated by the basic laws of our country as embodied in the Soviet Constitution.
The Council of Church Affairs which, by Government decision, has been created and attached to the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, forms a link between the Government and the Patriarch of Moscow and ail the Russians, and provides liaison in ail matters needing government approval.
Without in any way interfering with the spiritual life of the Church, the Council promotes normal relations between Church and State by seeing to the proper and timely application of government laws and decrees concerning the Russian Orthodox Church.
There is no doubt that the normal relations established between the Council and Patriarchate have helped to strengthen the Church administratively; the Council will continue in future to take all necessary steps to remove obstacles of whatever sort which may hinder the Soviet citizen in the exercise of the liberty of conscience granted by the Constitution.
Once again, I sincerely wish the members of the Council success in the task which awaits them.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Jews Versus Lithuanians
From this Lithuanian nationalist site.
It's pretty familiar stuff, similar to Polish anti-Semitism after the war. Basically, they are claiming that the Jews helped the USSR when the USSR invaded Lithuania in 1940. It's true that there were some arrests and killings in the Baltic States when the Soviets took over. All of the Baltic states have always hated Communism, possibly because it was imposed at gunpoint.
In 1941, the Nazis invaded, and they occupied the place until 1944. It would seem to me that the Nazis were much worse as far as killing folks than the USSR, but that's just a WAG.
The Holocaust in Lithuania was one of the worst in any nation. There were about 200,000 Jews there when the Nazis invaded, and only 3-4% of them survived, about a 98% death rate.
I guess I can see why the Jews welcomed the Red Army with open arms.
The Holocaust here was a bit peculiar because the locals joined in the killing in a worse way than in most other Axis nations. In particular, the local police, and I believe, even regular citizens, joined in the frenzy.
The Polish (AK) and Lithuanian partisans both fought each other here in what was one of the war's sillier moments. Apparently the AK were Polish nationalists who had some territorial designs on Lithuania as a part of Poland. A lot of killing on all sides here, including civilians. Nasty fight.
Apparently some Jews who served under Stalin in 1940 were responsible for killing some Lithuanians, and the nationalists want these Jews to be extradited from Israel, where they have taken refuge, on war crimes charges.
No one has been able to try any Allies on war crimes charges during WW2. Otherwise we have to go after the bombers of Dresden and Frankfurt. History is written by the victors, and they also host the war crimes trials. That's just the way it goes. If you don't like it, don't lose a war, or if you do, try to fight at least slightly civilized while you are in conflict.
I really know little about the situation in Lithuania during WW2, and in particular, I am not able to rebut the nationalists' charges, although I suspect that they are false. The Lithuanians killed 98% of their Jews because some Jews helped the invading USSR a while earlier? Forget it. I don't buy it. But it might be nice to prove it.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
It's pretty familiar stuff, similar to Polish anti-Semitism after the war. Basically, they are claiming that the Jews helped the USSR when the USSR invaded Lithuania in 1940. It's true that there were some arrests and killings in the Baltic States when the Soviets took over. All of the Baltic states have always hated Communism, possibly because it was imposed at gunpoint.
In 1941, the Nazis invaded, and they occupied the place until 1944. It would seem to me that the Nazis were much worse as far as killing folks than the USSR, but that's just a WAG.
The Holocaust in Lithuania was one of the worst in any nation. There were about 200,000 Jews there when the Nazis invaded, and only 3-4% of them survived, about a 98% death rate.
I guess I can see why the Jews welcomed the Red Army with open arms.
The Holocaust here was a bit peculiar because the locals joined in the killing in a worse way than in most other Axis nations. In particular, the local police, and I believe, even regular citizens, joined in the frenzy.
The Polish (AK) and Lithuanian partisans both fought each other here in what was one of the war's sillier moments. Apparently the AK were Polish nationalists who had some territorial designs on Lithuania as a part of Poland. A lot of killing on all sides here, including civilians. Nasty fight.
Apparently some Jews who served under Stalin in 1940 were responsible for killing some Lithuanians, and the nationalists want these Jews to be extradited from Israel, where they have taken refuge, on war crimes charges.
No one has been able to try any Allies on war crimes charges during WW2. Otherwise we have to go after the bombers of Dresden and Frankfurt. History is written by the victors, and they also host the war crimes trials. That's just the way it goes. If you don't like it, don't lose a war, or if you do, try to fight at least slightly civilized while you are in conflict.
I really know little about the situation in Lithuania during WW2, and in particular, I am not able to rebut the nationalists' charges, although I suspect that they are false. The Lithuanians killed 98% of their Jews because some Jews helped the invading USSR a while earlier? Forget it. I don't buy it. But it might be nice to prove it.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Juice Fasting
This site.
It pretty much goes on and on with the comments, but the guy answers just about every question that you could possibly have about juice fasting and water fasting. Personally, I think that water fasting is just dangerous, but this guy disagrees. I haven't the faintest idea if it cleanses you out, but you get an awful lot of bad-smelling farts, stinky sweat and even bad breath during the fast.
There seem to be some excellent mood and anxiety changes with juice fasting.
You can exercise on a juice fast. I have done up to 45-55 minutes on an exercise bike, but I rode pretty darn slow. One problem with exercising is that you will feel very tired, so it's hard to do the exercising, but you can just go slow. Also, recently I rode my bike without the TV on. I just listened to reggae music and it was ok!
I've been doing juice fasting off and on for a while now and I have lost about 12 pounds, so that is quite nice.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
It pretty much goes on and on with the comments, but the guy answers just about every question that you could possibly have about juice fasting and water fasting. Personally, I think that water fasting is just dangerous, but this guy disagrees. I haven't the faintest idea if it cleanses you out, but you get an awful lot of bad-smelling farts, stinky sweat and even bad breath during the fast.
There seem to be some excellent mood and anxiety changes with juice fasting.
You can exercise on a juice fast. I have done up to 45-55 minutes on an exercise bike, but I rode pretty darn slow. One problem with exercising is that you will feel very tired, so it's hard to do the exercising, but you can just go slow. Also, recently I rode my bike without the TV on. I just listened to reggae music and it was ok!
I've been doing juice fasting off and on for a while now and I have lost about 12 pounds, so that is quite nice.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
A Little Black In All of Us
Well, not quite, but sort of.
At least in many Mediterranean types and other Europeans, White Americans, North Africans and Arabs.
Let's take a look.
The link is dead now, but from this dead link:
* I had to recalculate the % because my Yemeni #'s were wrong. It appeared that all of my #'s were for the mother's side only, and the father's side seems to have been only 4%. We add them together and divide by two, or obtain a medium between the larger mtDNA # and the smaller Y-chromosome #, which I put at 4% for Yemenis, 1% for Iraqis and 0% for everyone else.
Another study showed Black Y-DNA: Palestinians, 10.3%, UAE, 7.3% and Bedouins, 3.6%. Those figures were averaged into the above.
Jordanian Bedouins. These people are 4.3% Black. The fellow on the left seems to have some Black features, but the man on the right has very Caucasian features. Dark skin, as with the Syrian woman below, may just be a melanin adaptation to a hot clime as opposed to a legacy of Black genes.
This group, the Bedouins, appears to be a very ancient Caucasian group, though I can't seem to prove it - it's just a hunch of mine. They are on the borders genetically between Blacks and Caucasians, along with Yemenis, Arabians, Berbers, Algerians, the Beja, and Nubians.
Ethiopians are in there too somewhere, but they are clearly into the Black category, although they are best thought of as an intermediate group between Blacks and Caucasians. Bedouins are one of the most divergent genetic groups in the Caucasian race. Bedouins are the original Jordanians, and they still run the state. 70% of Jordan is Palestinian, but they don't control the state, probably by Zionist-imperialist design.
In the Arab World, or at least in the Gulf, most of the Black genes seem to have come in on the mother's side. This implies that Arab men were having sex with Black slave girls, given the normative Black-Arab relationship of slave-master in the Gulf for far too long. There is much less Black paternal DNA, which means that Black slaves were not having sex with that many Arab women.
A very dark-skinned, yet nevertheless very Caucasian-looking Syrian woman. Syrians are about 5% Black, but as we can see in the case of Sicilians (5.5% Black), that's usually not enough to effect the phenotype much. Some of these dark-skinned Arabs may have just layered on a lot of melanin due to evolving in a hot climate.
All of the links to the relevant journal articles are dead too, but if anyone wants to track them down, here they are: link, link and link.
A Yemeni man. We have Yemenis near where I live; they run the local stores. They are clearly a mostly-Caucasian people, but they do have about 19% Black admixture. This fellow looks sort of Greek or Berber or possibly like someone from the Caucasus.
This is a very ancient region, and Yemen is probably where the first people came out of Africa. It is surely where the first proto-Caucasians left Africa also. There are still some Negritos here in the Mahra region who are probably the remnants of the original humans that left Africa 70,000 years ago. They are called Black Yemenis, and are treated horribly by the Arabs.
There is a high value put on whiteness in Yemen. A young man who works at the local market tells me that he hates summer because he turns so dark from the sun. In Yemen, dark is bad, White is good. I try to tell him that he lives in Mexifornia now and Brown is the new White, but I'm not sure if he believes me.
These guys forbid their women from working and their Mom chooses a future wife for them. Mixing between the sexes outside of marriage is strictly forbidden. Some of the young women have abandoned the hijab, but they're hardly liberated.
There's no trouble at all from these Yemenis or from the sizable Palestinian population nearby. In fact, they are a Hell of a lot better behaved than the local Hispanics, and the IQ's of Iraq and Palestine are quite a bit below US Hispanics.
Surely there is more to acting civilized and having good morals and manners than IQ. I really like these Yemeni guys; they are a lot of fun. Good people all around.
Since the links are dead, I'm open to anyone who wants to research this issue further.
Abir Aramin, a Palestinian. I assume this is a girl? Anyway, Palestinians are 8.8% Black. As you can see, they vary widely, and many look as Whites as any European. This phenotype could easily be Italian or Turkish, but actually, I am thinking that a better description is the people of the Caucasus such as Dagestanis and Chechens. That White nationalists insist that people like Abir are "non-Whites" is utterly insane.
Spaniards and Portuguese are about 4% Black on average. This is horribly upsetting to White nationalists, but right now, I wish to trade about 20,000 Mesoamericans in my town for 20,000 Iberians, thank you very much. How bad could they be? We already have them here in this town - they are called the White Mexicans, and they are a profoundly well-behaved elite. These people are bad just why now, oh big White Man?
Arabs are in serious denial about their Black heritage, and this is a real sore issue with them, so don't try to bring it up. Some Arabs take great pride in being White and many others could care less. In Yemen, lighter skin is much prized and darker skin is not good.
I looked an older Yemeni man I know straight in the eye recently and said, "You guys are White, just like me," and watch his smile light up the heavens (We were discussing the Negritos that supposedly live in the Mahra region of Yemen).
Check out Rashida Jones - 35% Black. Even at 1/3 Black, a lot of people hardly show any Black phenotype. This woman is 65% White and 35% Black. If you are going to classify folks by race, you may as well do it on a phenotypical basis, if nothing else.
Her phenotype is White Caucasian, even though she is a mixed-race person. What's hilarious is that every White nationalist around would say she's White until they were told of her actual ancestry, at which point, they would insist that she's "non-White". She look "non-White" to you?
US Blacks are virtually another race apart from Africans, so it is about time we quit conflating the two of them. US Blacks are 3% Amerindian and 17.5% White, or 20.5% non-Black, and that is on average. Almost all US Blacks have some White in them.
A group was found recently in the Deep South who were lumberjacks in a logging town. Some of these Blacks had a reputation for being very Black. The study found that they were only 5% White on average. The Gullas on the SE Coast are another very Black group that is only about 3.5% White.
Pure Black US Blacks who did not recently come from Africa are probably quite rare to nonexistent.
Some US Blacks are actually proud of their White heritage. A Black woman who is over here a lot sure is. She is a Cajun, and takes great pains to let me know. "These Blacks around here are too...niggerish!" she exclaims as we ride in the car. I am shocked but not surprised.
Some US Blacks are Whiter than others: Louisianans (the Cajuns above) are 22% White, and West Coast Blacks are 26% White. Southern Blacks are 12% White.
There was no epidemic of slave masters have sex with slaves. Only a few White Southerners mated with Black females. Instead, through US history, about 3% of Black women each generation (that means about 1 Black woman out of 33 ) bore part-White babies over a period of 300 years, at about the same rate. The miscegenation occurred over a very long period.
There was probably very little Black male - White female mating until recently.
Prior data suggested that US Blacks were 30% White, but those studies were poorly done. Shriver's study is much better.
North Africa is definitely part-Black. From a dead link once again:
The first six are mostly-White (the next two only barely) but the last, Tauregs, are mostly Black, looking similar to US Blacks.
Mauritanians and Sahelians are similar to Ethiopians, who are 56% Black and 44% Black on average,
The figures for Black admixture are possibly discouraging to White nationalists, but considering that 90% of them are Nordicists anyway, maybe not:
*These figures include mtDNA only and no Y-DNA, so I set Y-DNA at 0. No doubt the Y-DNA is miniscule to nonexistent.
The Greek figure is very controversial. However, going by autosomal markers that typically show 5% Black DNA in Greeks, I went with that figure. It is true that Y-DNA and mtDNA show much less, but in this post, I am going by the findings that show the largest quantity. I still do not how much Black genes Greeks have in them.
I am confident that Greeks do have quite a bit of Berber, Arab and Phoenician blood in them though, and I am very suspicious of Pontikos Dienekes' (Greek nationalist) work. The other argument, that Greeks have significant Black blood, is here.
These are some classic Greek types - a classic Greek phenotype.
Autosomal studies show that Greeks have ~5% Black genes. That compares well with 5.5% Black genes in Sicilians and 7.4% Black genes in Southern Portuguese and seems about right, however, if you look at the usual stuff, Y-DNA and mtDNA, there is almost nothing there. None of this makes sense.
At that level, we often don't see much Black phenotype, and indeed, in your average Greek and Sicilian, we don't see any Black in them. There is a swarthiness, but keep in mind that all of these three groups also have lots of Berber, Arab and Phoenicians genes too. Further, they probably layered on some melanin in the hot clime.
A Greek nationalist named Dienekes Pontikos, along with a Southern Italian nationalist who runs the Racial Reality site, both of whom I formerly respected, are apparently behind some Net anthro fraud in which they are trying to pass off Greeks and Southern Italians off as some sort of "pure Whites", I guess as a sop to White nationalists, or so they can be White too. They have laid into the Kemp paper and an Internet jihad against it has unfolded.
Unfortunately, there is far more evidence for Black genes in Greeks than a single paper by a guy named Kemp. Indeed, the evidence is quite overwhelming.
Both Racial Reality and Dienekes are generally fine sites, but when it comes to their own ethnic group, the insanity rule of ethnic nationalism applies: ethnic nationalism drives the sanest people completely nuts.
The whole enterprise is absurd. Greeks and Italians are clearly Caucasians and, if you will, Whites. Yes, they have a bit of Black blood in them, but not much. Is this really the end of the world, guys?
An Azeri man from Azerbaijan. These people are actually said to be people from the Caucasus, similar to Armenians and Georgians, who have adopted a Turkish language, rather than being a more Asiatic Turkic. Many Azeris look very European and would hardly be out of place in any European country, even a Northern one. The US is trying to foment an Azeri separatist movement in Iran, but it's not going to go anywhere.
The Iranian regime is disgusting, and bans all languages other than Persian from school, but other than that, most Azeris don't want to leave. For one thing, they run the country. Ahmadinejad, Khomeini, Khatami, Khameini, and most of the top leadership have long been Azeris. It was actually Iranian Azeris who created the Sassanid Shia state that modern Iran is based on back around 1600 and they have been running the show ever since. Why secede? What for?
Azeris are also said to have some Dravidian blood in them, but I would like to see some data on that. Photos of some Dravidian-looking Azeris. These people do not have any Black in them that I am aware of. Maybe future studies will find some.
As you can see, Black admixture in Europeans is concentrated in the Iberian peninsula, and even there, the levels are quite low. At levels like this, we often see no observable Black phenotype at all. I think it is funny that those big, tough German White nationalists have more Black in them than those greasy Calabrians (Southern Italians just to the north of the Sicilian boot) that they despise so much. That's rich!
The truth is that Italians and especially Greeks have quite a bit of Berber, Arab and Phoenician in them, and this for the most part accounts for their darker features. There's not a whole lot of evidence that either group has much Black genes in them.
Note that the European Black %'s are averages. Similarly, we can come up with an average Black admixture for US Whites, but only 30% of Whites have discernible Black admixture. In these Whites, it averages about 1.7%. Hey, White nationalists! Got a little Black in you? Hey, it's not the end of the world.
The father of Ardent, a blogger who runs the interesting Ardent Observations blog and is also an acquaintance of mine. She is of Turkish-Cypriot ancestry and lives in Australia. This is a photo of her father, who left Cyprus as a single young man and hopped a ship to Australia barely knowing a word of English. Some local Turks grabbed him when he landed, got him a job and a place to stay and eventually he raised a family there.
I think it is interesting that he looks as White as any White American around. Actually, he looks like my own father did when he was young. My father is German-French. Ardent notes in the comments section at the end of this post that people used to tell her father that he looked Slavic, but he did not appreciate that, as he was a Muslim, and the Ottomans and Slavs were enemies for centuries.
It's interesting that Turks seem to have one of the lowest Black gene %'s in Europe. Turks are only 1% Black, and furthermore, it is possible that Black genes may only be present in a small percentage of Turks - perhaps as low as 10%. This is notable since Turkey is fairly close to Africa.
But it looks like the whole Anatolian/Caucasus region has received very few Black genes. Black genes made it to Syria and Iraq in the south and to Greece in the West, but seem to have halted there. Germans have 70% more Black genes that Turks have.
Turks are a very interesting people genetically. They are Caucasians, at least according to me anyway, and they can easily be classed as the same European White subrace as Europeans.
Turks don't seem to give a damn if people think they are White or not though, probably due to long-standing hostility between the Muslim Ottomans and Christian Europe. In other words, to be a White Turk is to be the same person as a Christian European, and not only do Turks like to think of themselves as different, but Christian Europe was an enemy for centuries.
Genetically, Turks are on the border between Asians and Caucasians, along with Jews, Georgians, Armenians, Kurds, the Caucasus, Iranians, Afghans, Kazakhs, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Uighurs, the Altai, Mongolians, Northeast Chinese, Koreans and the Chukchi. The Chukchi are an Eskimo-like Asian group living on the Chukchi Peninsula that actually fall into the White section of the major Cavalli-Sforza autosomal markers map.
I call this area the Caucasian-Asian Divide. It runs in a wide swath from about Turkey to Iran, Afghanistan and India, then up through the "Stans" to Western China, Altai and Mongolia, then east to Korea and up to the Chukchi Peninsula and the Bering Straight. On some maps, Amerindians are also close to this Divide.
On many of these same gene maps, Turks and especially Northern Turkics like the Altai are right on the border between Asians and Caucasians, and one nearly has to toss a coin to decide which major race to put Turks in. I put Turks into Caucasians primarily based on phenotype and not for any other good reason.
Some White nationalists say that 30-50% of Turks are "White Turks" (like Ardent's father) and the other 50-70% are the more Asiatic prototypical Turks. I figure your average Turk could care less about a distinction like that, but certainly the fact that almost all White nationalists say that Turks are "non-Whites" is totally insane. Look at Ardent's father and say with a straight face that he's "non-White". Come on. Anyway, genetically, Turks are a most interesting group of people.
There is extensive commentary from Ardent and a light-skinned US Black woman who has spent a lot of time in Turkey about Blacks and Turkey. The Black woman says that Turkey is one of the most Black-friendly countries she has ever lived in. Turks don't seem to have much racism towards Blacks, for whatever reason. She also met an Iranian man who told her that Iran was a quite Black-friendly country too.
Apparently many Turks had Black servants in recent times and in Ottoman times there were many Black slaves in addition to the famous White Circassian Beauties. The female Black slaves were often encouraged to abort when they were made pregnant by a Turk, and the male slaves were often castrated.
She also said some Iraqis were very friendly to her, so prejudice against Blacks is surely not universal in Iraq, and there are Iraqis with obvious Black ancestry in the Shia South. White nationalists like to say that most ethic groups despise Blacks as if it is some sort of a universalism. That's apparently not true in the case of Arabs, Iranians and Turks anyway.
Here is the data that I used to arrive at these conclusions. You're free to go through it if you wish and see if you come up with something similar:
mtDNA data:
Wikipedia mtDNA - Portugal (Madeira Islands) - 13%, Sicily (Sciacca), 11.9%, Southern Italy, 8.1%, Southern Spain, 6.5%, Central Portugal, 6%, Sicily, 5.1%, Southern Portugal, 4.6%, Sardinia, 4.4%, Sicily (Castelammare), 4%, Italy (Apulia), 3.4%, France, 2.9%, Northern Portugal, 2.6%, Rome, 2.2%, Spain, 2.2%, Central Italy, 2%, Tuscany, 2%, Sicily (Ragusa), 2%, Albania, 1.4%, Germans, 1.3%, Slavs (Czechs, Poles, Slovaks, Russians) .4%, Austria, .3%, Britain, .3%.
Most North Africans are 13% Black.
A study by Gonzalez et al. 2003 found L haplogroups at rates of 0.1% in Scotland, 0.4% in England, 0.7% in North Germany, 1.4% in France, 2.9% in Galicia, 2.2% in Northern Portugal, 4.3% in Central Portugal, and 8.6% in Southern Portugal (Alentejo and Algarve)
Note that these figures do not count the L3 lineage, which may be of ancient introduction and so remains ambiguous.
For comparison, sub-Saharan mtDNA runs 21.8% in North Africa.
According to another study by Pereira et al. 2005 sub-Saharan mtDNA L haplogroups were found at rates of 0.62% in a German-Danish sample, 0.94% in Sicilians, 1% in the British/Irish, 2.38% in Albanians, 2.86% in Sardinians. This paper which provides a deeper and more global insight into the African female influence in Iberia shows that the mean frequency reaches 3.83% in Iberians.
The frequency is clearly higher in Portugal (32 sequences in 549 individuals; 5.83% with a high frequency of 11% in southern Portugal) than in Spain (8 out of 496; 1.61% with a higher frequency of 3.26% in Galicia) and without parallel in the rest of Europe.
Y-DNA data: Y-DNA Sub-Saharan African Y-chromosomes are much less common in Europe, for the reasons discussed above. However, Haplogroups E(xE3b) and Haplogroup A spread to Europe due to migrations from Northeast Africa, rather than the slave trade. In some of the data below, E-M35 is included.
The haplotypes have been detected in Northern Portugal, 6%, Sicilians, 5.5%, Albanians in Calabria, 4.4%,Turkish Cypriot, 4.3%, Sardinia, 3.4%, Portugal, 3%, Istanbul Turks, 2.9%, Italy (Calabria), 2.6%, France, 2.5% (in a very small sample), Germany, 2%, Spain (Cantabrian Pasiegos), 1.8%, Southern Spain, 1.6%, Turks, 1%, Corsica, .7%, Austria, .78%, Italy, .45%, Spain, .42% and Greece, .27%.
By contrast, North Africans have about 5% paternal black admixture.
James Schipper comments in the comments section: If only 1 out of 33 black women per generation was impregnated by a white male, then only about 1 out 33 x 7 = 231 white males per generation impregnated a black woman. So much for the argument that lots of white men were having sex with black females.
You know that it is the dose that makes the poison. To paraphrase that, it is the admixture that determines the classification. Let's take 5 mixtures of beer and wine. A is 96% wine and 4% beer, B is 70% wine and 30% beer, C is 50/50, D is 30% wine and 70% beer and E is 4% wine and 96% beer. There should be no harm in calling A wine and E beer.
Likewise, calling the Portuguese Whites despite their black admixture of about 4% makes perfect sense. The one drop of blood rule is good only for homeopaths.
Let's use an analogy. We don't call German a Latin language even though maybe 5% of German vocabulary is of Latin origin. Some of these words may look German. For instance, schreiben = write comes from the Latin scribere. Conversely, Spanish is called a Latin language although certainly less than 100% of its vocabulary is of Latin origin.
He is surely correct. One of the main reasons that any kind of White nationalist movement is doomed to fail in the US is due to the WN's insane failure to include Iberians, Italians, Serbs, etc.
The number of WN's who insist that Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians, Greeks and Serbs are not White is very large, and it usually seems like a large majority on most forums. WN deserves to fail anyway because it's nothing but racist bullshit, but this will just insure its grave for sure.
Now, the sort of race realism that Fred on Everything is pushing is usually completely sane and is likely to go over well. Further, it's possible that his POV is largely devoid of anything that can meaningfully be called racism. He used to ride along with big city cops a lot, so he knows the inner city very well. He's got some very interesting arguments about what do about the public schools.
He lives in Mexico and apparently loves Mexicans just fine. He thinks it's really stupid to let them swarm in here by the millions. Fred notes that in Mexico, the illegals are considered the least desirable elements of that society. I am not sure what Fred means by that, but you can use your imagination.
The whole idea of immigration is to pick the cream of the crop. There's a possibility that we are doing the opposite with regard to Mesoamerican mass illegal immigration.
WN's have turned their back on Fred, apparently because he married a Mexican woman! That makes him a race traitor in their lunatic eyes. So you can see right now that with built-in faults like that, this is a doomed movement.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
At least in many Mediterranean types and other Europeans, White Americans, North Africans and Arabs.
Let's take a look.
The link is dead now, but from this dead link:
Middle Eastern/Arab Group Black %
Iraq (Jews) 0.0%
Iran (Jews) 0.0%
Sephardic Jews 0.0%
Yemen (Jews) *4.0%
Bedouin 4.3%
Iraqis *4.5%
Syrians 5.0%
Jordanians *7.0%
Palestinians 8.8%
UAE 11.1%
Saudis *13.5%
Omanis 16.0%
Qataris *16.0%
Yemenis (Sana) *17.5%
Yemenis (Hadramawt) 19.0%
* I had to recalculate the % because my Yemeni #'s were wrong. It appeared that all of my #'s were for the mother's side only, and the father's side seems to have been only 4%. We add them together and divide by two, or obtain a medium between the larger mtDNA # and the smaller Y-chromosome #, which I put at 4% for Yemenis, 1% for Iraqis and 0% for everyone else.
Another study showed Black Y-DNA: Palestinians, 10.3%, UAE, 7.3% and Bedouins, 3.6%. Those figures were averaged into the above.
Jordanian Bedouins. These people are 4.3% Black. The fellow on the left seems to have some Black features, but the man on the right has very Caucasian features. Dark skin, as with the Syrian woman below, may just be a melanin adaptation to a hot clime as opposed to a legacy of Black genes.This group, the Bedouins, appears to be a very ancient Caucasian group, though I can't seem to prove it - it's just a hunch of mine. They are on the borders genetically between Blacks and Caucasians, along with Yemenis, Arabians, Berbers, Algerians, the Beja, and Nubians.
Ethiopians are in there too somewhere, but they are clearly into the Black category, although they are best thought of as an intermediate group between Blacks and Caucasians. Bedouins are one of the most divergent genetic groups in the Caucasian race. Bedouins are the original Jordanians, and they still run the state. 70% of Jordan is Palestinian, but they don't control the state, probably by Zionist-imperialist design.
In the Arab World, or at least in the Gulf, most of the Black genes seem to have come in on the mother's side. This implies that Arab men were having sex with Black slave girls, given the normative Black-Arab relationship of slave-master in the Gulf for far too long. There is much less Black paternal DNA, which means that Black slaves were not having sex with that many Arab women.
A very dark-skinned, yet nevertheless very Caucasian-looking Syrian woman. Syrians are about 5% Black, but as we can see in the case of Sicilians (5.5% Black), that's usually not enough to effect the phenotype much. Some of these dark-skinned Arabs may have just layered on a lot of melanin due to evolving in a hot climate.All of the links to the relevant journal articles are dead too, but if anyone wants to track them down, here they are: link, link and link.
A Yemeni man. We have Yemenis near where I live; they run the local stores. They are clearly a mostly-Caucasian people, but they do have about 19% Black admixture. This fellow looks sort of Greek or Berber or possibly like someone from the Caucasus.This is a very ancient region, and Yemen is probably where the first people came out of Africa. It is surely where the first proto-Caucasians left Africa also. There are still some Negritos here in the Mahra region who are probably the remnants of the original humans that left Africa 70,000 years ago. They are called Black Yemenis, and are treated horribly by the Arabs.
There is a high value put on whiteness in Yemen. A young man who works at the local market tells me that he hates summer because he turns so dark from the sun. In Yemen, dark is bad, White is good. I try to tell him that he lives in Mexifornia now and Brown is the new White, but I'm not sure if he believes me.
These guys forbid their women from working and their Mom chooses a future wife for them. Mixing between the sexes outside of marriage is strictly forbidden. Some of the young women have abandoned the hijab, but they're hardly liberated.
There's no trouble at all from these Yemenis or from the sizable Palestinian population nearby. In fact, they are a Hell of a lot better behaved than the local Hispanics, and the IQ's of Iraq and Palestine are quite a bit below US Hispanics.
Surely there is more to acting civilized and having good morals and manners than IQ. I really like these Yemeni guys; they are a lot of fun. Good people all around.
Since the links are dead, I'm open to anyone who wants to research this issue further.
Abir Aramin, a Palestinian. I assume this is a girl? Anyway, Palestinians are 8.8% Black. As you can see, they vary widely, and many look as Whites as any European. This phenotype could easily be Italian or Turkish, but actually, I am thinking that a better description is the people of the Caucasus such as Dagestanis and Chechens. That White nationalists insist that people like Abir are "non-Whites" is utterly insane.Spaniards and Portuguese are about 4% Black on average. This is horribly upsetting to White nationalists, but right now, I wish to trade about 20,000 Mesoamericans in my town for 20,000 Iberians, thank you very much. How bad could they be? We already have them here in this town - they are called the White Mexicans, and they are a profoundly well-behaved elite. These people are bad just why now, oh big White Man?
Arabs are in serious denial about their Black heritage, and this is a real sore issue with them, so don't try to bring it up. Some Arabs take great pride in being White and many others could care less. In Yemen, lighter skin is much prized and darker skin is not good.
I looked an older Yemeni man I know straight in the eye recently and said, "You guys are White, just like me," and watch his smile light up the heavens (We were discussing the Negritos that supposedly live in the Mahra region of Yemen).
Check out Rashida Jones - 35% Black. Even at 1/3 Black, a lot of people hardly show any Black phenotype. This woman is 65% White and 35% Black. If you are going to classify folks by race, you may as well do it on a phenotypical basis, if nothing else.
Her phenotype is White Caucasian, even though she is a mixed-race person. What's hilarious is that every White nationalist around would say she's White until they were told of her actual ancestry, at which point, they would insist that she's "non-White". She look "non-White" to you?
US Blacks are virtually another race apart from Africans, so it is about time we quit conflating the two of them. US Blacks are 3% Amerindian and 17.5% White, or 20.5% non-Black, and that is on average. Almost all US Blacks have some White in them.
A group was found recently in the Deep South who were lumberjacks in a logging town. Some of these Blacks had a reputation for being very Black. The study found that they were only 5% White on average. The Gullas on the SE Coast are another very Black group that is only about 3.5% White.
Pure Black US Blacks who did not recently come from Africa are probably quite rare to nonexistent.
Some US Blacks are actually proud of their White heritage. A Black woman who is over here a lot sure is. She is a Cajun, and takes great pains to let me know. "These Blacks around here are too...niggerish!" she exclaims as we ride in the car. I am shocked but not surprised.
Some US Blacks are Whiter than others: Louisianans (the Cajuns above) are 22% White, and West Coast Blacks are 26% White. Southern Blacks are 12% White.
There was no epidemic of slave masters have sex with slaves. Only a few White Southerners mated with Black females. Instead, through US history, about 3% of Black women each generation (that means about 1 Black woman out of 33 ) bore part-White babies over a period of 300 years, at about the same rate. The miscegenation occurred over a very long period.
There was probably very little Black male - White female mating until recently.
Prior data suggested that US Blacks were 30% White, but those studies were poorly done. Shriver's study is much better.
North Africa is definitely part-Black. From a dead link once again:
North African Group Black %
Algerian Kabilyes 1.5%
Moroccan Berbers 5%
Algerian Berbers 10%
Moroccan Arabs 13%
North African average 13%
Mauritanians 44%
Sahelians 44%
Tauregs 82%
The first six are mostly-White (the next two only barely) but the last, Tauregs, are mostly Black, looking similar to US Blacks.
Mauritanians and Sahelians are similar to Ethiopians, who are 56% Black and 44% Black on average,
The figures for Black admixture are possibly discouraging to White nationalists, but considering that 90% of them are Nordicists anyway, maybe not:
European/Eurasian Group Black %
Georgia (Jews) 0%
Kurdish Jews 0%
Ashkenazi Jews 0%
Azerbaijan 0%
Armenia 0%
Georgia 0%
Nogay .2%
Russia *0.2%
Poland *0.2%
Slovakia *0.2%
Czechoslovakia *0.2%
Corsica 0.4%
Northern Italy 0.5%
Austria 0.5%
Turkey 0.5%
Britain 0.7%
Central Italy 0.8%
Italy (Tuscany) 1.2%
Turkey (Istanbul) 1.4%
Italy (Calabria) 1.5%
Germany 1.7%
Italy (Apulia) 1.9%
France 2.0%
Spain (Cantabrian Pasiegos) 2.0%
Kurds 2.0%
Italy average 2.1%
Albania 2.1%
Cyprus (Turk) 2.1%
Spain average 2.2%
Corsica 2.3%
Spain (Galicia) 2.5%
Iberian average 2.7%
Central Portugal 3.6%
Sicily (Ragusa) 3.7%
Italy (Sardinia) 3.9%
Italy (Calabrian Albanians) 4.1%
Southern Spain 4.1%
Southern Italy 4.2%
Sicily (Castelammare) 4.2%
Northern Portugal 4.3%
Portugal average 4.4%
Central Portugal 4.5%
Greece 5.0%
Italy (Sicily) 5.3%
S. Portugal (Alentejo-Algarve) 5.8%
Portugal (Madeira Islands) 6.5%
Southern Portugal average 7.4%
Sicily (Sciacca) 8.7%
*These figures include mtDNA only and no Y-DNA, so I set Y-DNA at 0. No doubt the Y-DNA is miniscule to nonexistent.
The Greek figure is very controversial. However, going by autosomal markers that typically show 5% Black DNA in Greeks, I went with that figure. It is true that Y-DNA and mtDNA show much less, but in this post, I am going by the findings that show the largest quantity. I still do not how much Black genes Greeks have in them.
I am confident that Greeks do have quite a bit of Berber, Arab and Phoenician blood in them though, and I am very suspicious of Pontikos Dienekes' (Greek nationalist) work. The other argument, that Greeks have significant Black blood, is here.
These are some classic Greek types - a classic Greek phenotype.Autosomal studies show that Greeks have ~5% Black genes. That compares well with 5.5% Black genes in Sicilians and 7.4% Black genes in Southern Portuguese and seems about right, however, if you look at the usual stuff, Y-DNA and mtDNA, there is almost nothing there. None of this makes sense.
At that level, we often don't see much Black phenotype, and indeed, in your average Greek and Sicilian, we don't see any Black in them. There is a swarthiness, but keep in mind that all of these three groups also have lots of Berber, Arab and Phoenicians genes too. Further, they probably layered on some melanin in the hot clime.
A Greek nationalist named Dienekes Pontikos, along with a Southern Italian nationalist who runs the Racial Reality site, both of whom I formerly respected, are apparently behind some Net anthro fraud in which they are trying to pass off Greeks and Southern Italians off as some sort of "pure Whites", I guess as a sop to White nationalists, or so they can be White too. They have laid into the Kemp paper and an Internet jihad against it has unfolded.
Unfortunately, there is far more evidence for Black genes in Greeks than a single paper by a guy named Kemp. Indeed, the evidence is quite overwhelming.
Both Racial Reality and Dienekes are generally fine sites, but when it comes to their own ethnic group, the insanity rule of ethnic nationalism applies: ethnic nationalism drives the sanest people completely nuts.
The whole enterprise is absurd. Greeks and Italians are clearly Caucasians and, if you will, Whites. Yes, they have a bit of Black blood in them, but not much. Is this really the end of the world, guys?
An Azeri man from Azerbaijan. These people are actually said to be people from the Caucasus, similar to Armenians and Georgians, who have adopted a Turkish language, rather than being a more Asiatic Turkic. Many Azeris look very European and would hardly be out of place in any European country, even a Northern one. The US is trying to foment an Azeri separatist movement in Iran, but it's not going to go anywhere.The Iranian regime is disgusting, and bans all languages other than Persian from school, but other than that, most Azeris don't want to leave. For one thing, they run the country. Ahmadinejad, Khomeini, Khatami, Khameini, and most of the top leadership have long been Azeris. It was actually Iranian Azeris who created the Sassanid Shia state that modern Iran is based on back around 1600 and they have been running the show ever since. Why secede? What for?
Azeris are also said to have some Dravidian blood in them, but I would like to see some data on that. Photos of some Dravidian-looking Azeris. These people do not have any Black in them that I am aware of. Maybe future studies will find some.
As you can see, Black admixture in Europeans is concentrated in the Iberian peninsula, and even there, the levels are quite low. At levels like this, we often see no observable Black phenotype at all. I think it is funny that those big, tough German White nationalists have more Black in them than those greasy Calabrians (Southern Italians just to the north of the Sicilian boot) that they despise so much. That's rich!
The truth is that Italians and especially Greeks have quite a bit of Berber, Arab and Phoenician in them, and this for the most part accounts for their darker features. There's not a whole lot of evidence that either group has much Black genes in them.
Note that the European Black %'s are averages. Similarly, we can come up with an average Black admixture for US Whites, but only 30% of Whites have discernible Black admixture. In these Whites, it averages about 1.7%. Hey, White nationalists! Got a little Black in you? Hey, it's not the end of the world.
The father of Ardent, a blogger who runs the interesting Ardent Observations blog and is also an acquaintance of mine. She is of Turkish-Cypriot ancestry and lives in Australia. This is a photo of her father, who left Cyprus as a single young man and hopped a ship to Australia barely knowing a word of English. Some local Turks grabbed him when he landed, got him a job and a place to stay and eventually he raised a family there.I think it is interesting that he looks as White as any White American around. Actually, he looks like my own father did when he was young. My father is German-French. Ardent notes in the comments section at the end of this post that people used to tell her father that he looked Slavic, but he did not appreciate that, as he was a Muslim, and the Ottomans and Slavs were enemies for centuries.
It's interesting that Turks seem to have one of the lowest Black gene %'s in Europe. Turks are only 1% Black, and furthermore, it is possible that Black genes may only be present in a small percentage of Turks - perhaps as low as 10%. This is notable since Turkey is fairly close to Africa.
But it looks like the whole Anatolian/Caucasus region has received very few Black genes. Black genes made it to Syria and Iraq in the south and to Greece in the West, but seem to have halted there. Germans have 70% more Black genes that Turks have.
Turks are a very interesting people genetically. They are Caucasians, at least according to me anyway, and they can easily be classed as the same European White subrace as Europeans.
Turks don't seem to give a damn if people think they are White or not though, probably due to long-standing hostility between the Muslim Ottomans and Christian Europe. In other words, to be a White Turk is to be the same person as a Christian European, and not only do Turks like to think of themselves as different, but Christian Europe was an enemy for centuries.
Genetically, Turks are on the border between Asians and Caucasians, along with Jews, Georgians, Armenians, Kurds, the Caucasus, Iranians, Afghans, Kazakhs, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Uighurs, the Altai, Mongolians, Northeast Chinese, Koreans and the Chukchi. The Chukchi are an Eskimo-like Asian group living on the Chukchi Peninsula that actually fall into the White section of the major Cavalli-Sforza autosomal markers map.
I call this area the Caucasian-Asian Divide. It runs in a wide swath from about Turkey to Iran, Afghanistan and India, then up through the "Stans" to Western China, Altai and Mongolia, then east to Korea and up to the Chukchi Peninsula and the Bering Straight. On some maps, Amerindians are also close to this Divide.
On many of these same gene maps, Turks and especially Northern Turkics like the Altai are right on the border between Asians and Caucasians, and one nearly has to toss a coin to decide which major race to put Turks in. I put Turks into Caucasians primarily based on phenotype and not for any other good reason.
Some White nationalists say that 30-50% of Turks are "White Turks" (like Ardent's father) and the other 50-70% are the more Asiatic prototypical Turks. I figure your average Turk could care less about a distinction like that, but certainly the fact that almost all White nationalists say that Turks are "non-Whites" is totally insane. Look at Ardent's father and say with a straight face that he's "non-White". Come on. Anyway, genetically, Turks are a most interesting group of people.
There is extensive commentary from Ardent and a light-skinned US Black woman who has spent a lot of time in Turkey about Blacks and Turkey. The Black woman says that Turkey is one of the most Black-friendly countries she has ever lived in. Turks don't seem to have much racism towards Blacks, for whatever reason. She also met an Iranian man who told her that Iran was a quite Black-friendly country too.
Apparently many Turks had Black servants in recent times and in Ottoman times there were many Black slaves in addition to the famous White Circassian Beauties. The female Black slaves were often encouraged to abort when they were made pregnant by a Turk, and the male slaves were often castrated.
She also said some Iraqis were very friendly to her, so prejudice against Blacks is surely not universal in Iraq, and there are Iraqis with obvious Black ancestry in the Shia South. White nationalists like to say that most ethic groups despise Blacks as if it is some sort of a universalism. That's apparently not true in the case of Arabs, Iranians and Turks anyway.
Here is the data that I used to arrive at these conclusions. You're free to go through it if you wish and see if you come up with something similar:
mtDNA data:
Wikipedia mtDNA - Portugal (Madeira Islands) - 13%, Sicily (Sciacca), 11.9%, Southern Italy, 8.1%, Southern Spain, 6.5%, Central Portugal, 6%, Sicily, 5.1%, Southern Portugal, 4.6%, Sardinia, 4.4%, Sicily (Castelammare), 4%, Italy (Apulia), 3.4%, France, 2.9%, Northern Portugal, 2.6%, Rome, 2.2%, Spain, 2.2%, Central Italy, 2%, Tuscany, 2%, Sicily (Ragusa), 2%, Albania, 1.4%, Germans, 1.3%, Slavs (Czechs, Poles, Slovaks, Russians) .4%, Austria, .3%, Britain, .3%.
Most North Africans are 13% Black.
A study by Gonzalez et al. 2003 found L haplogroups at rates of 0.1% in Scotland, 0.4% in England, 0.7% in North Germany, 1.4% in France, 2.9% in Galicia, 2.2% in Northern Portugal, 4.3% in Central Portugal, and 8.6% in Southern Portugal (Alentejo and Algarve)
Note that these figures do not count the L3 lineage, which may be of ancient introduction and so remains ambiguous.
For comparison, sub-Saharan mtDNA runs 21.8% in North Africa.
According to another study by Pereira et al. 2005 sub-Saharan mtDNA L haplogroups were found at rates of 0.62% in a German-Danish sample, 0.94% in Sicilians, 1% in the British/Irish, 2.38% in Albanians, 2.86% in Sardinians. This paper which provides a deeper and more global insight into the African female influence in Iberia shows that the mean frequency reaches 3.83% in Iberians.
The frequency is clearly higher in Portugal (32 sequences in 549 individuals; 5.83% with a high frequency of 11% in southern Portugal) than in Spain (8 out of 496; 1.61% with a higher frequency of 3.26% in Galicia) and without parallel in the rest of Europe.
Y-DNA data: Y-DNA Sub-Saharan African Y-chromosomes are much less common in Europe, for the reasons discussed above. However, Haplogroups E(xE3b) and Haplogroup A spread to Europe due to migrations from Northeast Africa, rather than the slave trade. In some of the data below, E-M35 is included.
The haplotypes have been detected in Northern Portugal, 6%, Sicilians, 5.5%, Albanians in Calabria, 4.4%,Turkish Cypriot, 4.3%, Sardinia, 3.4%, Portugal, 3%, Istanbul Turks, 2.9%, Italy (Calabria), 2.6%, France, 2.5% (in a very small sample), Germany, 2%, Spain (Cantabrian Pasiegos), 1.8%, Southern Spain, 1.6%, Turks, 1%, Corsica, .7%, Austria, .78%, Italy, .45%, Spain, .42% and Greece, .27%.
By contrast, North Africans have about 5% paternal black admixture.
James Schipper comments in the comments section: If only 1 out of 33 black women per generation was impregnated by a white male, then only about 1 out 33 x 7 = 231 white males per generation impregnated a black woman. So much for the argument that lots of white men were having sex with black females.
You know that it is the dose that makes the poison. To paraphrase that, it is the admixture that determines the classification. Let's take 5 mixtures of beer and wine. A is 96% wine and 4% beer, B is 70% wine and 30% beer, C is 50/50, D is 30% wine and 70% beer and E is 4% wine and 96% beer. There should be no harm in calling A wine and E beer.
Likewise, calling the Portuguese Whites despite their black admixture of about 4% makes perfect sense. The one drop of blood rule is good only for homeopaths.
Let's use an analogy. We don't call German a Latin language even though maybe 5% of German vocabulary is of Latin origin. Some of these words may look German. For instance, schreiben = write comes from the Latin scribere. Conversely, Spanish is called a Latin language although certainly less than 100% of its vocabulary is of Latin origin.
He is surely correct. One of the main reasons that any kind of White nationalist movement is doomed to fail in the US is due to the WN's insane failure to include Iberians, Italians, Serbs, etc.
The number of WN's who insist that Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians, Greeks and Serbs are not White is very large, and it usually seems like a large majority on most forums. WN deserves to fail anyway because it's nothing but racist bullshit, but this will just insure its grave for sure.
Now, the sort of race realism that Fred on Everything is pushing is usually completely sane and is likely to go over well. Further, it's possible that his POV is largely devoid of anything that can meaningfully be called racism. He used to ride along with big city cops a lot, so he knows the inner city very well. He's got some very interesting arguments about what do about the public schools.
He lives in Mexico and apparently loves Mexicans just fine. He thinks it's really stupid to let them swarm in here by the millions. Fred notes that in Mexico, the illegals are considered the least desirable elements of that society. I am not sure what Fred means by that, but you can use your imagination.
The whole idea of immigration is to pick the cream of the crop. There's a possibility that we are doing the opposite with regard to Mesoamerican mass illegal immigration.
WN's have turned their back on Fred, apparently because he married a Mexican woman! That makes him a race traitor in their lunatic eyes. So you can see right now that with built-in faults like that, this is a doomed movement.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Sick Flick Marathon
I don't really know why, but I have just watched a bunch of really sick videos here one after the other. Some I watched with people right next to me, and others I just watched alone. I'm not sure if it is better to have the comfort of another human being close by or not when you are watching this sort of stuff. Part of it I did on a dare.
Normally, I mostly do not watch this stuff, but I have gotten into watching reaction videos lately, just to check out the brief glimpse of another human being you see when they are watching something really sick, wrong and gross.
It's a waste of time, but compared to the usual wastes of time most people engage in nowadays, I think it's actually a good waste of time, especially if you watch the person having the reaction, figure out their age and try to imagine their life, social situation and get a glimpse into their personality.
It's got to be better than listening the same gangsta rap video playing over and over, which is what passes for fun around this Endless Party house way too often.
Pussy Zapper, Bored Dykes, Mrs. Hands, Mr. Hands (this idiot died making this video, which serves him right if you ask me), BME Pain Olympics (I always swore that there was no way on Earth that I would ever watch this, but I finally did, with company no less, and I handled it), Poo Button, 4 Girls Fingerpaint, 1 Girl 1 Pitcher, 8 Girls No Cup, you know, it pretty much goes on and on.
Some of the mudwomen ones out of Brazil are said to be sort of fake, at least the mud part that is. And if you can't decipher that sentence, I can't help you.
I'm not gonna link to any of this awful stuff; you can just go look it up if you want.
I can't watch anymore beheading vids. I watched Nick Berg's (twice and that was it) and Kim Sun Il's and I said never again. Those two are the worst beheadings I have ever seen. I've seen my own many times, but then I'm kind of used to that one.
I'm worried about my numb reaction to this stuff. As long as I don't commit any seriously irrational and illegal dangerous acts, I guess I am ok, but I am still wondering how I even got to such an unfeeling state in the first place.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Normally, I mostly do not watch this stuff, but I have gotten into watching reaction videos lately, just to check out the brief glimpse of another human being you see when they are watching something really sick, wrong and gross.
It's a waste of time, but compared to the usual wastes of time most people engage in nowadays, I think it's actually a good waste of time, especially if you watch the person having the reaction, figure out their age and try to imagine their life, social situation and get a glimpse into their personality.
It's got to be better than listening the same gangsta rap video playing over and over, which is what passes for fun around this Endless Party house way too often.
Pussy Zapper, Bored Dykes, Mrs. Hands, Mr. Hands (this idiot died making this video, which serves him right if you ask me), BME Pain Olympics (I always swore that there was no way on Earth that I would ever watch this, but I finally did, with company no less, and I handled it), Poo Button, 4 Girls Fingerpaint, 1 Girl 1 Pitcher, 8 Girls No Cup, you know, it pretty much goes on and on.
Some of the mudwomen ones out of Brazil are said to be sort of fake, at least the mud part that is. And if you can't decipher that sentence, I can't help you.
I'm not gonna link to any of this awful stuff; you can just go look it up if you want.
I can't watch anymore beheading vids. I watched Nick Berg's (twice and that was it) and Kim Sun Il's and I said never again. Those two are the worst beheadings I have ever seen. I've seen my own many times, but then I'm kind of used to that one.
I'm worried about my numb reaction to this stuff. As long as I don't commit any seriously irrational and illegal dangerous acts, I guess I am ok, but I am still wondering how I even got to such an unfeeling state in the first place.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Prophets Shouting in the Wilderness
From some responses to a post of mine, More Illegal Immigration Madness. I'm amazed at how apathetic the rest of the country is about this Mesoamerican mass illegal immigration that has swamped us in the Southwest.
Some of us, like me, are angry at those who say, "No big deal, let them all in," while they live in places in which few illegals have yet swarmed. So we do take a bit of shaudenfruede enjoyment out of the near future that you all will be experiencing in the next 20 years or sooner, assuming you live that long and still live in the Lower 48.
What's truly sick is that to remark on this idiocy of mass invasion by what amounts to an occupying army of enemy soldiers in any way is considered to be grotesque racism, and an example of White Power, Nazi or White Supremacist tendencies (!).
The Mexicans run the show around here and they police things very well. If they think you are a White Power, excuse me, an opponent of illegal Mexican mass invasion, then they will shun you, glare at you, spit at you, threaten you, bang things and make loud noises until you move away, threaten to beat you up, try to ban you from their establishments, on and on.
If you mention illegals in public, the Hispanics all start glaring at you and your friends start kicking you and ordering you threateningly to shut up. People are actually scared of the illegals here.
They are like a teeming Latin American Underclass in a revolutionary situation south of the border, and one gets the feeling that they could take up guerrilla warfare of some sort of another at any time, just like in a non-US banana republic.
In some ways, maybe they already have.
Funny thing is Mexicans are pretty damn racist themselves and they are incredibly ethnocentric. You know, those handy little caveman weapons that come in handy during the sort of Hispanic-non-Hispanic ethnic warfare that we currently live under. On the contrary, if one hates being invaded like this, it's a sign that they still have a bit of sanity left and haven't drunken too much of the multicultural Koolaid yet.
There's no space at all on the Left or in the Democratic Party for views like those below, and that has to be the biggest tragedy of them all. Way to go, concede more space to the Right.
Neither of these posters is the slightest bit racist, I am convinced. Or if they are, I don't care anymore. There's really no other sane way to react in this situation.
Real America, from Winnetka, California shouts in the wilderness:
Wait until you people in states other than California see what it is really like to live in a Mexican city in the former United States. Your co-workers will be speaking Spanish, not English, and receiving food stamps even though they earn as much as you, while you will be called racist for speaking your mind on anything that offends anyone Hispanic.
Your children will be sidetracked in school, and the little gang-mentality foreigners will cause you and your children grief and money. When you have a fender bender, you will find that the person that hit you has no insurance and does not speak English (conveniently) and the court will refuse to do anything about it. California is now a horrible place to live, and it won't be long until all of America is like California.
Transplanted Texan, Sun City, CA, howls back, coyote-like: Gee, I believe they are starting to get the picture. The best is yet to come, sorry to say. They will grow accustomed to living in a 3rd World culture. Gangs, Mexican graffiti on all the fences, walls, schools, etc. Oh, and the daily drive-by shootings, murders, thefts and threats to their children at school. Just to name a few treats to come.
Whatever it takes, Mexico's chief export, narcotics, will play a part in their lives. Murdered police officers, drug dealers, wars. Our country is in such trouble, we all need to pray for what is still our county and the generations of Americans to come.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Some of us, like me, are angry at those who say, "No big deal, let them all in," while they live in places in which few illegals have yet swarmed. So we do take a bit of shaudenfruede enjoyment out of the near future that you all will be experiencing in the next 20 years or sooner, assuming you live that long and still live in the Lower 48.
What's truly sick is that to remark on this idiocy of mass invasion by what amounts to an occupying army of enemy soldiers in any way is considered to be grotesque racism, and an example of White Power, Nazi or White Supremacist tendencies (!).
The Mexicans run the show around here and they police things very well. If they think you are a White Power, excuse me, an opponent of illegal Mexican mass invasion, then they will shun you, glare at you, spit at you, threaten you, bang things and make loud noises until you move away, threaten to beat you up, try to ban you from their establishments, on and on.
If you mention illegals in public, the Hispanics all start glaring at you and your friends start kicking you and ordering you threateningly to shut up. People are actually scared of the illegals here.
They are like a teeming Latin American Underclass in a revolutionary situation south of the border, and one gets the feeling that they could take up guerrilla warfare of some sort of another at any time, just like in a non-US banana republic.
In some ways, maybe they already have.
Funny thing is Mexicans are pretty damn racist themselves and they are incredibly ethnocentric. You know, those handy little caveman weapons that come in handy during the sort of Hispanic-non-Hispanic ethnic warfare that we currently live under. On the contrary, if one hates being invaded like this, it's a sign that they still have a bit of sanity left and haven't drunken too much of the multicultural Koolaid yet.
There's no space at all on the Left or in the Democratic Party for views like those below, and that has to be the biggest tragedy of them all. Way to go, concede more space to the Right.
Neither of these posters is the slightest bit racist, I am convinced. Or if they are, I don't care anymore. There's really no other sane way to react in this situation.
Real America, from Winnetka, California shouts in the wilderness:
Wait until you people in states other than California see what it is really like to live in a Mexican city in the former United States. Your co-workers will be speaking Spanish, not English, and receiving food stamps even though they earn as much as you, while you will be called racist for speaking your mind on anything that offends anyone Hispanic.
Your children will be sidetracked in school, and the little gang-mentality foreigners will cause you and your children grief and money. When you have a fender bender, you will find that the person that hit you has no insurance and does not speak English (conveniently) and the court will refuse to do anything about it. California is now a horrible place to live, and it won't be long until all of America is like California.
Transplanted Texan, Sun City, CA, howls back, coyote-like: Gee, I believe they are starting to get the picture. The best is yet to come, sorry to say. They will grow accustomed to living in a 3rd World culture. Gangs, Mexican graffiti on all the fences, walls, schools, etc. Oh, and the daily drive-by shootings, murders, thefts and threats to their children at school. Just to name a few treats to come.
Whatever it takes, Mexico's chief export, narcotics, will play a part in their lives. Murdered police officers, drug dealers, wars. Our country is in such trouble, we all need to pray for what is still our county and the generations of Americans to come.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.