US Hispanic Racial Dynamics

Repost from the old site.
This is an update to an earlier post, The Racial Makeup of Hispanics. For background on the issue, please refer to the previous post.
This post will mostly deal with Hispanics in California, because that is where I live.
In the previous post, we noted that Hispanics seemed to be getting darker (more Indian and Black and less White) with time in California and the Southwest. The first study, done in the early 80’s in San Diego, showed CA Chicanos to be 68% White, 30% Indian and 2% Black.
The second study, done in 1998, that show Arizona Chicanos were 57% White, 39% Indian and 4% Black. That figure is about the same as for California 14 years prior. This is because the Mexicans who go to Arizona, New Mexico and Texas have traditionally been lighter than the ones who come to California.
We now have a new study showing that by the year 2000, California Hispanics (overwhelmingly Mexicans and Chicanos) have become much darker over 16 years. The new study includes two surveys – one shows CA Hispanics at 46% White, 43% Indian and 11% Black, while the other shows them at 48% White, 38% Indian and 13% Black. Taken together, the studies show CA Hispanics at 47% White, 40.5% Indian and 12% Black.

CA Hispanics
        White  Indian  Black
1984    68     30      2
2000    47     40.5    12

Two new studies were reported in the Southwest US as a whole from 2000. The first found admixture of 64% White and 36% Indian and the second found 66% White and 34% Indian. Another study of the border county of Starr County, Texas (97% Mexican) showed the typical Southwestern mix of 65% White, 35% Indian. No Black DNA was found in any of these studies.
The combined total for the three studies was 65% White and 35% Indian. This is about along the lines with what previous studies had found.

Studies of Hispanic admixture in California, Nevada and the US Southwest represented as pie charts. All charts are from a recent study done in 2000.

What this indicates in that the Chicanos and Mexicans in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Colorado are much Whiter, less Indian and dramatically less Black than those in California. This may be because of California’s huge agricultural crops that attract many largely-Indian Mexicans from Guerrero and Oaxaca.
There is evidence that in general, the flow of Mexican immigrants to the US is the same as it has always been – they are coming from the same states as they have always come from:

In general, therefore, we do not find a “changing profile” of Mexican migrants during the 1980s. Rather, despite a few changes, we perceive a remarkable continuity in trends and patterns.
Maintaining a pattern that dates back at least to the 1940s and perhaps even to 1900, recent outflows continue to be dominated by migrants from a handful of western states: principally Guanajuato, Jalisco, and Michoacán, and to a lesser extent Durango, San Luis Potosí, and Zacatecas.
Together these six states have consistently accounted for about half of all Mexico-U.S. migrants, with the border states comprising another 30 percent and the central states making up the remaining 20 percent.
Over time, emigration has also become less selective with respect to education, suggesting that the outflow has increasingly been one of the rural and urban poor, predominantly from the western states.

Most Mexican immigrants continue to come from the Northern, North-Central and the West-Central part of the country, traditionally Mestizo areas. Look at these pics of Tejano singers whose ancestors came from those places.
Chihuahua in Northern Mexico has traditionally sent many immigrants to the US. Check out these photos of Chihuahua hotties and see how they are a lot more White than Indian. This phenotype is so common in my town that it is almost ubiquitous.
Once again, to reiterate, 50% of Mexico’s historic immigration has come from the more Euro-Mestizo (Zacatecas is actually the most Mestizo state in Mexico – it has almost no Whites or Indians) rural areas of Jalisco, Zacatecas, Sinaloa, Guanajuato, Michoacan, San Luis Potosi and Durango. These states are Western Mexico or North-Central Mexico.
The border states of Chihuahua, Sonora, Nuevo Leon and Coahuila have traditionally made up 30% of Mexico’s immigration. Mexicans in these states are some of the Whitest (Mestizos) in all Mexico.
The reason that those states are Whiter is because they had fewer Amerindians from the very start.
Combined totals of the three heavily Cuban (and Venezuelan and Nicaraguan upper class in Florida) areas of Florida, New Jersey and the SE US show a population that is 83% White, 10% Indian and 7% Black. This indicates that Hispanics in this area are de facto mostly-White people, though they are mixed race.
Hispanics in Pennsylvania are 83% White and 13% Black, with no Indian. There is a good guess that these are mostly Puerto Ricans and possibly Dominicans.
The Hispanic population of Virginia is hard to characterize – it is 64% White, 21% Indian and 15% Black. There are many Salvadorans in this state, but that does not sound like a Salvadoran racial mix – Salvadorans have little to no Black in them. This group is probably mixed Salvadoran, Puerto Rican, Dominican and Mexican.
All told, the total on the East Coast is 79% White, 10% Indian and 11% Black. The Hispanics on the East Coast are clearly an overwhelmingly-White group of mixed race persons.
Let us look at these figures as a chart:

US Hispanics
              White  Indian  Black
East Coast    79     10      11
Southwest     65     35      0
California    47     40.5    12

Hispanics on the East Coast and in the US Southwest are to this day a mostly-White ethnic group, despite the fevered blatherings of White nationalists.
This can no longer be said about California’s Hispanics. California’s Hispanic population is now the least White, the most Indian and the most Black of any major region in the US, and it has become much less White, more Indian and dramatically more Black in the past few decades.


Peterson, B.L., Su, B. and Chakraborty, R. et al. 2000. World Population Data For The HLA-DQA1, PM® And D1S80 Loci With Least And Most Common Profile Frequencies For Combinations Of Loci Estimated Following NRC II Guidelines. J. Forensic Sci. 45:118-146.

This research takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support more of this valuable research.

The Racial Makeup of Hispanics

Repost from the old site.
This post has been updated with new information, photos and pie charts showing degree of genetic makeup here.
Let us take a look at a subject that most people seem to know little or nothing about – the genetic makeup of Hispanics in the Americas.
You think I am kidding? I now live in a town that is 70% Hispanic.
I recently informed some of these Hispanics, ranging from wannabe gangbanger graffiti-tagging teenagers in continuation high school and headed for nowhere, to university grads with their own businesses on the road to Yuppiedom, that Mexicans were a mix between American Indians and Whites, and that they were in fact part White.
This was met with incredulity and charges of lying all around, most depressingly on the part of the “university grad.”
Hence a bit of education seems to be in order.
As I noted in a previous foray into this area, there are two opposing poles of idiocy at work here. The first, a group of fools calling themselves Atzlanistas, or radical Chicanos, holds that Chicanos are “80% Amerindian”.
This is because their idiot ethnic nationalism is predicated on some BS “indigenousness” and related hatred of everything European and White, even though most folks espousing this line are probably majority-White.
The opposing pole of morons is of course formed by another group of ethnic nationalists, in this case the White Nationalist faction (What is it about ethnic nationalism that seems make morons out of even the most intelligent people?).
It would be very painful to admit that US Hispanics are a lot more like us White folks that these guys want to admit, so they conveniently code Hispanics as a “non-White race”. These clowns, in line with their enemies the Atzlanistas, also hold that Hispanics are 80% Amerindian, but in their case this is a bad thing, whereas for the Atzlanistas, it’s a thing of glory.
The truth will be depressing to both sides, but since they are both infected with brain-rotting Identity Politics, neither will be able or willing to see the truth.
The truth is that Chicanos in the US are at present (1998) about 60% White and 40% Amerindian. Actual figures were 57% White and 39% Amerindian and 4% Black in one study and 59% White, 37% Amerindian, 3% Black in another. About 10-15 years before, in the 1980’s, they were about 70% White and 30% Indian. Actual figures ranged from 68% White, 30% Amerindian and 2% Black in one study to 65% White and 35% Amerindian in another.
Mexico is about the opposite – about 65% Indian, 34% White and 1% Black. Guerrero had 22% (!) Black genes. Sonora, at the high end, had 58% White genes. The study also showed that Mexicans have come from all over the world.
Yet another study of Mexican genes found that they were quite similar to US immigrants – 59% White, 31% Amerindian and 10% (!) Black. White admixture ranged from 51-70% amongst in this study, and the highest Amerindian admixture in Mexico was 37% in Guerrero. 80% of Mexicans were classed as mestizos.
So the actual makeup of Mexicans themselves is somewhat of a mystery.
Black admixture in Mexico tends to be around 3-8%, or about 5.5% on average. And it seems to be split around pretty evenly.
However, note that about 20 years ago, the ratio was about 1-2% Black in the US, and now it is about 3-4% Black.
Most Chicanos had ancestors that came only from certain states – from the various Mexican mestizo states – the Western States of Jalisco and Michoacan, the West Central States of Guanajuato, San Luis Potosi and Zacatecas, and the Northern States of Sinaloa, Nuevo Leon, Durango, Chihuahua and Tamaulipas.
Analysis of Mexicans from the Mestizo heartland of Monterrey, San Luis Potosi, and Zacatecas showed that they are about as White as Chileans or Argentines – 78.5% White and 21.5% Amerindian. Zacatecas in particular has long been noted for having an almost exclusively Mestizo population.
Mexico is actually pretty divergent. A study of the residents of the city of Tlapa, Guerrero, revealed that they are almost pure Amerindian. Yet I have met several Mexicans from Guerrero who look about as White as I do.

Some Zapotec Indians from Oaxaca. My town is full of Oaxacan Indians, and contrary to the linguistic pessimists in my comments threads, the languages seem to be doing quite well.

I recently saw two young men speaking a Zapotec language outside the DMV. They told me that everyone in the village back home spoke Zapotec, including all the kids, that it was even used in the schools, and that they both knew how to read it and even write it. They were impressed that I was interested in their language.
From these facts, a few things become clear.
There is a suggestion (unproven so far) that Hispanics in the US are much more White than the Hispanics in Mexico. The more Amerindian Hispanics may be staying in Mexico, whereas the Whiter ones may be coming here. This is precisely the opposite of most of what we hear about Mexican immigration (the poor Indians are all flooding here).
There is also evidence that Mexicans in the US are less Black than Mexicans in Mexico. In Mexico, Mexicans are 5.5% Black. In the 1980’s, Mexicans in the US were 1.5% Black, but that increased to 3.5% Black in the 1990’s.
There is a clear suggestion that Mexican immigrants to the US are becoming more Amerindian, more Black and less White over time. This accords with what most honest folks are noticing. Nevertheless, as of 10 years ago, they were still a majority-White people.
In fact, Mexico is so bad that even about 80% of Mexican professionals now want to come here. Fully 50% of the population of Mexico says they want to come to the US and are willing to risk the trip.
The Open Borders Lobby wishes to open our border to 55 million Mexicans. You don’t have to be a racist to realize what a catastrophe this would be for the US. I don’t think it would be so great for Mexico either, especially if 80% of their professionals high-tailed it.
It is idiotic for Atzlanistas to claim that a mixed-race people, possibly majority-White (60%), are 80% Amerindian.
It is equally insane for White Nationalists to claim that a majority-White (60%) population has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with their precious and threatened White Race.
Now that I live in what is practically a part of Mexico, I have been observing the Chicanos and Mexicans around me, an interest that sparked these posts. One thing that is immediately clear is that there is no rational way to call this group of people a “race.”
This is genetic mystery casserole prepared by a master chef. You see all “types” and gradations and everything in between. You see dark-skinned Mexicans with Caucasian features. You see light-skinned Mexicans with Amerindian features. And I keep thinking I see Black here and there. And every possible jumble in between that you could possibly imagine.
It’s actually fascinating to observe them.
Since the gene mix was somewhat restricted (mostly Iberian Whites and Mexican Amerindians with a bit of Black), you do see some of what ethnologists used to class as anthropological “types” (although PC has probably made it illegal to discuss types anymore in ethnologies). That girl in the Walmart looks like the waitress in the bar. Then their triplet shows up at the gas station.
Even here, the diversity is striking. If one were to play Carleton Coon, you could probably come up with hundreds of Mexican “types.” You see what look like pure-blooded Spaniards here and there, and I am starting to suspect that different Mexican Amerindian tribal admixtures produce different types.

Here is a Tarahumara woman who looks a lot different from a typical Mexican Indian. From northern Mexico, this woman could easily pass as a Navajo.
Another Tarahumara woman, this one quite old. Even she does not look like most of the Mexican Indians you see in the US, most of whom are from Oaxaca and Guerrero.This is a Mayan Indian man from the far south of Mexico. As you can see, not all Mexicans are “Aztecs”, as Aztlanista lunatics insist and Mexican government propaganda implies.

Most disturbing to the idiots above is that many Mexicans could clearly be classed as “White” by any rational human being. They may look Mediterranean, Greek, Italian or Iberian, but they don’t look that different from some of the Whites I grew up with.
And yes, quite a few are pure Amerindians. Some of these look so Asian that you might think they were Filipinos. Yes, they are short and dark – something the White racists love to rant about – clearly shorter and less robust than California Amerindians.
But reduced size is an adaptation to a tropical climate – reduced body size makes it easier for the body to cool off in the heat – and of course melanin was essential for any humans evolving in tropical climes before the advent of suntan lotion.
In Mexico, Mexican society is quite stratified, and White nationalists think this is fantastic. WN’s also love to carry on about how “racist” Mexicans are, with the Whites lording it over everyone else and despising all the dark-skinned lessers, except they think this racism is just wonderful, as opposed to the variety directed at their own kind, which is sheer evil.

No, this photo was not taken in Orange County, California. It was taken in Mexico. The spectators are either tourists or White Mexicans. I think the dancers are White Mexicans, but a Spaniard wrote to tell me that they are Mestizos.

That may be true in Mexico, but I have noticed little of it here in the US, at least in the poor, mostly Mexican town I live in. White and lighter Mexicans carry on with darker and full-Indian Mexicans in the bars, and everywhere else, here. I watch them while they cavort and chat, searching for the signs of this horrible racism the WN’s insist is omnipresent in US Mexicans. Problem is I can’t see it at all.
I asked around, and one Mexican-American told me that “some” Chicanos in the US have racial attitudes towards skin color, but he acted like it wasn’t common or ubiquitous. Here again, the WN’s would be disappointed. He said most made no distinction between White, Mestizo and Indian (in fact these categories almost did not exist) but instead there was a general, continuum-type attitude that lighter skin was better.
He then described a beautiful young “light-skinned” Chicana that he fancied. What struck me as strange is that to my White eyes she was fairly dark.
Here is a good example of Mexican racism by an Overseas Chinese author, Amy Chua, from her World On Fire. Chua apparently thinks this sort of hierarchy is just groovy:

Almost without exception the Mexican officials, lawyers, and business executives we dealt with were light-skinned and foreign educated, with elegant European names.
Meanwhile, the people doing the photocopying and cleaning the floors were all shorter, darker, and plainly more “Indian-blooded”. While considerable social fluidity exists in Mexico, it is also true that lightness of skin correlates directly and glaringly with increasing wealth and social status. (p 59)

It is important to recognize where race-realists and White Nationalists are coming from. They think the state of affairs described above by Chua is normal, reasonable and rational – the way things should be, as it were, or even a God-made law, “Natural Law”, as the rightwing Catholics have it.
A recent IQ test undertaken by Richard Lynn at a public school in Mexico showed that in Mexico, White IQ is 98, Mestizo IQ is 94 and Indian IQ is 83. This is why the race-realists love IQ differentials so much. Because they see these IQ differentials as enshrining, for ever and ever, the situation that Chua describes above.
Ah, but let us examine these scores.
Let us say that the 14 point difference between Whites and Amerindians above means that Whites are 3X as intelligent as Amerindians and 50% smarter than Mestizos (a bit of a reach, but Arthur Jensen says an IQ of 145 is seven times more intelligent than an IQ of 100).
This entitles Whites to about 3X personal income of Amerindians and 50% more income than Mestizos, right?
Yet the reality is far different, as we see in Chua above. Instead of 3X the income, the elite has many times the income of an Amerindian, while the Amerindian lives in poverty. And the White elite has vastly more than 1.5X the income of Mestizos.
Indeed, the family of one man, Carlos Slim, has 50% of the wealth in all of Mexico. So even by the nasty rules of IQ, the inequality described by Chua above falls flat on its face, and so does race-realists’ justification of it.
While we are at it, we should note that the situation that WN’s rave about in Latin America – the Whites have all the money, the Mestizos and mulattos much less and the Amerindians and Blacks nothing – is not really true.
As we can see by this study, it is not true that all Whites of Latin America are rich (I can confirm this, as I see many “White” Mexicans who are quite poor in my town) and there are a reasonable (though still small) number of Blacks, mulattos and mestizos in the highest income categories.
So the situation in Latin America, while quite unfair and even racist, is not the White Supremacist paradise that the WN’s say it is. It is instead, as most things in life are, somewhat more complicated.
As long as we are pondering the racial makeup of Mexicans, let us look around, racially, at the rest of Latin America: Argentina and Chile are the prizes of Latin America for White Nationalists – the populations are said to be “all White,” the IQ’s are nice and high and so are the development figures. Yet studies show that Argentines and Chileans are not so White as WN’s say.
This study shows Argentines at 74% White and 26% Amerindian, which seems about right. It shows Chileans at 53% Amerindian and 47% White (I think that far overestimates Amerindian and underestimates White in Chile). Colombians are 48.5% White, 45% Amerindian and 6.5% Black (probably about right).
Brazilians, curiously, despite the fevered cries of WN’s that “the future of America is Brazil”, are 68% White, 17% Amerindian, and 15% Black.
However, see the comments at the end of the post for a probably better analysis of Brazilian genetics showing Brazilians as 52% White, 35% Black and 12% Amerindian.

While the WN’s scream about “Brazilianization”, I prefer “Cubanization”.
Cubanization should work just fine. 2% of the population of Latin America in Cuba produces 10% of the science grads, has the best educated population in the Americas, the lowest infant mortality and malnutrition, some of the longest life expectancy and are amongst the best-fed in Latin America. All this with all those darned Black inferior genes. How do they do it, and this is bad just how now?
These are typical Cuban women, and most of them are probably mixed-race to one degree or another. As you can see, they are starving, miserable, sickly and clothed in rags, since they live in a Communist Cuban Hell, or so the US media would have us believe. Although 37% of Cubans identify as White, we are getting into Latin American definitions of White here, and those are not the same as American definitions.
I had a Cuban-American girlfriend when I was 19 who looked something like the woman at left. Curious thing was that her father and mother were both a lot lighter than she was. How does that work anyway? I thought that a child cannot be darker than either of its parents?

Costa Ricans, which WN’s love to uphold as an “almost purely-White state” (see this link from a journal in the 1930’s, which claimed that 70% of Costa Ricans were pure White), are actually 61% White, 38% Indian and 3% Black – this is very much like the Hispanic population in the US, so despised as “non-White” by WN’s.
Other studies give us similar figures.
This study found Hispanic Costa Ricans 59% White, 34% Amerindian and 1% Black, while Black Costa Ricans were 76% Black, 14% Amerindian and 10% White.
Yet another study of Argentines showed that they were 79% White, 19% Amerindian and 2% Black.
Another cast doubt on the notion that many, if any, Argentines were pure White, and suggested that almost 100% of Argentines are at least part-Indian. That series of 94 Argentines found that they all had Amerindian blood, and that the lowest % was 1.5% (the highest ranged up to 84.5%). The average, in line with the study above, was 19% Amerindian, which seems about right.
However, another found that 56% of Argentines had Amerindian blood, and they had an average of 18% Amerindian in them. In many, it was not apparent on phenotype. Therefore, Argentina is a 44% White country and it is one of the Whiter countries in Latin America. However, it is still a majority-mestizo land.
Tragically, Argentine White nationalists have gone insane over this study and have tried to destroy the Wikipedia article. This is similar to the way that Italian and Greek White nationalists have gone nuts over the considerable evidence showing that Greeks and Southern Italians have ~5% Black genes.
Two studies out of Uruguay suggested a considerable amount of Amerindian and Black genes in Uruguayans. Previous studies found an average of 78% White, 10.5% Amerindian and 11% Black genes in Uruguayans. A study in the northern city of Tacuarembó found that residents were 31% Amerindian on the mother’s side (mtDNA).
Another study of Uruguayans in the Department of Cerro Largo found that they were on average 78% White, 15% Indian and 10% Black, similar to the study above.
Chile is quite similar – 30% of Chileans say they are White – but genes may give the lie to that. Most of the White component is from Spanish stock – mostly from Castille, Andalusia and the Basque Country.

Some Spaniards from Seville. In my town I actually see a lot of “non-White” Mexicans who look like these folks (especially the woman) to one degree or another.

The amount of non-Spanish White stock in Chile is not large, unlike Argentina, where large numbers came from Germany, Italy, Wales, Lebanon, Yugoslavia and other places.
Most Chileans are clearly mestizos – 69.5% of the population class themselves as such, but the true number is probably. Chileans, like Argentines, are about 80% White and 20% Indian, with some interesting, but not great, differentiations by class (dead link).
The upper classes are 85% White and 14% Amerindian, while the lower classes are 74% White and 25% Amerindian. Chilean Mestizos are also 1% Black.

As you can see here, most Chileans (every single woman in this picture) are Mestizos, whether they say they are or not. By their complexion and features, it seems reasonable that Chileans may be 20% Amerindian, as one study above estimates, but not 53% Amerindian, as the other does. This phenotype is ubiquitous among the mostly-Mexican Hispanics in my town. By the way, they sure are cute, huh?

Amerindians make up a full 10.5% of the population of Chile – 85% of them are Mapuches, who were never completely defeated by the Chilean government during the savage wars that raged in the mid to late 1800’s.
Chile is a profoundly racist and classist society compared to the US. On the Net recently, I learned of a flame war between Chileans and Peruvians on Youtube. I don’t understand Spanish well enough when spoken to understand the videos, so I don’t know all the details, however I gleaned a bit of it by looking at some Chilean discussion forums.
As I can read Spanish pretty well, I got a gist of the Chilean point of view. Many Chileans utterly despise Peruvians, whom they call Peruasnos, instead of the proper Peruanos (that means something like “Peruviasses”). Their main complaint against Peruvians, which they were not shy about making, was that Peruvians are dirty, filthy, inferior Indians.
That Chileans are 20% Indian is no matter. Chileans don’t see themselves as Indians, and Peruvians are, and that is that. The rank racism of the Chileans was appalling from a US point of view – sort of what you might find on Stormfront – except that this is apparently mainstream Chilean thinking.
I knew a Chilean once whose father had been in the Allende regime. He was studying sociology and planned to go live with an Indian community as part of his fieldwork.
Yet he laughed hysterically talking about the “ugliness” of Mapuches (I looked at photos on the Internet and thought the women at least were beautiful) and claimed that the Chilean poor were poor because they spent all their money on booze and gambling.
He also said in Chilean society it was important for a man to have “soft hands” (strange in such a macho society) because this meant that he was upper class and did not work with his hands like a lowly working-class guy. A glance at Chilean economic figures shows a society wildly stratified income-wise by class, far worse than even our increasingly Gilded Age America.
And the class attitudes above (reminiscent of, say, the British upper class) are all but absent from even upper-class US society. After meeting that fellow, and reading about Chile, I finally understood why men named Allende and Pinochet led the country for years, and why ferocious class division, and frankly class hatred, continues to wrack that land.
This research takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support more of this valuable research.

The Racial Makeup of US Chicanos

Repost from the old site.
There is a lot of nonsense floating around about the racial makeup of US Chicanos. Obviously, they are mixed-race people, being made up of a mixture of Indian and White, mostly from Spain, but to a lesser extent from other European nations such as France.
According to a report I accessed in the Journal of Physical Anthropology in the 1990’s, a study done on US Mexican-Americans (probably citizens, but I am not sure), mostly done in border cities, concluded that taking the whole group on average, US Mexican-Americans are:
68% White
30% Indian
2% Black
That is on average. Obviously, there are groups, including the openly racist White elite, who are much more, if not entirely White. There are others who are all or almost all Indian. And there are Black and Mulatto Mexicans.
According to the report, most of the inbreeding between Whites and Indians occurred soon after the conquest. The White conquerors had not brought enough women over here, so they made do with Indian women for wives.
There was less White-Indian interbreeding after early in the conquest, as a race-based system was set into place, with Whites being at the top, and pure Indians being at the bottom. In recent years, there has probably been very little White-Indian mixing.
In the intervening times, Mestizos of various shades bred in with each other, but Whites bred less with Mestizos as time wore on. Mestizos did not breed in a lot with Indians (although there was some of this), and only a little with the Whites, once again, lessening as time wore on.
Early on, some Black slaves were brought to “wonderful, non-racist” Mexico. They mostly settled on the Atlantic Coast. There was some limited interbreeding with Blacks and Mestizos and Blacks and Indians, such that your average Chicano now has a tiny amount of Black blood, much as he may not wish to believe that.
Keep in mind that as late as the late 1700’s, there was still quite a bit of interbreeding going on, including White-Indian, White-Mestizo, Indian-Mestizo and Indian-Black or Mulatto. At this time, there was still a shortage of White women in some parts of Mexico, which explains some of this. Plus, the system now is much more racist now than it was back then.
The reason I am even bothering to write this post is because of two breeds of ignoramuses: racist anti-immigrant activists, and equally racist Chicano nationalist fools.
Both of these groups have claimed recently in web posts that present-day Mexican immigrants to the US are “80% Indian”.
The radical Chicanos say this out of, frankly, their contempt for European Whites and European culture itself, and their fetishization of their own Indian ancestry (in particular, Aztec ancestry, although many Mexican Mestizos and Indians are not Aztecs. Here is a link to a radical Chicano site offering so-called scholarly evidence that, apparently, Mexicans are 80% Indian.
I say apparently because the piece is so poorly written (though the author is fairly intelligent) that it is hard to figure out what she is trying to say. She cites genetic studies done in Mexico that apparently show that Mexicans are 80% Indian and only 20% White. She quotes other studies done in the border states of the US that apparently show that US Chicanos are 62% Indian.
As you can see by the JPA study above, the JPA study totally contradicts these figures.
The racist Whites, including White Nationalists, say this because they view Indians as inferior to Whites, and they have a hard time swallowing the notion that the average Mexican is a mostly-White person like he is. I made a comment noting this on the Steve Sailor blog, but the comment was not accepted by the moderator for unknown reasons.
Now, I really don’t care if Mexicans are 80% Indian or not, but it is just not true. Although it pains both groups to believe this, your average Chicano is a mostly-White person with considerable Indian blood.
To this day, despite all the screams of La Raza propagandists about the wonders of Mexico, that country, and most of Latin America for that matter, is a profoundly racist place, much more racist than the US that the La Raza crowd continually condemns as racist.
Their own beloved Mexico is far more vicious and cruel in its treatment of illegal immigrants than the US they shower abuse on. Indeed, US treatment of illegal immigrants is comparatively mild. They are only housed for a brief time in detention centers, then they are deported. If I were to go to any nation on Earth illegally, the vast majority of places would treat me just as poorly, and in many cases worse.
The Aztlan Crowd needs to be confronted and exposed. Studies show that 63% of all Mexicans in Mexico believe that the part of the US known as “Aztlan” is actually a part of Mexico. Presumably, many believe that they have a right to take it back. Indeed, Mexico’s elite, including its intellectual class, is quite open on this subject.
More research needs to be done regarding how US Hispanics, legal and illegal, feel about this. How many of them believe Aztlan is really a part of Mexico? If they believe this, what do they think should be done about it? How strong are their feelings?
My own limited experience has been that the only Mexicans who call Whites “pilgrims” and talk about Aztlan, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Reconquista (Mexico taking back Aztlan in some way or another) have been college educated US Chicano intellectuals.
One guy was a typical egghead Leftist working on a Master’s Degree in History. Another was a professor of Spanish at a university who only came to the US when he was 26 years old. Of all the Mexicans and Chicanos I have met in the US, those are the only ones who ever brought up these subjects. There is a possibility that the average Mexican or Chicano in the US could pretty much care less about these issues.
We also need to try to gauge what causes Mexicans/Chicanos to adopt radical Aztlan-type causes. Does anti-immigrant sentiment increase the drift towards radicalism, slow it down, or have no effect? What can we do to keep our Mexicans/Chicanos from becoming radicalized in this way?
If the Aztlan movement is indeed an eventual threat to the territorial integrity of the US, this is something that most Americans should know about.
The Mexican War was wrong, but we won, and Mexico signed a treaty giving up the land. It was perfectly legal to conquer land by force back in those days. Limits need to be imposed in irredentism, otherwise every border on Earth will become a war zone.
The Aztlan crowd, for those who do not know, believe that all of California, Nevada, Arizona and Texas and parts of New Mexico, Utah, Colorado and Wyoming are actually part of Mexico, not the US. These are the lands the US conquered from Mexico in the Mexican War back in 1848. The Mexican government signed a treaty and handed over the lands.
The radical Aztlan activists, including the largest US Hispanic student organization, MECHA, subscribe to this view that much of the Western US is actually a part of Mexico.
Unless and until MECHA and the radical Chicanos renounce their view that a part of the US is actually part of a foreign country (a frankly treasonous view), sensible progressives need to distance themselves from this nonsense and expose these folks’ treasonous alliance with a hostile foreign state to the American public.
There are some even more dangerous idiots in the Mexica Movement who call the entire Americas the land of Anahuac, a land that only Native Americans have a right to live in, and which all non-Indians, or possibly only Whites, have to go back to where they came from. As far as Blacks and other non-Whites who came to America, the movement is unclear (see below) on what needs to be done with them.
That is, all Whites (whatever that means) have to go back to Europe. As I said, the movement is confused on US Blacks, so we get radical Latino morons confronting Black anti-illegal immigration activists with, “Go back to Africa!” The same boneheads greet White anti-immigration activists with, “Go back to Europe!”
They also tend to call Whites “pilgrim” – that is an easy way to spot a Chicano nationalist. Because of their stupid belief that almost all Mexicans are “80% Indian” (destroyed above), the Anahuac fools say that all Mexicans get to stay in Anahuac while all the rest of us take off.
Despite its claims to be a pan-Indian movement, the Anahuac idiots are obviously almost all radical Mexican-American Chicano nationalists – a look at their webpage makes that clear. I believe that they have made little inroads with US Native Americans, and apparently few to none with other Latin American Indians.
It is interesting and insulting to other Indians the way that they have decided to name the entire area of the indigenous Americas Anahuac in reference to the Aztec name for the Valley of Mexico. This is simply a radical ethnocentric Chicano racist movement posing as and conflating itself into a pan-American Indianist movement.
Although the potential for serious violence and instability in this movement is apparently low for the time being, one of the dangers of permitting millions upon millions of Mexicans to anarchically flood into the US is the possibility of increased virulence and numbers of these irredentist crazies.
In about 100 years, though I will be dead, there is a potential for a serious problem from these folks due to increased numbers if nothing else. There may be some sporadic violence or worse from them in the interim, and the prospect of race riots by agitated Chicanos over immigration is a real worry even this early on, though little has materialized so far.
The La Raza crowd and the radical Chicanos had every right to scream about racism and discrimination against Hispanics back when the movement was founded in the 1960’s. Once they took it into ethnic nationalism, as with Black nationalism, it had the predictable racist and fascist effect that infects most all ethnic nationalism.
Obsession with La Raza, Aztlan, MECHA and Chicano nationalists have been the province of the Right, while the Left, incredibly and possibly unknowingly, has gone along with the open treason of these characters. That is disgusting. This is not a Left-Right issue.
Most progressive and Marxist regimes in the past century have not tolerated secessionists well, rightly or wrongly.
China did not tolerate Tibetan, Taiwanese or East Turkestan secessionists. The USSR crushed the Chechens. The Socialists in France and Spain did not allow the Catalans, Basques, Corsicans or Bretons to secede. Certainly no leftwing regime allowed a neighboring state to lob off a hunk of the homeland, as the Chicano nationalists are outrageously proposing.
We need not let the Right own this issue, and we need to stop accusing the Right of hysteria on the Aztlan issue (although they are sometimes guilty of it). Although there is little immediate concern, there is a potential for difficulties down the road.
New citizens should be quizzed on their allegiance to the nation before being granted citizenship, much as Muslims are being quizzed about their tolerance for Western openness before they immigrate to Europe. Perhaps Mexicans looking to become US citizens (a step we should promote) should, in the same vein, be quizzed on their opinions regarding the territorial integrity of the US, including the parts known as Aztlan.
This research takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support more of this valuable research.

Dr. Frederick K. Goodwin, Hero

Repost from the old site.
Goodwin, a psychiatrist, was head of something called the Violence Initiative, intended to reduce the insane violence in our, ahem, (Black and Hispanic, but mostly Black) inner cities. He made the following extremely controversial comment, which I heartily endorse:

If you look, for example, at male monkeys, especially in the wild, roughly half of them survive to adulthood. The other half die by violence.
That is the natural way it is for males, to knock each other off and in fact, there are some interesting evolutionary implications of that because the same hyperaggressive monkeys who kill each other are also hypersexual, so they copulate more to offset the fact that more of them are dying.
Now, one could say that if some of the loss of social structure in this society, and particularly within the high impact inner-city areas, has removed some of the civilizing evolutionary things that we have built up and that may be it isn’t just the careless use of the word when people call certain areas of certain cities jungles, that we may have gone back to what might be more natural, without all the social controls that we have imposed upon ourselves as a civilization over thousands of years in our evolution.

Goodwin screwed up by using the monkey – jungle metaphor. That implies that Blacks are monkeys who live in the jungle. There’s no place in civilized discussion to call Blacks monkeys. They aren’t monkeys. They’re human beings. US Blacks have been out of the jungle for 200 years. And around the world, plenty of well-behaved folks live in jungles, so living in a jungle doesn’t automatically make you act like an animal.
Goodwin was condemned as racist and a Nazi for saying that. If believing that makes you racist and a Nazi, I guess I’m a racist Nazi then. The best way to answer this abuse from the Cultural Left is to simply agree with them.
First, rephrase the comment that upset them. Ask, for example, “Really, so saying that Black IQ’s are 13 points lower than White IQ’s is racism?” The idiot will usually say, “Yes, it is.” Then calmly nod your head and say, “OK, well, if saying that means I’m a racist, I guess I’m a racist.” Say it with complete aplomb, as if one were commenting on the weather.
We really need to take the sting out of some of these abusive words the Cultural Left is throwing at the sane people. Sure there’s plenty of racism around, but there’s less and less all the time. Most of the time anymore, “racist” is a just a term of abuse leveled against Whites. It’s just hate speech against Whites, like calling Blacks niggers.
Goodwin’s comment was outrageous, but it does seem to make a lot of sense, does it not?
The only alternative theories for the insane violence in our Black ghettos are bullshit notions like poverty, bad schools, bad neighborhoods, lack of education, lack of hope, lack of jobs, White racism, discrimination, oppression, on and on the bullshit piles.
The only thing bad about our ghettos is the humans who live in them. The neighborhoods, schools, etc. are lousy because the humans in the ghetto have destroyed them. There’s no jobs because the horrible behavior and mass crime of the humans in the ghetto has driven all the employers away.
The humans in the ghetto are poorly educated because they don’t want to get educated. There’s no hope in the ghetto because the humans who destroyed the neighborhoods also have to live in them, and that’s pretty hopeless.
About racism, discrimination and oppression, about the only racism, discrimination and oppression in our ghettos is against any non-Black person stupid enough to venture into them. The residents of the ghettos aren’t experiencing any real oppression or discrimination at all. Who’s oppressing them, beside the criminals they live with?
Who’s discriminating against them? Whites? They aren’t any White people in the ghetto to discriminate against anyone. Residents of the ghetto probably experience little racism too. They hardly see any Whites, and the only ones they do see are liberal do-gooder types. Blacks in suburbs live much better than ghetto Blacks and surely experience far more racism.
Yet this is what passes for sane discussion of one of the most important issues in our nation – utter nonsense.
Recent efforts to ameliorate the mess in our ghettos have involved tearing down or shuttering public housing and giving ghetto residents vouchers to go live anywhere they want.
As a socialist, I support these efforts. Ghetto residents ought to be able to live anywhere they can afford to, and packing lots of ghetto Blacks together tightly can’t possibly be a good idea. Blacks have moved out of the projects and into better neighboring areas.
The results have been mixed at best. The former ghetto residents act somewhat better, but not dramatically so. Crucially, they continue to have serious pathologies. This reinforces my view that the problem in the ghetto was always the humans who live there, not the buildings, the streets, the schools, or whatever.

Crime Rates For Hispanics, Polynesians and Amerindians

Repost from the old site.
In the comments section, an anonymous commenter notes:

Hispanics, Amerindians, and Polynesians are all Asians or have Asiatic roots (and thus presumably lower testosterone) and still their crime rate is higher than Whites…this suggests that there is a social element to crime rates as well, probably related to the status of these groups as ‘persecuted minorities.’

I respond:
I have already discussed this in some of my other posts. It is true that elevated rates of crime among Asian-derived groups are somewhat mysterious.
However, no one knows what the testosterone levels of any of these groups are, nor do we have much information about personality styles, although Richard Lynn claims that numerous studies show that Amerindians have elevated rates of sociopathy.
However, they all have relatively low IQ’s (Hispanics = 90*, Amerindians = 88*, Polynesians = 87*) and in modern industrial capitalism, lower-IQ groups resort to mass crime, probably due to failure to achieve the successes that society tells them they deserve and the resulting extreme frustration.
This failure is probably to a great degree due to lowered IQ levels. Lower IQ groups generally do not do well in modern urban societies.
Hispanics have high crime rates in all of the capitalist nations of the Americas. The more Amerindian blood, the higher the crime. Pure Amerindians also seem to commit a lot of crime in Latin American urban areas. These people evolved in tribal societies and lately in small villages. Modern urban capitalism is just something they can’t cope with. They didn’t evolve with it, culturally or otherwise.
I doubt of Amerindians are persecuted much at all in most of the US (although there is a lot of anti-Indian racism in North Dakota at least). In this part of the country, AMERICAN (not Mesoamerican) Indians are highly regarded, and many Whites around here want to be Indians (Indian wannabes).
There are lots of California Indians living in these foothills here, and racism against them seems to be about zero, although there would seem to be grounds for some because their levels of pathology are unbelievably high and some of them live in nearly unimaginable filth and squalor, apparently deliberately. Most of their problems is this part of the country are self-inflicted.
Some tribes around here became very wealthy with casino money.
One tribe was giving out $7000/month checks to members, but they didn’t seem to act much better. Most of the young ones blew every nickel of the money on dope, alcohol, gambling and whatnot, did not invest in or improve housing stock (you drive by there and see 20-30 Indians of all ages lounging about with chickens running everywhere in a trashed-out front yard).
However, a few of them did save and invest the money. I know one fellow who is a millionaire who invests in many business ventures.
In this part of California, there is no discrimination against Hispanics at all. My city is majority Hispanic. They run the whole place. The only racism in that town is against White people. Hispanics are in charge in large swathes of this state. From my POV, they experience little or no discrimination or racism as a dominant group.
There is little to no discrimination or racism against Samoans or Tongans here either.
I can’t speak of Hawaii.
I really don’t think that any of these groups qualify as persecuted minorities, at least not in California. Other than lower IQ’s, I don’t have a good explanation for elevated crime rates though.
American Samoa has very high crime, while Western Samoa next door, with a traditional Polynesian lifestyle, is nearly crime-free. Clearly, Polynesian crime is predicated to a large degree on culture.
I understand that Mexico, especially in smaller villages, did not use to have a lot of crime. This has certainly changed recently.
It is extremely difficult to generalize about Amerindian behaviors. The Amerindian behavioral phenotype, like the Polynesian one, seems to be quite plastic and is capable of expressing itself in many different ways depending on the environment.
It’s well-known that there are Amerindian tribes, especially in the Amazon, who are so pacifistic that it’s almost comical. I can think of at least one in Venezuela. Curiously, they live near the Yanonamo, long thought to have the highest homicide rate on Earth. I doubt if their genes are much different.
With a relatively plastic behavioral phenotype, Amerindians are possibly highly susceptible to culture. In a pro-violence culture they can become ridiculously violent and criminal. In a culture that promotes pacifism and non-violence, they can become so peaceful that that it is almost a caricature. These are tribal people who evolved culturally to strictly abide by tribal cultural norms.
I suspect Polynesians also may have a plastic behavioral phenotype. The differences in the two Samoas suggest that Polynesian criminal behavior is heavily mediated by culture.
This is discussed in greater depth in the another post, The Moriori and the Dangers of Pacifism.
Crime is about a Hell of a lot more than testosterone or IQ.
Criminology is traditionally a black hole for theory.
*One  point was added to each score due to the recent renorming of US IQ scores.
This research takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support more of this valuable research.

The Moriori and the Dangers of Pacifism

Repost from the old site.

The saga of Moriori is instructive.

The Maori have long been known as ferocious headhunters and cannibals who had one of the cruelest and evillest cultures on Earth. The Moriori seem to be a Maori split dating back to about 1500 or so. They left New Zealand and colonized the Chatham Islands. The Chatham Islands are small, very cold and isolated, and there is not a lot of food other than from the sea.

Moriori legend has it that initially, widespread tribal warfare, headhunting and cannibalism was practiced as the normative cruel Maori culture. On such a small island, this savagery was disastrous, and soon the population plummeted to near extinction. A leader arose among the Moriori, Nunuku-whenua, who preached a new doctrine of extreme pacifism, Nunuku’s Law. Nunuku’s Law was strictly adhered to 300 years.

Fighting was allowed between males, but it had to be conducted with each armed with a stick the width of a finger. At the first sign of blood, the duel was called off, and the beef was considered settled. Homicide, rape and other crimes were reportedly rare to absent among the Moriori for centuries.

In 1835, the Chatham Islands were invaded by Maori warriors, who promptly proceeded to slaughter, cannibalize and enslave the Moriori. The Morioris gathered for a meeting to decide whether or not to fight the invaders. Many young men argued for fighting back, but the elders decided that Nunuku’s Law could not be violated for any reason.

The Moriori ran away and hid and were found and dealt with by the Maori.

Rightwingers have used this episode to exemplify the folly of pacifism.

Morioris were forbidden to marry each other, and Moriori women were forced to marry Maori men. It was a true genocide. From 1835-1862, the population declined from 1,600 to 100. Tommy Solomon, the last pure Moriori, died in 1933.

Tommy Solomon on his yearly visit to Christchurch. He was definitely a big fellow! He married a Maori woman, so his descendants are technically not pure Moriori.

Although popular myth says the Moriori were exterminated by the Maori, several thousand mixed-race Moriori still exist today. The Moriori language is extinct, but efforts are being made to raise it from the dead.

The saga of the Moriori gives the lie to the notion that race is destiny, at least among Polynesians.

It is commonly thought that Polynesians selected for extreme aggression on their long sea voyages to colonize distant islands. Food may have run low on these voyages, and the survivors may have killed others and cannibalized them to survive.

Perhaps the biggest and strongest were the ones most likely to survive the voyages, and this explains the huge size of Polynesians, probably the largest race on Earth, and possibly their high levels aggression and outrageous cruelty.

In modern Westernized societies, Polynesians characteristically become an Underclass with high crime, violence, gang membership and general pathology. In traditional societies, they often do well.

Whatever Polynesian genes look like, the saga of the Moriori shows that they are not doomed to high crime rates or Underclass pathology.

Genetics is the clay, culture is the sculptor.

Organized Vs. Unorganized Violence

Repost from the old site.
A commenter, Perry, questions whether or not the Japanese of the 1930’s or the ancient Vikings had criminogenic genes, given their high rates of wartime plunder. Unstated but assumed, he seems to be ridiculing the notion because both Scandinavians and Japanese now have very low levels of crime and pathology in general.
To this, I say that regarding the Vikings and Japanese, see the difference between organized violence (war, imperial plunder, colonialism, etc.) and unorganized violence (crime, etc.) from Arthur Hu’s very un-PC page. This is a post from Steve Sailer’s ill-fated Human Biodiversity mailing list, and the post is written by Louis R. Andrews of the Stalking the Wild Taboo website.
Andrews is a racist ass, but he’s also very smart, and he makes some good points here. Here the Sierra Club condemns Andrews, on admittedly silly grounds, in a horrible editorial attempting to justify the Club’s unjustifiable and totally insane stance refusing to condemn mass or illegal immigration.
Andrews refers to this as legitimate versus illegitimate violence. Cultures can continue to exist and even thrive while waging regular warfare, while mass crime seems to be destructive to the glue of any civilization.
In my opinion, organized violence, even extreme organized violence, can unfold in any society, even very highly civilized ones with little crime or pathology within their own culture. In fact, these societies may be more prone to mass organized violence based on the premise of supremacy (Nazis, Japanese).

IQ Is a Meaningful Construct and Measurement

Repost from the old site.
IQ tests have been designed for a century now, and there is little real controversy anymore among psychometricians and psychologists about how accurate they are. The notion that they are culturally biased or inaccurate has largely been manufactured by the Cultural Left because unfortunately, the scores have not worked out very well racially in terms of upholding egalitarian principles.
Much is also made of what IQ tests measure, and whether they measure anything important. Surely they measure the brains necessary to compete effectively in a modern society.
They also line up well with many other things.
The lower the IQ, the more likely the person is to do stupid things – go to jail or prison, commit crimes or lots of crimes, have kids out of wedlock or as a teenager, parent multiple children by multiple partners, be a lousy parent to your child if you’re female or refuse to support the kid if you’re male, go on welfare, engage in domestic violence, have poor to low morals, join a street gang, shoot someone or get shot, refuse to plan for the future, drink or take drugs, die young, never go to the doctor, engage in extremely risky behaviors, fall victim to injurious or life-threatening accidents, refuse to engage in healthy behaviors such as eating properly and exercising, etc.
The lower the IQ, the stupider humans tend to act. The higher the IQ, the smarter humans tend to behave. These differences are most marked in a modern industrial capitalist urban society, and may not be so relevant in a tribal or village culture with strict behavioral norms.
Studies in prisons confirm that prisoners have lower IQ’s than the norm. In particular, they tend to have lower verbal IQ, while their performance IQ may be normal. This performance IQ > verbal IQ pattern is also seen in sociopaths.
These correlations hold across races, at least for Whites, Amerindians, Polynesians, Hispanics and Blacks (I’m not sure about Asians). It’s not just a Black thing.
Holding IQ constant, the Black violent crime rate does not differ dramatically from the White rate (Gordon 1987). This is one reason I strongly support efforts to raise Black IQ.
IQ is meaningful. If you meet someone with an 80 IQ, they won’t come across as a rocket scientist. If you meet someone with a 140+ IQ (like all of my siblings and my mother), they won’t come across as retarded or slow.
If IQ were the fallacious, nonsensical and worthless measure the Cultural Left says it is, we would regularly meet 150 IQ people who were dumb as rocks, and the universities would be crawling with 80 IQ Phi Beta Kappas.
That doesn’t happen.


R. A. Gordon 1987. SES versus IQ in the race-IQ-delinquency model. International Journal of Sociology & Social Policy 7:30-96

Great Article on Illegal Immigration

Repost from the old site.
Here, by the fine writer Heather MacDonald. The Sanctuary City laws (list of Sanctuary Cities ) issue is admittedly complex, and many police chiefs do support them.
The idea is that cops want illegals to cooperate as crime victims and witnesses to crimes. But my observation is that illegals don’t cooperate even if they are crime victims. I watched one car full of illegals hit a van with a couple of illegals in it in town recently. I asked the people who got hit if they wanted to go to the cops, but they turned around, got back in their vehicle and drove away.
It’s well known that the local gangbangers around here prey on drunken illegals, who are often wandering around at 3 AM with pockets full of cash. It’s called “rolling drunks.” The victim never goes to the cops.
It seems like 50% of this stupid city of 50,000 people are illegal aliens and their awful children. If in general they acted like Danes or Japanese, I honestly don’t think people would care that much. They don’t, and that’s part of the whole problem.
We could easily modify Sanctuary City policies to say that cops may not ask witnesses and crime victims of their immigration status.
Heather MacDonald offers some commonsense solutions to the admittedly difficult quandary of whether or not cops should get involved with immigration law – local cops should be able to arrest known criminals who have been deported and are back in the US – that’s a felony anyway.
I was stunned that many cities don’t even try to figure out if the criminals they arrest are illegals. At the very minimum, police ought to check immigration status of everyone they arrest. They sure do here in this town. A check of the county jail site reveals a vast number of criminals who are remanded to the INS.
I think the ethnic lobbies need to be called out as traitors. The Hispanic Lobby is a treasonous lobby with far worse dual loyalty issues than the Jews. At least Jews don’t form street gangs that lay waste to hundreds of square miles of cities, and they’re generally pleasant, intelligent and civilized in person.
The truth is that an overwhelming number of recent immigrants from Mexico in the past 20 years (Almost all recent immigrants from Mexico are illegal aliens – 85% of those who immigrated from Mexico in the past 18 years are illegals) are loyal first to Mexico and then, if at all, to the US. That’s not acceptable.
Probably very large numbers of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans think that the Southwest belongs to Mexico, and they have a right to walk across the border the same way they can walk across the border from Oaxaca to Michoacan. Fact is, they don’t think that border has a right to exist.
That’s a completely unacceptable and downright treasonous attitude, and it ought to be condemned by patriots every time it rears its head.
The entire Hispanic Lobby in the US is basically a Treason Lobby which is loyal to a foreign state and disloyal to America.
Furthermore, the Hispanic Lobby and their moron allies on the Left really do advocate something resembling Open Borders. Once you sit down and talk to them, it quickly becomes apparent that they think anyone ought to have a right to walk across the Mexican border into the US no questions asked. And right away, they should have the right to ask to be legalized, and that right should be granted.
That’s completely insane. Not only is there a terrorist question involved, but Mexico is screaming with a mad Drug War that is starting to look like Iraq. Sooner or later, this insanity is coming to the US. Open Borders would only hasten the day.
People seem so puzzled about why I am so militant on this issue. Let me tell you, only three years ago I supported full amnesty for all 12-20 million illegals in the US. Why? I didn’t live with them. I heard stories from my friends about how illegals had laid waste to whole vast urban areas in my state, but I shrugged my shoulders. Like Black crime, it didn’t effect me.
Moving to a Valley city that feels it’s it’s about 50% illegals tipped me over into near-psychosis on this issue real fast. It’s kind of the liberal-until-mugging story.
One more thing whenever anyone tells you how wonderful illegal aliens are. Just remember:
Illegal aliens did 9-11!*
*It’s a little-known fact, but several of the 9-11 terrorists were illegal aliens – VISA overstayers. We really need to publicize this issue more – Illegal Aliens Did 9-11 is one kickass slogan.

Best Article Yet on the Mumbai Attacks

Repost from the old site.
This sums it up better than any others I have read yet. Keep in mind that the Indians always blame Pakistan every time something like this happens.
Pakistan is blamed 100% for the revolt in Kashmir, which has local roots and is based on imperialist India’s colonial occupation of Kashmir, which even the UN says is illegal. India blames Pakistan for most of its other separatist rebellions too, even those in the Far East. Pakistan was blamed for the mass rebellion in the Punjab in the 1980’s.
For these reasons, you need to take anything that the Indian government, its “counterterrorism scholars”, or really any Indian Hindu author on this subject with a pound of salt.
Your average middle class Indian buys this load of horse manure 100%. I’ve spoken to a few Indians, and I haven’t met one yet who isn’t shaking with rage at Pakistan and utterly livid about Kashmir.
India can’t even feed or house its own population and is for all intents and purposes a failed state with a wealthy elite sprinkled on top. Why does India need even more people? It doesn’t.
Pakistan has no right to Kashmir either. The legal future of Kashmir is up to the Kashmiri people themselves.
Keep in mind that the Kashmiri people never agreed to join India in the first place. The place was 90% Muslim, and they wanted to go to Pakistan. Kashmir had some idiot Hindu governor who insisted that Kashmir go to India, and that’s the root of the whole stupid rebellion that has nearly propelled these two powers into a nuclear war.
I have no idea if Pakistan’s ISI played a role in all of this. The LeT Pakistani Kashmiri fighters are a bunch of scumbags, but they have denied involvement, and they usually claim responsibility for this stuff.
Lately, LeT are fighting US troops in Afghanistan. That’s probably mostly for combat training.
There seems to be a very strong connection to British Pakistanis, 50% of whom are from Kashmir. At least seven of the terrorists were British Pakistanis. Juan Cole suggests that this is the real source of the attack. British Pakistanis in particular are very exercised over the US occupation and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and over the Palestinian cause.
The attackers hijacked an Indian trawler to conduct the attack and used it to come onshore via sea. The entire crew of the Kubar (others put the ship name as MV Alpha), a trawler adrift in the Indian Ocean, was missing. Only its headless, bound captain was found aboard. The attackers left incriminating evidence on the tanker before disembarking.
Hostages in general were released unharmed, unlike unfortunate folks just walking, standing or sitting in the paths of the attackers. However, an exception was made for six Israelis and two US Jews, all of whom were bound and executed in an attack on the Chabad-Lubivitcher offices in Mumbai.
15 Indian commandos and police were killed in the counterterrorist operation. The death toll is 195 and likely to rise, probably to 350 or so.
Keep in mind that these same jihadis are wreaking horrible havoc inside Pakistan itself, tried to kill Musharaff over and over, killed Benazir Bhutto, have killed many Pakistani troops, blew up a hotel in Islamabad, and seem to be threatening the very government of Pakistan itself, yet another failed state.
So saying they came from Pakistan doesn’t say a whole lot. The militants tearing Pakistan itself apart “come from Pakistan” too. Does that mean they are part of the very state they are blowing up and shooting at all the time? Hardly.
All nations blame all insurgencies on outside actors. Flush with idiot patriotism and jingoism, vast numbers of the ultra-gullible fall for it every single time. It all boils down to psychological defenses. What nation can admit that its own people are rising up in rebellion against it? No nation can admit this painful fact, hence lies are cooked up about the whole insurgency being imported from abroad.
Our own “field nigger” citizens are cheerful and satisfied on the plantation called the nation. God forbid the slaves should rise up. Such ingrates. Denial plus projection away from the root cause. Blame other people. What works in the individual ego works in the conglomeration of millions of egos called the nation.
The problem with this typical Indian denial and projection subterfuge is these lies have the possibility of setting off a major war between two nuclear powers who seem prepared to actually use their nukes against each other.
I don’t mean to support this outrageous crime, but a little context might be nice. India treats its Muslims like crap. The fact that Pakistan treats its Hindus like crap is no excuse.
The roots of this attack are right inside India itself, despite all of India’s BS finger-pointing and head-shaking.
The field niggers on the Indian plantation are not so happy after all. Deal with it, India.

An Easy Way to Raise the IQ’s of 100’s of Millions

Repost from the old site.

Get rid of iodine deficiency.

Amazingly, even moderate iodine deficiency causes IQ declines of 10-15 points if it’s in a pregnant woman or an infant. It looks like Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, India, Ethiopia, Sudan, Guinea, Senegal and Sierra Leone all have moderate to severe deficiency.

It would be interesting to see a better rundown of the severity of the deficiency in each place so we could figure out how much collective IQ could go up with iodine supplementation. In India, 500 million (50% of the population) get too little iodine, 54 million have goiter (severe deficiency) and 2 million are cretins due to extreme deficiency.

Yet another failure of Indian capitalism to provide for the very basics in human needs in India, and one more reason I support the Maoist revolutionaries in that country.

Many other nations have mild deficiencies. I don’t know what a mild deficiency does to your IQ, if anything. 16% of the world’s population has goiters, which are apparently caused only by iodine deficiency. That’s ridiculous. 1/6 of the world’s population.

Linguists Know Lots of Languages

Repost from the old site.
This is a common misconception. A variation being that a Linguistics program will not accept you unless you are a polyglot, and certainly will not if you are a monolingual.
Many older people even think the word “linguist” is a synonym for “polyglot.”
I have a Master’s in Linguistics and I only speak, read and write only one language well – English. My Spanish is ok, but it’s not really fluent or even near-native. I know a bit of Italian, French, Portuguese and Chukchansi Yokuts* but my Spanish is far better than any of those.
You don’t need to know more than one language to be a linguist. For instance, I got about 1/2 way through a dictionary and phrasebook of Chukchansi Yokuts, but the Hell if I can speak that language. I simply acquired the data, organized it, analyzed it, and organized it into a lexicon and some learning materials.
My program did not require you to even be bilingual to enter the program. There were lots of monolinguals in our program. True, there were lots of foreign students too, but they were all getting ESL degrees to teach English as a Second Language overseas.
All we do is study languages. You don’t really need to learn languages to study them. A lot of people can’t seem to figure that out for some reason.
It’s definitely true that lots of linguists do speak, read, write or have knowledge of more than one language.
The argument keeps coming up again when people question my ability to work on Chinese languages considering that I do not know how to read, write or speak Chinese. But you don’t need to. One of the world’s top Sinologists told me that this is a common misconception, that you can’t do good work on Chinese history, culture, sociology, language, etc. unless you know Chinese. Sure it helps, but it’s not necessary.
*A California Indian language.

The Black Education Money Hole

Repost from the old site.
I love to take on White nationalist nonsense because unfortunately there is so much of it in this movement. This line is a classic. From the comments, a classic rendition of this endlessly repeated line:

I don’t see much point in this. The fact is, the US taxpayers have spent so many billions of dollars trying to help these people catch up, yet they keep screwing everything up. Just let evolution roll the dice and let it land where it wants to.

This is the one of biggest White nationalist lies of them all. It works on various levels, and it’s internally contradictory, like most White nationalist stuff. First of all, the taxpayers have been devastated by endless spending since the 1960’s to help Blacks catch up to Whites (particularly as far as the Achievement Gap goes) and it has all been for naught.
The argument takes two forms. First, it blames Blacks for “screwing up” as this commenter puts it, implying that it’s all their fault, and they could easily catch up if they tried. But at the same time, there is almost always a hereditarian argument running here that says that Blacks are hereditarily inferior in intelligence to Whites. This would mean that failure is not their fault at all.
Implicitly, the White nationalists say first that it’s genetic and nothing can be done, and then blame Blacks for being the victims of the genetic dice. It’s a most cruel argument, but so are most White nationalist arguments.
I’m not aware that the US taxpayers have spent any extra money trying to help anyone catch up. We spend money on education, it’s true, but we educate everyone from low IQ to high IQ. Could someone please show me how and where we have poured money into Black schools in a wild effort to close the achievement gap? The evidence seems to be lacking.
This is one of the big lies of the White nationalists – that the government has spent all of these billions and billions on Blacks to help them catch up, and it’s all failed. But they haven’t.
Let’s go through this one more time. The government spends money on education.
The government doesn’t spend any extra money on Blacks or other lower IQ groups to try to help them catch up. Where did you ever get that idea? All the state does is educate kids. All kids get educated, White to Black, smart to dumb. I’m not aware of any efforts made in any recent era to pour money into low performing students to move them up. How exactly would this money manifest itself?
Let’s look at this line from some other points of view. If this were true, we would expect ghetto schools to look like the Upper East Side. Since the government is pouring so much money into trying to move Blacks up, they must be scrimping on Whites. It’s nonsense.
You go to White schools and they are stocked to the hilt – I’ve taught in many of them. You go to ghetto schools and they often look like Europe after WW2. The schools are wrecked, they are falling apart, there are not enough tables or chairs, there are hardly any supplies, often there are not even enough books and those books that do exist are very out of date and falling apart.
Now think about this real hard. Does it really sound like the government is flooding these ghetto schools with cash? I’ve taught in these schools. I taught there for years, in Compton and LA. Trust me, the government isn’t “pouring money into trying to bring Blacks up to everyone else.” Forget it. The state is barely even educating them in the most basic way.
Despite all of this, another aspect of the White nationalist argument is false – that there has been no progress. This is not true either. Wikipedia notes that Blacks have closed the gap in math, science and reading by 1/3 over 30 years – no small achievement.
I suppose in a way it is true that we are spending more on educating Blacks than we did in the pre Civil Rights Era. Black schools, especially in the Deep South states like Mississippi, were truly horrible. It’s amazing that anyone came out of there learning anything.
After the passage of the Civil Rights Act and especially after Brown v. BOE, there was a lot of litigation pushed trying to promote the notion of equal educational opportunity for all races at public schools. Due to the fact that schools are paid via property taxes, education in the US is still very unequal.
Truth is, White taxpayers probably pay little money to educate Blacks. The people who pay to educate Blacks are probably Black homeowners in the ghetto. Overwhelmingly, White tax money goes towards educating their own White kids in the local schools. That’s how property tax funding of neighborhood schools works.
I think what the White nationalists are really getting at is they don’t think that many or most Blacks should be educated at public expense at all. They consider most Blacks to be ineducable, and figure we shouldn’t even make the effort to even give them the most basic education.
Either that, or they want to go back to pre Brown vs BOE days.
Recall that the years 1954 (Brown vs BOE) and 1964 (Civil Rights Act) are marked as Years of Infamy by almost all White nationalists.
Nice people.

Interracial Rape Epidemics: A Thought Experiment

There is a well-known and fairly uncontroversial figure out there about interracial rape. In a recent year, Blacks raped 37,000 White women. 10,000 of those were gang rapes. So, there are 100 Black rapes of White women per day and 30 Black gang rapes of White women per day.
White nationalists like to say that this is a war on White women, but I crunched some figures and discovered that Black women are about 4-5 times more likely to raped by Blacks than White women are. Appallingly, White women actually get off easy in the Black Male Rape Epidemic. It is Black females who are truly devastated by this human cyclone.
As such, I don’t buy the White nationalist argument that this is some kind of racist terrorist war on White women by Blacks, although at first glance it looks that way. Nevertheless, the figures are outrageous and are sure to play into White anger and even racism against Blacks. There’s enough of that as it is, so the media buries these figures.
Let us do a little thought experiment here:
A White nationalist commenter cited figures of 100 White women raped by Blacks for every Black woman raped by Whites. The rape rates are way worse than what he cited. 37,000 White women are raped by Blacks every year. That is over 100/day. However, basically zero (or between 0-10) Black women are raped by Whites every year. Instead of 100-1, it is more like 37,000-1, or at best, 3,700-1. Even the lower figure is utterly mindboggling.
Just sit back and think if the situation were reversed: if White men raped 100 Black women every day, 1/3 of which were gang rapes, and there were basically zero rapes of Whites by Blacks. The Blacks and all the rest of the non-Whites, and all of the liberal and leftwing Whites, including probably me, would be up in arms about the “racist rape epidemic” being perpetrated on Blacks by White racists to keep them niggers in their place.
Black women would take extreme measures to protect themselves from White men, and no one would condemn them. Black men would occasionally rise up and pledge to defend their women’s honor with violence if need be, and the non-Whites and Left would all cheer. White men would cower and make excuses.
“Well…I certainly don’t rape any Black women…but be careful! There are a lot of bad White men out there!”
Blacks might even start demanding separatist housing and even residential locations or cities in order to protect the honor of their women from the evil White rape epidemic. The Left and non-Whites would probably cheer this racial separatism on. “Black women have a right to live in peace!” I can see the headlines on my favorite leftwing websites now. Sage liberals would squirm in their chairs yet nod sagely.
Every now and then a Black guy or Black woman would take vengeance on the rapists and go psycho and kill a (probably totally innocent) White guy, or a few White guys, and the media, the Left and the non-Whites would all but cheer it on. If it was a few Blacks who did it, the same crowd would quickly name them the “Oakland 8” or whatever, and rallies would be held in their name across the land.
Intrepid reporters would grant anguished interviews to the murderers. The Black men, tearful yet defiant, would say that they just could not take the sexual terrorism against their women any more, and they just snapped. The reporters would not their heads sadly. The broadcasts would begin, “While I can’t condone what Tyrone did – let’s face it, murder is always wrong – there are two sides to every story.”
Johnny Cochran types across the land would rush to defend the murderers of the innocent Whites. The trials would go forward, and heavily Black juries would acquit all the killers. Defiant Black female jurors would say, “I just could not send another Black man to prison. This prison-industrial complex is genocide against our men.”
Whites across the land would seethe, but there would be little violence and no riots. After all, Whites have hardly rioted since the Civil War, while Black riots, so regular you wonder if they riot because they nicked themselves shaving, is routinely elided and mistranslated by the usual suspects as “rebellions” even when innocent Whites are murdered in cold blood.
Nice thought experiment huh? I see you squirming already.

Hate Crimes Legislation: The View From the Ground

People talk a lot about hate crimes legislation, but we seldom know what it looks like on the ground. This British diplomat was arrested in the UK for violating hate crimes laws for shouting a few things here and there at the gym while watching the latest Israeli outrage in Gaza. I don’t really dig people yelling racially offensive stuff in public, but…
Really, now.
The poor guy could get 7 years in public for “inciting religious hatred.” My God. Isn’t this just going a bit too far? Are people getting arrested for writing stuff too? I’ve been arrested a few times myself, and no way do I want to see cell bars again.
My understanding is that hate crimes legislation has been one of the top things on the ADL’s agenda for some time now. It’s a testament to the fact that Jews do not, in fact, run America, that it’s never passed despite all the efforts of Organized Jewry. I believe that the Hispanic Lobby and the Cultural Left anti-racists like the SPLC are also pushing very hard for this. I don’t know about Black groups.
This stuff creeps me out. Hard.

Housing Discrimination, the New York Post Cartoon and the Oscar Grant Killing

It’s illegal to discriminate against non-Whites in housing. It’s an endless lament of White nationalists that Whites are not allowed to do this anymore. As soon as there is a hint of housing discrimination, the evil Feds will swoop down on you, fine you, take away your real estate license, or whatever.
Tim Wise (not my favorite guy) informs us that there are only about 6-12,000 incidents of racial discrimination in housing occurring every single day in the US. Of course, in every single one of these cases, the Feds swoop down on the racists and haul them away, right?
Who’s doing the discriminating? Wise does not say, but it is probably mostly Whites. Who are they discriminating against? Probably mostly Blacks? Are there Hispanics and Asians discriminating against Blacks? Maybe some Hispanics. Asians? Dubious. Why does it go on? Your average homeowner selling his own home could care less who buys it. Money’s money.
The only people discriminating are going to be landlords renting our apartments and real estate agents selling homes, apartments or condos. A few Whites might not sell to a Black just to keep the neighborhood pure, but I doubt if that many are so racially conscious.
If there’s this much discrimination going on every day, the Justice Department is definitively falling down on the job of enforcing the Fair Housing Act.
Wise also says that when Blacks first started moving into White neighborhoods, Whites started bailing immediately due to sheer racism. There’s more to it than that.
The fear was that the place would turn Black and the well-known deterioration would take place was surely involved. Many Whites stuck it out as the neighborhood slowly turned. As the area got Blacker and Blacker, things changed in a lot of dramatic ways. Most importantly, various Black pathologies, in particular violent crime by Blacks, mostly young Blacks, preying on Whites, often older Whites, is the thing that really freaks Whites out in these cases.
Schools start to change too. Many young Black males are highly aggressive, see White boys are weak and soft, and preferentially target and bully them for that reason. These same boys also target and bully their fellow Blacks, but the Whites are definitely attacked because they are seen as soft and weak.
Quite a few liberal-minded Whites have turned into raving racists due to some really unpleasant experiences going to school with Blacks, like getting attacked by feral Black males for years while attempting to get an education.
There are other changes that occur when a neighborhood starts turning Black, but crime and deteriorating schools, especially attacks on White boys by Black boys, are probably the real game changers, two things that send Whites fleeing more than anything else.
Blacks have only themselves to blame for this behavior and the resulting White flight, which,while lamentable, is perfectly reasonable. Personal safety is about the #1 issue for most folks. It tends to trump anything else. It’s not racism to seek to avoid crime and violence.
Wise points out logically that the famous New York Post cartoon of the cop shooting the ape “who wrote the stimulus bill” was transposed by the Post next to a picture of Obama signing the legislation. That is racist crap on the part of the Post; not the cartoon, but the transposition. If you can’t figure that out, think hard. Real hard.
The execution of the young Black man Oscar Grant by White BART officer Mehserle in the Bay Area recently has aroused lots of controversy. Blacks in Oakland spent a few days rioting about this incident, but US Blacks are always rioting about this or that. Yawn.
The Left and the Blacks say this is cold-blooded murder, but I doubt it. Mehserle was issued a new stun gun just two weeks before. He had a gun on one side and a stun gun on the other. Obviously he was reaching for the stun gun to stun Grant with, grabbed the gun instead, and shot him instead of stunning him.
For Mehserle to deliberately execute Grant while lying on the ground would be totally insane. We don’t do that in the US, not anymore.
Who does it? Oh, cops all over the world. In Africa, the very racial brothers of US Blacks would obviously execute a criminal in cold blood like that. The only places on Earth where cops have quit openly and deliberately executing people in large numbers is in the White West. You know, those evil racist White folks? Yeah them.

Obama Vows to Keep Insipid Cuba Embargo In Place

That’s because, as the Republicans, White nationalists and Far Right insist, the guy’s a fucking Communist! No, wait, a socialist. No, wait, any socialist worth his salt would have chucked this BS long ago.
I’m having a hard time figuring what the game plan is here. The Embargo has always been about US politics. Do the Dems really still need Florida to win the Presidency? What happens if they lose Florida? Do they lose? The Cuban Lobby is one kickass ethnic lobby, kind of like the Jewish Lobby. As Cuban policy has been always held hostage to this fanatics, so US Middle East policy has always been held hostage the Jewish fanatics.
With the Cubans, it’s always been about electoral votes. They have said that if we don’t back their nonsense, they have enough power in Florida to throw the vote to the other candidate.
Americans are more sensible, but not by much. I haven’t read any recent figures, but polls taken in the past decade showed that 53% of Americans supported lifting the embargo. The fact that so many Americans are still behind this embargo insanity shows what the power or propaganda is all about.
This is very much a White thing. The Cuban exiles are Whites, and it’s Whites who always backed the stupid embargo. Blacks and non-Cuban Hispanics are generally hostile to it, and your average Mexican is pro-Cuban. The Mexican and Cuban governments have had a long alliance, based on the fact that Mexico’s PRI was originally a revolutionary party. On similar grounds, the PRI was allied with the Salvadoran revolutionaries, the FMLN.

Revolution in the Land of the Savior

In 1989, I was helping to run guns for the FMLN, the Salvadoran revolutionaries, Commie scumbag that I am and all. I would drive to MacArthur Park in Los Angeles and meet the FMLN agent guy in the bar or whatever and hand him the cash with a conspiratorial smile. I guess it was legal then, but now it’s 10 years in the slammer thanks to George Bush. The War on Terror in so many ways is just a War on Justice.
I remember when I was going to USC in Los Angeles in 1983 at the height of the Salvadoran Revolution, there was a Salvadoran professor in our department who would periodically take off work and go down to El Salvador to actually put on a uniform and fight for the revolutionaries!
I was eating at a Salvadoran restaurant in San Mateo, California, in 2001, and I talked to the waiter. He said he left El Salvador in 1969. His parents went to the slums of San Salvador and said there were 12 year old boys walking around with AK-47’s. Sometimes revolution is just in the air you know? His parents saw the writing on the wall and put him on a plane to the US.
Ten years later, full-scale civil war exploded, after a decade of small-scale actions, mostly kidnappings for ransom and bank robberies by the revolutionaries to raise cash, and endless forays to the villages and slums by death squads to kill the people.
It was the twilight of the 1970’s, and the people had a choice. They could sit in their homes unarmed and wait for the government to come out and kill them, or they could at least take up arms to defend themselves when the government came out to kill them. Not much of a choice there. And so the war was on.
The Commie Moscow – Cuba – Banana Republic ratline conspiracy be damned; this is how most revolutions in Latin America started. If you’re gonna get killed anyway, you may as well go down in a hail of bullets trying to take some enemies down with you.

Permanent Gangland America

I hate to be a pessimist here, but the US gang problem will never be solved in the foreseeable future. That is because Hispanic and to a lesser extent Black gang culture is for all intents and purposes permanent, as is probably their ghettos and possibly their dismal scholastic performance. I am speaking of the Hispanic and Black Underclasses here.
I don’t like Thomas Chittum one bit, but the italicized  sentence above was one great thought that I took away from Civil War II. Chittum is a nasty White nationalist bastard, but he is very intelligent and has an excellent mind. Further, he has extensive military experience. If you just want to read Civil War II as a novel alone, it’s quite a kick. You can download it on my blog here. It’s entertaining reading (thriller) if you like this sort of thing.
The conceit here is that we think that we are going to get a handle on these gangs. This conceit is based on the notion that the Hispanics and Blacks are capable of morphing into Jews, Italians and Irish and doing the the ghetto to success number. Forget it. They are not the same and they never will be. The gangs and never going to go away. When everyone of us is on their deathbed, we will be to look out the window and see an America as overrun with gangs as ever.
As far as why this is true, I am not sure. IQ’s of US-born Hispanics are rising at a dramatic pace, far more than US Whites or even Blacks. US born Hispanics have now cut the IQ differential between US Whites and themselves in half from 1960 to 2009. Where there was a 15 pt gap between the two, now there is a 6 point gap. They achieved a 10 point absolute gain over 50 years.
In US born Hispanics have an IQ of 95 now to US White IQ of 101 (or 94 to 100 by the old system). A 94 IQ would seem to be perfectly adequate to cut it in this modern world. Hispanic IQ all told is 89 because non-US citizen Hispanics (probably 80% illegals) still have an IQ of  87 or 85 by the old system. Hat tip to The Inductivist.
I don’t know why US born Hispanics have such a dismal rate of high school dropouts (40%), college graduation (10%), teen pregnancy (2.5 X the White rate and 6.5 X the Asian rate) domestic violence, gang membership (19 X the White rate) crime (3.3 X the White rate) and indifference (!) to the environment (As a Deep Ecologist, I don’t like this one one bit), but it can’t possibly be due to their lack of brains.
The brains are there; it’s something else that is missing. Culture anyone?
I speak from Ground Zero. I live in an apartment complex in Mexifornia overrun by the Hispanic Underclass and especially illegals. Many of them are not necessarily objectionable people once you get to know them. It’s Norteno territory to the extent that I prominently wear my “N” tennis shoes a lot, and I just about claim Norteno myself. It’s not cool to root for the other side.
I’ve known quite a few of these gangbanger characters personally, and though many of them are likable, their effect on society is not good.
Forget Permanent Democratic Majority.
Get ready for Permanent Gangland America.

Zionist Fire Extinguisher

Ok, that’s pretty funny.
I really object though to the continuous use by anti-Semites of “Zionists” to mean “Jews”. This is similar to what Marr did in the 1880’s when he invented the word “anti-Semitism”. The whole idea was to create an innocent-wording word to hide his anti-Semitism behind. Jew-hater or Jew-hater being a little harsh for your average civilized German, you know.
I feel a bit of sympathy for Marr. Probably few, if any, Jews died in Germany due to his words or his organization, pogroms being pretty much nonexistent in the Germany of his era. Nazis didn’t need Marr’s fake words to rise to power. Their anti-Semitism needed no cloaking. It was 100% pure, high-octane anti-Semitism, no ifs, ands or buts.
A little history is in order here. Marr used to be a Judeophile, before he had lots of experiences with Jews. Specifically, three Jewish wives, who all become ex-wives. It was after his third divorce from a Jewish wife that Mr. Marr became a virulent anti-Semite. This is a cruel bit of history, but it always makes me laugh.
I like Jewish women myself, but Jewish guys have been carping about them forever. And Jewish women are always bitching about Jewish guys.
Viva le difference, and let the glorious War of the Sexes go on!

Let's Hear It For Population Decline

Population decline in 2009 in red - purple means population decline coming soon
Population decline in 2009 in red - purple means population decline coming soon

Give it a one, give it a two, give it a three cheers for population decline!
One thing I hate about ethnic nationalists all over the world is that they are pro-natalist. Of all the horrible things on Earth to do, to cheer on women for overpopulating this ruined planet…my God. This is one thing that ultranationalists all over the Earth seem to be on the same page with, last time I checked, though maybe Chinese nationalists are immune from it.
In the 1920’s and 1930’s, a hallmark of European fascism that spread like wildfire across the continent was pro-natalism. Lamentably, even Communists like Ceausescu got into this, though hardly any Commies anywhere want to claim that monster. Stalin outlawing abortion was a pro-natalist move, but then, Comrade Stalin had some fascist tendencies sometimes.
What about Hindutvas? What’s their position on natalism? Pro or anti? I wonder what the position of say, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Filipino, Arab ultranationalists is? Ultranationalists in Russia have never seen anything so horrible. Capitalists in the West are all upset about population decline in Italy. I guess that means no more pasta and Michelangelos or Sophia Lorens.
I will say that population decline due to declining life expectancy below a certain age is not a good thing. This is what is happening in the Eastern Bloc and Russia. Life expectancy decline is occurring in Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary and Bulgaria. You idiots wanted to go from socialism to capitalism, and look what happened. Capitalism is killing you off! Fools.
In Africa, population decline is occurring in Swaziland and Zimbabwe due to AIDS and in Darfur apparently due  to genocide. Amazing, the only place on Earth that genocide is actually reducing population numbers, and the Left won’t utter a peep, because their lovable Arab and Muslim monsters are doing the Final Solutioning. If only evil Jews or Americans were doing the Holocausting, our ears would never stop ringing.
Considering that the present population density of these African states cannot be maintained without utter destruction of the natural environment, maybe there is some horrible Malthusian logic working here.

Russia Admits There Was No Holodomor

Well, of course not.
Even Solzhenitsyn, and there is no greater hater of the USSR and Stalin alive, admits that there was no Holodomor, casting the Holodomor Lie as a lie that only the West could believe.
I am uncertain about some of the conclusions of this study, that Stalin deliberately starved people to death in order to export for industrialization.
The claims of the Holodomor Ukrainian Nazis, or Ukrainian nationalists, or whatever they are, is that Stalin deliberately targeted Ukraine for genocide via famine in order to crush Ukrainian nationalism. This is exposed as the lie we always said it was.
And the true figures for the famine are looking like 3.5 million dead, 1.75 million in the Ukraine and 1.75 million elsewhere. This is looking more like what observers on the ground were estimating. Keep in mind that Western journalists traveled through Ukraine at the height of this famine. They said things were tight all right, and there was a lot of hunger and little movement in a lot of the towns, but they saw few, if any, obviously starving people. One reporter saw one boy in line in a medical clinic in a Ukrainian city was obviously underweight. Most deaths were due to disease, not starvation. Sanitation and medical care were primitive at the time. At the time, it was estimated that 1-2 million Ukrainians died.
But consider this! If Stalin’s industrialization process had not proceeeded as it did, Stalin could have never defeated the Nazis, and Russia killed 89% of the Nazi Orcs killed in the war. If Stalin did not defeat the Germans, the whole outcome of the war becomes uncertain. So, even if grain was exported for industrialization, the result was that the West and the rest of the world was saved from the Nazi menace.
Now ponder that!
Considering that under Stalin the Czarist death rate collapsed by 70%, how exactly was Stalin, and not the Czars, the worst murderer that ever lived?

Independence For Abkhazia

Note: Repost from the old blog.
The London Review of Books publishes an excellent piece by Neal Ascherson on Abkhazia advocating independence for that nation*.
The Abkhazians and South Ossetians followed the post-colonial model of separatism. A colony or de facto colony gains its independence (in this case, we are replacing the USSR’s republics with colonies, which is problematic, but the model works the same way).
As soon as independence is declared, the new nation attempts a nation-building exercise and says that it is a coherent whole, typically without consulting the parts of its own body politic.
There are parts of the new nation that may have desired independence from the colony or larger whole (But maybe not; note that Abkhazians so feared Georgian ultranationalism that they voted to retain the USSR.).
Anyway, as soon as the new nation is declared, separatists emerge and announce that they are not part of this new nation, which has barely existed in history anyway, and hence has little to no legitimacy in terms of “territorial integrity”.
The former ferocious independence fighters quickly transform into fascist-like ultranationalists safeguarding the fake sacrosanct borders of the new nation with no historical existence.
In most cases, we progressives need to side with those who chose to break away from the very start.
It is little known, but this is the typical model for separatism in the world today.
This is the model that is operative in multiple separatist conflicts in Burma, India, Pakistan, China, Sudan, Angola, Turkey, Morocco, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Ethiopia, Russia, Georgia, Moldova, and any number of other places. These movements never entered into a national compact upon decolonization. They were fighting from Day One.
The article notes that while the South Ossetians may well be comfortable joining Russia, the Abkhazians are not. The Abkhazians want an independent state and have had a de facto one for about 16 years now, but no one wants to give them one. Why not? Because Russia supports the Abkhazians. Russia opposed the Kosovars, so the West lunged to support the Albanians of Kosovo, the only reason being “screw Russia”.
As Georgia is little more than a US (and partially, EU) vassal state, it figures that neo-imperialism in its EU and NATO form are backing up this state’s fake claim to territorial integrity. The article makes clear that incorporating Abkhazia into Georgia at this late date is a lost cause.
Neither are South Ossetia and Abkhazia being colonized by Russia, which is how the idiot Western press puts it. Neither place wants any part of Georgia, and that’s that.
For the moment, they have entered into a completely free marriage of sorts with Russia. Free associational agreements are never examples of colonialism, neo-colonialism or imperialism. They are simply alliances among free actors, states in this case.
This was the error in the ridiculous Cold War model that saw a free and independent Cuba as a colony of some imperialist (to US Cold Warriors) or social imperialist (to silly Maoists) USSR. Cuba was free to leave at any time, and if anyone was exploiting anyone, Cuba (the “colony”) was making out a lot better than the “colonizer”, the USSR.
Colonialism has always been all about the loot, putting the conceit of the British-inspired White man’s burden self-serving model aside for the moment. When the colony is getting the meaty end of the deal, and there is no exploitation of the colony and no coercion by the colonizer, there can be no colonialism or imperialism. Real simple.
The article discusses a particularly idiotic instance of Cold War insanity. Poland grabbed quite a bit of Germany after WW2, to the approval of a vengeful West, who also donated bits of Germany to other states. Germany is lucky to have survived at all. Germans were ethnically cleansed from Poland, and many never lived to tell about it. All in all, it is pretty sordid stuff, but paybacks are a bitch, as they say on the street.
German revanchism would seem to be the rallying cry of the very Nazi sympathizers and German nationalists that had been smashed into discredit by the war. So who would think that as soon as Poland fell into the Warsaw Pact, the West would suddenly throw all its weight behind a German nationalist-revanchist movement with Nazi roots?
Yes, the same West that delightfully chopped up Germany and donated hunks to Poland and twiddled thumbs while 100,000’s of German Poles died in the process, now suddenly decided that the evisceration of Germany and donor operation to Poland was an outrage verging on casus belli for war. Insane? Of course. Realpolitik? You got it.
For decades, the West de facto sided with German neo-Nazism and agitated for a return of Pomerania et al to Germany. Willy Brandt finally put an end to this nonsense once and for all in 1971.
The West’s embrace of Georgian fascist-like ultranationalism falls into this same quicksand of folly.
Recognize Abkhazia.
*The article downplays the differences between the Mingrelian – Georgian languages and the Abkhazian language, describing them only as mutually unintelligible. Mingrelian and Georgian are related and are members of the same family, but they can’t understand each other at all, as Mingrelian and Georgian split 3000 years ago. Beria, Stalin’s famous assassin, was a Mingrelian speaker, while Stalin himself spoke Georgian.
The family is known as Kartvelian and has no known relatives. Abkhazian, on the other hand, is Northwest Caucasian. Northwest Caucasian also has no known relatives, but I suspect a relationship at least with Basque and Yenisien, as I did quite a bit of research on that a while back.
Despite living in close proximity to each other for centuries, Abkhazian is as different from Georgian – Mingrelian as English is from Chinese. And Mingrelian – Georgian and Abkhazian are as different from Turkish, Russian and Arabic (three closely neighboring languages) as English is to Chinese.
Georgian and Mingrelian are written in the very strange Georgian script. Here is an example of it, in this case Mingrelian. Kudos to any reader who can actually read this stuff:
რუსეთ რე ქიანა ბჟადალ ევროპას დო ჩრდილოეთ აზიას. რუსეთ ფართობით მსოფლიოშ უდიდაშ ქიანა რე. ცხოურენს კოჩი. რუსეთც გეშართუნს დიდ გეოგრაფიულ რეგიონეფ: ბჟაიოლ ევროპაშ ხორგული, ბჟადალ ციმბირიშ რზენი, ცენტრალურ ციმბირიშ ნარაზენი. ტერიტორიაშ თია უკებუ გვალამი რეგიონემც: ალტაი, ჩრდილოეთ კავკაცია, კოლიმა, საინი, ურალი. უმაღალაშ კოკი რე იალბუზ

Immigrants are the Lifeblood of the Western Economy

Note: Repost from the old blog.
And other lies. Via whom? Via the corporate media, Canadian Israel Asper version in this case.
I am curious about something. Why is it that all of the elites in the West insist that all Western nations must perennially flood their nations with immigrants? Did not the East Asian NIC’s and Western Europe rise to the top of the world’s economic heap without flooding their nations with all of these brainy professional types?
Did Japan need to flood its nation with immigrants in order to be successful? Japan flooded its nation neither with brainy cream of the crop immigrants “for the brains it did not have”, nor with bottom of the barrel dregs cheap labor immigrants “for the jobs no Japanese would do.” They did it all with their own people, who are called the Japanese, and are not only bright but willing to do all sorts of work.
This whole steaming pile of manure called “we need floods of immigrants or the economy will collapse” needs to be called out as the pile that it is.
A clue is in the article. According to this corporate hack, the success of the US dot com boom of the 1990’s was created by having a labor force made up of 90% “cheap labor, can’t code to save their lives” immigrants from India.
These same immigrants produced a Mount Everest of garbage code all through the 1990’s, almost all of which had to be recoded by the few American coders who were not forced to train their replacements and then fired.
These same immigrants destroyed the entire US IT industry and took millions of highly skilled IT workers with them. Decades worth of intellectual knowledge and skills built up in the minds of millions of our best and brightest workers were MOAB’d at the altar of cheap labor.
Furthermore, these same Hindu 1-B job thieves were never even immigrants in the first place. Instead, they were “non-immigrant guest workers”.
Someone run this by me one more time. The Hindu 1-B American Skilled Worker Destroying Device was “necessary” in what way now? The US economy would collapse without this massive job destroying machine how now?
One more thing. Read this bit of corporate bird cage lining closely. According to the lunatic rationality of capitalist thinking, the fundamentals of the Indian economy are healthier than the fundamentals of the US economy. Therefore, if you’re a capitalist, you need to put your money into India and not the US.
Wow, capitalists really are evil, aren’t they?
India, one of the worst countries on Earth, a nation where 50% of the population is malnourished, where half the population is brain-damaged by iodine deficiency, where 200 million (20% of the population) sleep, eat and I guess shit and piss on the streets, on a subcontinent where 14 million people starve to death every year, where the starvation figures, year in and year out, are as bad as North Korea (Is anyone in the world starving but the North Koreans? Answer us, corporate media?) was in the single worst year of its famine in 1996.
This 1 billion strong train wreck of a society is healthier than America?
Than America, where no one starves, where relatively few (Certainly not 60 million!) are homeless, where malnutrition and iodine deficiency brain damage barely exists?
In what crazy capitalist alternative universe does that make sense?

That's the Way We All Became the Brady Munch

Note: Repost from the old blog.
Or, The Lezzie Teensluts of the Brady Bunch. This is rich! I always knew Marcia Brady was a little teen ho, but I never knew Jan was one too! And that both were kinky bi teensluts! Yep, Marcia and Jan were strapping it on and munching the carpet, while at the same time maintaining a healthy appetite for getting dicked. Good for them! More women like this, please!

Marcia showing Jan how to engage in phone sex after Jan said she was bored of the kinky lezzie teen stuff. Jan, as always when she was having sex with Marcia, is eager to learn!

That’s the way we all became the Brady Munch. I like it, better than the original!

On the left, Marcia Brady as a kinky bi teenslut masquerading (poorly) as a nice high school girl on the Brady Bunch. This is a rare photo of the first time she seduced little Jan. Note the devious, lascivious look in her scheming eyes.On the right, Marcia Brady, all grown up now, still a hottie, hopefully still as perverted as ever
On the left, teenslut Jan, fresh from a wild orgy with Marcia. Note the post-orgasmic bliss on her face. Marcia always made sure she was satisfied; that was why Jan loved her so much.On the right, Jan, all grown up now and too old to play teenage girls anymore, but still a hottie.
Jan and Marcia For President!

This is a funny video. It’s Marsha Brady Teenslut, all grown up now and supposedly over her “it’s just a phase” LUG (high school LUG that is) thing, now happily het and strictly dickly. Or is she? As you can see, she is still abnormally fixated on women’s vaginas. Maybe it wasn’t just a phase? Suspicious. All women must be like this!
Dang, what we were missing behind the scenes? I think the Dad, Mike, was queer.
Great. We thought it was the most wholesome show in TV, and really it was a demon’s nest of bisexual pedophilic orgies.
Nothing is ever what it seems, eh? Western civilization continues to crash downwards. Faster, faster!

Flynn Effect in North Africans/Turks Migrated To West Europe

Note: Repost from the old blog.

From an article by Philippe Rushton, hereditarian, a revelation about yet another instance of skyrocketing IQ increases in the second generation born in the West after migrating from the less developed areas.

Previously, we noted that the children Jamaican immigrants to the UK (IQ = 71) have IQ’s of 85-86, typically within a single generation. That is a gain of 14.5 IQ points merely by being raised in the West. Hereditarians have offered many rationales for this. The usual is that the Jamaican immigrants were already very bright anyway (as we will see with Moroccans and Turks in Netherlands, this is not true).

Another is that Jamaicans in the UK are very heavily bred in with Whites to the point where they may be only 1/2 White. This is not true – UK Jamaicans are only 12% White (Jamaicans in Jamaica are 9% White).

The children of Indian and Pakistani immigrants to the UK (IQ = 81.5) have IQ’s ranging from 92 (Rushton) to 96 (a figure I prefer). Call it 94. This is a gain of 12.5 IQ points merely by being raised in the West. The counter-argument here once again is that this group is self-selected.

Taken together, the children of Jamaican and East Indian immigrants see rises of 13.5 IQ points merely by being raised in the West. It is true that beyond the initial jump, we are not seeing more rises.

However, a strong initial jump is perfectly consonant with a hyperinjection of massive intellectual stimulation, good health care, proper diet, etc. This is probably all related to a higher standard of living. Higher standards of living seem to be somehow translating into long-term rises in IQ. The mechanisms can be debated, and we have done so on this blog.

Education, a massively-stimulating environment (computers, cell phones, TV, movies), proper nutrition, good health care, and myriad other things have been suggested, but the mechanisms for the rises are still somewhat mysterious.

Now, via Rushton, we have yet more evidence of a Flynn Effect in immigrants to the West. First generation Moroccans and Turks in Netherlands had IQ’s of 81. This is low. The Moroccan norm IQ is 84 and the Turkish norm IQ is 90. So, contrary to the argument that only the very brightest immigrants are going to the West, it seems instead that the less bright immigrants are arriving instead.

The second generation has IQ’s of 89. 89 is around the Turkish average, but it is 5 points above the Moroccan average. At any rate, it shows a Flynn gain of 8 points simply by migrating to the West. Rushton tries to explain this away somehow, but he doesn’t do a good job of it.

The evidence for massive IQ gains in second generation immigrants to the West is now becoming overwhelming and it is going to be harder and harder for hereditarians to explain this stuff away.

Comparison of 1st and 2nd generation immigrants to the West and the resulting Flynn Effect gains, apparently solely by being born and raised in the West. The common factor behind rising IQ’s in the West may be related to rising standards of living.

                   1st     2nd     Gain
UK Jamaicans       71      85.5    14.5
UK East Indians    81.5    94      12.5
ND Moroccans/Turks 81      88      7
Average            78      89      11.5

A Couple of Challenges to Rushton's Theories

Note: Repost from the old blog.
Use this video by J. Philippe Rushton below as a counterpoint to this post.
IQ’s of NE Asians in the US were behind those of US Whites until the 1970’s or so, when they gradually surpassed them. How does a hereditarian theory of IQ make sense of this?

US NE Asian   96.5
US White      100
US NE Asian   108*
US White      103*

* After renorming. Pre-renorming, the scores would be 105 and 100 for NE Asians and Whites respectively. The actual gain was 7.5 points for NE Asians in the US.
Their genes didn’t change one bit. One happened? Keep in mind that all hereditarians say that IQ differentials between races are 70% due to genes. If this is so, the initial set of figures from pre-1970’s NE Asians vs. Whites should have been should have been “intractable” as Rushton suggests, since 70% of that difference was due to heredity.
NE Asians should only have been able to move up a point or so against US Whites. Instead, they not only bridged the gap, but surpassed it. The new data, according to Rushton, is once again 70% genetic, and Whites should never be able to gain more than 1-2 points of that gap, and NE Asians should not be able to lose more than 1-2 points of that gap.
Note that each new gap automagically becomes 70% genetic, since Rushton says that all racial gaps in IQ are 70% genetic.
The facts of the NE Asian IQ change in the US over 60 years are impossible to explain according to Rushton’s theory. Conclusion: Rushton’s theory must be wrong.
Rushton notes that Whites have larger brains than Africans and that this proves that the difference in IQ between Blacks and Whites is hereditary and intractable. Further, he implies that the head size variance lines up with the IQ variance. But that does not make sense.
If brain size always lines up with IQ, explain this:
Note that Ugandans (IQ = 67) have larger brains than S. Europeans (IQ = 97). Vietnamese have some of the smallest brains on Earth, but their IQ’s are 99.5.
The head size = IQ theory needs a lot of work.
This research takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support more of this valuable research.

Up With Blacks, Down With Illegals

Via a comment on the fascinating American Renaissance site:

Illegal immigration is Economic Genocide against low-skilled African Americans.
Currently only about 1/2 of African-Americans finish high school, and relatively few graduate from college. This means that there are millions and millions of under-educated African Americans who can only find work in low-skilled, non-professional jobs.
But these jobs do not pay a living wage, because there are millions of poor and desperate illegal aliens from Mexico, who will work for virtually nothing, and hence drive down salaries. Why would anyone hire an African-American at $15/hr, when they can hire an immigrant at $7/hr? The surest way to keep USA Blacks unemployed is to bring in an endless supply of Mexican wage slaves.
Imagine if all the illegals were suddenly sent home. Agricultural, construction, meat-plants, carpet mills, restaurants, hotels, factories, custodial services, landscaping business, etc. by the thousands would now be desperate to hire people, and at nearly any cost. Salaries for low-skilled workers would skyrocket, allowing even high school dropouts to earn a good wage.
The millions of Black kids who fail to graduate from high school are healthy, energetic, strong, and can work, if given a livable salary. However Obama would rather keep millions of African-Americans unemployed for life than protect our borders. Obama loves Mexicans more than American citizens. Obama’s change: JOBS FOR MEXICANS — UNEMPLOYMENT FOR AMERICANS!

This issue is as obvious as the nose on my face. The truth is powerful and sad. Blacks don’t have a very good reputation in the workplace, and illegals, no matter that they are criminal invaders, at least have the rep of being good, submissive, hard-working employees who show up on time and put in a full days’ work.
I was outraged after Hurricane Katrina. NOLA is normally flooded with unemployed and underemployed Blacks. After the hurricane, just about every other Black in town was out of work, if not more.
Yet the locals so hate to hire Blacks that the Bush Administration incredibly brought in 1000’s or maybe 10,000’s of fake “guest workers” on H-2B visas (the biggest scam around) from Mesoamerica to do the jobs the NOLA Blacks were perfectly capable of doing.
They also unbelievably issued proclamations that gave anyone taking government grants freedom from worry about immigration violations of their workers. What the state said was, “Hire all the illegal aliens you want and we will look the other way.” It was stupefying. Illegal aliens from all over the US poured into NOLA to do the work that NOLA Blacks and even many NOLA Whites could easily have done.
Sure NOLA Blacks have lots of problems, but surely lack of work must be high on the list of causes for the catastrophe of Black NOLA.
Why should we lift one damned finger for these damned illegals? We can’t even help our own often-pitiful and suffering Blacks, who have been here since 1619, when the first Blacks came ashore with the first settlers in the Virginia colony. Soon after, Anthony Johnson, a freed indentured servant, led a Black community of 12 homesteads and 200 acres in Northampton County. You can’t get much more red-blooded American than that.
Help Americans first. Help our Blacks first. Putting foreigners, especially illegal alien criminals who invaded our land, above our very own citizens is high treason to me.
The Black political leadership has formed a marriage in Hell with the traitor Hispanic leadership, true dual loyalists who put their own people above America. Where the interests of their own people slam into the face of the interests of the US, Hispanic dual loyalists treasonously support their own and condemn their country to misery.
I am flabbergasted that Obama says he is going to push for mass amnesty of 12 million+ illegals in the Fall, in the midst of the worst economy since the 1930’s. Outrage!
In a meeting before Black political leaders, Black construction workers lined up one after the other to tell how their dry wall and carpenter careers had been ruined by illegal aliens. The Black Congressmen listening refused to be moved by their own people and all but told them to sit down and shut up.
What’s sad is the only Blacks bitching about this are rightwing Blacks. The Black liberals and Left are silent or cheering full speed ahead for the illegal alien enemies of Black America.

A Brief Look at the History of Art in the West, 300 BC – 1350 AD

Updated February 24. I added a few more things here.
I’m just getting into the history of art, and most people don’t know the slightest thing about it either, so let’s take a little jaunt into art history and you’re welcome to come along on my journey.
This will focus mostly on the history of art in the West. This post isn’t complete at all, but at least it gives you an overview of the subject. What it does in brief is gives a list of the finest art produced in the West from 300 BC until about 1400 or so, with a brief jaunt into the 1800’s.
I only link to one of these works of art, but if you are interested in some of the greatest works of art ever produced by men, just copy paste the names of the works below into Google images and you should be able to get a look at what I’m talking about. I’m too lazy to track down links to all of these works, sorry.
First of all, a previous post that suggested that there was little art in the Dark Ages was completely mistaken. What is true is that there was a decline in the great art and architecture produced by the Romans. Roman art came from the Greeks, and I think the Greeks were better sculptors.
Great Greek buildings and statues include The Treasury of the Siphnians and Battle Between the Greeks and Giants (Delphi), Achilles or Spear Bearer, the Parthenon and the Temple of the Olympian Zeus (Athens), Temple of the Athena Nike (Acropolis), Aphrodite of Knidos, Hermes and the Infant Dionysus, the Mausoleum at Halikarnassos (out of this world), Warrior A, The Scraper, Venus de Milo, Gallic Chieftain Killing His Wife and Himself, Athena Attacking the Giants and Dying Gallic Trumpeter (Pergamon), Laocoon and His Sons, Nike of Samothrace and Hellenistic Ruler.
Statues such as the Venus de Milo are some of the finest statues, albeit classical statues, ever made. They are very realistic; one could even say that they are hyper-realistic. It is better to say that Greek art was idealized realism. That is, it is more real than real. If you look at Greek statues of humans, they are more perfect than humans actually are.
Anatomists have studied these statues and concluded that these statues are in fact more perfect than actual humans could be, down to the last detail. It’s an idealized and perfectionist vision of man and what he could be.
Greek art, and the Roman art that followed, is very secular. This sets it apart from the art that followed in 1000 years following the Fall of Rome, in which art become focused solely on religion. So in this way, the Greeks and Romans were extremely advanced for their time. In contrast to the wildly religious-obsessed art of the Middle Ages, Greek and Roman art nearly avoids religion, as if it was not important.
What was important, instead, was the secular, quotidian lives we live on Earth and all of the hopes, dreams, tragedies, comedies, joys, etc etc. of the human journey. In this crucial way, the Greeks and Romans were as modern as we were. If we could go back in time and air-drop cars and planes into their cities, I’m pretty sure they could go to town with them pretty fast. Quit thinking of these ancients as primitives. They were just like us!
Some Greek art such as Gallic Chieftain Killing His Wife and Himself and Dying Gallic Trumpeter, while secular, is also histrionic is a staged sense. These are the exaggerated emotions of our films and plays, the timeless saga of man, his travails, conflicts and emotions.
The point here is that the emotional content is wildly exaggerated in the way that it often is on stage in plays. Plays, like opera, since they lack the fancy sets of cinema, rely on exaggeration of emotion, to convey what they lack via fancy sets and multimillion dollar crews.
The Greeks made some great tile art too, like Alexander the Great Confronts Darius III at the Battle of Isos and Stag Hunt.
In a previous post I asked why the very early civilizations all built pyramids. The truth is not so surprising. A pyramid is the most basic and rational architectural structure to build. It’s a natural. If you empty salt onto a table, it ends up in a pyramid shape. A pile of about anything often ends up pyramidal. A pyramid is going to stay upright.
Building large things other than pyramids that are going to stay upright is a lot more difficult. This is why the Roman invention of the arch was so essential. In architecture, the arch is an essential ingredient to any advanced building.
If you see some of the reconstructed Roman structures in the context of the time, it’s as if they were built by aliens. That’s how far advanced they were beyond anything else of the time. I have seen interiors of large Roman structures that look like modern airport terminals (see the Central Hall of the Basilica Ulpia in Rome). Roman cities were laid out very rationally on perfect grids. They also made atriums, pillars, coliseums, on and on. Buildings had elaborate carvings made in them, often of men in combat.
Roman paintings do exist, but due to the fact that they used wood and paints that decayed, little has remained. Most remaining Roman “paintings” were done with tiles. I have seen Roman paintings that achieve a look that was not achieved again until the 20th Century (see The Unswept Floor by Herakleitos). Pompeii has many of these.
As with just about everything else, Roman art and architecture was out of this world.
Some of the great statues, tilework, carved artwork on buildings, buildings and cities are Head of a Man, Aulus Metellus, Imperial Procession, Commodus As Hercules, Augustus of Primaporta, Gemma Augustea, the House of the Silver Wedding and the House of the Vetii (Pompeii), Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius, Battle Between the Romans and the Barbarians, Still Life (Herculaneum), the Colosseum, Hadrian’s Villa in Tivoli and The Battle of Centaurs and Wild Beasts (at Hadrian’s Villa), Timgad in Algeria, the apartment blocks of Ostia, and the Arch of Titus, the Arch of Constantine and the Column of Trajan (all in Rome).
The Pantheon in Rome may be one of the greatest buildings ever made, though the competition is tight. The Dome of the Pantheon is out of this world.
It’s commonly said that Romans fell to barbarians, Germanic tribes. It’s true that they sacked the place, but it’s not true that the Dark Ages lacked art, as I noted above. What happened in the Dark Ages was a decline in the quality of art over that produced by the Romans and Greeks.
Furthermore, art became very restricted. Paintings, usually done with tiles, have a dark, depressing and Hellish theme, overridden with a harsh moralism. The world was a cruel and nasty place, and if you didn’t watch it and pray all the time, you were going to Hell.
Almost all paintings were of religious figures of one type or another. People often have a strange, otherworldly look. This is because as I noted in an earlier post on the Dark Ages, the Church had the only money at this time. If you wanted to get funded, you had to go to the Church and the Church would only fund Church-related stuff. Plus probably most art was being done in monasteries, as with most other productive activity beyond mere survival.
The people looked strange because the Church frowned on realistic looking people. That looked like real life, and the Church did not want to portray real life. They only wanted to portray the otherworldly realms of religion. In this attitude we can see the common religious attitude that the worldly life is permanently tainted with sin and must be avoided as much as possible.
Although this was a dark time for art and society, the focus on religion was reasonable. Truth was, life was so dark and dismal that the Church was where it was all going on. All art was about the Church because there was nothing else happening and life was really bad. All science, education, learning, reading, writing, wealth creation, art, architecture – it was all coming out of the Church. The money factor was crucial. Nowadays, if you want money, you go into business. Back then, you got into religion.
The reason that things fell apart so much in the Dark Ages was the collapse of urbanization. Country folks and back to the landers may not like city life too much, but when cities collapse, most everything tends to go to Hell. By contrast, the greatness of Greece and Rome was actually related to their high level of urbanization. City life seems necessary for advanced civilization to occur. With urbanization, some crucial factors probably jell together that start to mandate civilizational advances.
Characteristic of the time is large halos around everyone in the painting. It is accurate to say that art did not progress during the Dark Ages, that it actually went backwards.
Nevertheless, much fine material was produced.
Some of the excellent paintings, sculptures and buildings produced during the Dark Ages include the Church of Santa Sabina (Rome), the Church of Santa Costanza, the Mausoleum of the Galla Placidia, the Dome of the Baptistry of the Orthodox and the Church of San Vitale, the Transfiguration of Christ with Saint Apollinaris, First Bishop of Ravenna – a painting in the Church of Saint Apollinaire of Classe (all in Ravenna, Italy), the Hagia Sofia (Istanbul) – one of the finest buildings ever built, the first written Bibles such as the Rabbula Gospels from Syria, the Paris Psalter, the Ebbo Gospels and the great Crucifixion with Angels and Mourning Figures cover of the Lindau Gospels (all from France) and the Book of Kells from Scotland (Out of this world!), the Cathedral of Saint Mark (Venice), the Palace Chapel of Charlemagne (Aachen, Germany), ornaments from the Sutton Hoo burial ship (Suffolk, England), the Gummersmark brooch (Denmark), the Labro Saint Hammers (Gotland, Sweden) the burial ship from Oseberg (Oseberg, Norway), the Gero Crucifix from the Cologne Cathedral (Cologne, Germany) and the Church of Saint Cyriakus (Gernrode, Germany).
Note that fine art was even produced up in Scandinavia. These people were not primitive by any means. The problem up there is that most art was created out of wood. There was plenty of that, but it doesn’t make very good art, and most important, it doesn’t last. For really great art, it helps to have some big rocks, and I think there are a lot more trees than rocks in Scandinavia.
Greece looks like while God was creating the world, he took a break to throw rocks at Greece. The place is littered with stones. Hence all of the fine stone sculptures, buildings and cities of Greece.
Great art continues in the High Middle Ages, such as the Church of the Monastery of Christ in Chora (Constantinople) and the painting Anastasis on its apse, the Doors of Bishop Benward at the Abbey of the Church of Saint Michael (Hildesheim, Germany), Doubting Thomas in the Abbey of Santo Domingo de Silos (Castile, Spain), Christ in Majesty in the Church of San Clemente (Tahuil, Catalonia, Spain), the Borgund Stave Church (Sogn, Norway), the Durham Cathedral (Scotland), the Church of Saint Etienne (Caen, France), the Speyer Cathedral (Speyer, Germany), the Church of Saint Ambrogio (Milan, Italy), the Cathedral Complex (Pisa, Tuscany, Italy), the Church of San Clemente (Rome), printed works such as the Worcester Chronicle (Worcester, England) and the Winchester Psalter (Winchester, England), the woven Bayeux Tapestry (Bayeux, Normandy,  France) and the Portable altar of Saints Kilian and Liborius from the Helmarshausen abbey (Helmarshausen, Saxony, Germany).
The Leaning Tower of Pisa is also in the Pisa Complex. The tower is leaning not because it was top heavy, though it is, but because it was built on sand. It would have fallen over long ago without our efforts to shore it up. These efforts are vast and ongoing. We are tunneling under the building and shoring it up in various ways to keep it from falling. Right now things are so bad that it is so dangerous to be around the tower that visitors are forbidden from walking within toppling distance of the thing.
One reason that the art above is so great, even those famous Bibles, is that monks would spend 20 years, 40 years, or a lifetime making say one Bible, one treasure box, painting one church. Not only that, but a whole team might work for many years on an object or interior church design. These monasteries were like miniature factories. They weren’t producing a lot, but no one else was either. They were very inefficient, but there was no competition.
Gothic is in the High Middle Ages, and this is starting to head into the Renaissance, although everything is still about religion.
Gothic had some superb works, and now we are looking at some of the finest churches of all, including the Cathedral of Notre-Dame (Chartres, France), another of the greatest buildings ever built, the Amiens Cathedral (Amiens, France), an incredible building, another Cathedral of Notre-Dame (Paris), a competitor with the Notre-Dame in Chartres and possibly better, another Cathedral of Notre-Dame (Reims, France), possibly the best one of them all, the Saint-Chapelle (Paris), yet another awesome building, and the Salisbury Cathedral (Wiltshire, England) – too much!
Gothic architecture clearly produced some of the finest buildings that have ever been built. It’s characterized by tall, thin cathedrals with vast spires jabbing away at the sky.
The purpose of those spires was to point towards heaven. The idea of the tall buildings was to make them closer to Heaven, and also the various monasteries and bishops were in competition with each other to see who could build higher buildings. The tall, thin shape that gets more pointed towards the top is the best way to build a tall building for the same reason that a pyramid is a natural form.
A building that gets more pointed near the top is less likely to topple over than a top-heavy building that has as much weight at the top as at the bottom. One of those Gothic cathedrals actually had a building that did not get more pointed as it rose and that part of the building toppled over.
How did they build those cathedrals? They used scaffolds. Often families of men, fathers, sons, grandfathers, multiple generations, would work on the buildings.  They usually worked for free or room and board. The Church told them, “Hey, if you guys work on this church your whole life, you will go straight to Heaven.” Yeah right.
One purpose of the cathedrals was conversion. Life was pretty dismal in those days, and the life of a serf was bad. So you took a humble person and should him this wild cathedral, so beyond anything else he had ever seen that it may as well have been built by aliens, and you pretty much had a convert on your hands, so awe-struck was he.
These cathedrals show us just how much money the Church had at this time. For all intents and purposes, the Church had all the money and no one else had a dime. It’s a truism that while the Roman Empire did formally fall, really it just morphed into the Roman Catholic Church.
The fundamentalist crowd wonders why we care so much about separation of church and state. We care because back in those days, the Church was the state. English kings pondered for lifetimes ways to get the Church out of the business of running the damn country. No wonder Henry VIII threw the Church out and set up the Anglican Church. It was the only way to get free of this octopus and its tentacles.
In the Late Middle Ages, great works continue, including the Exeter Cathedral (Exeter, Devon, England), a mind-boggling structure, the Ely Cathedral (Ely, Cambridgeshire, England), the dome of which makes you wonder how they even built it, the Cathedral of Palma (Mallorca, Spain), up there with the greatest and the Church of the Holy Cross (Schwabisch Gmund, Germany), the Virgin and Saint George, the altarpiece of the Church of San Francisco, Villafranco del Panades (Barcelona), the Shrine of the Three Kings (Germany), the Florence Cathedral (Florence), an incredible building, the Siena Cathedral (Siena, Italy), another awesome structure, the Life of John the Baptist on the doors of the Baptistry of San Giovanni (Florence), Giotto di Bondone’s Last Judgment on the west wall and Life of Christ and the Virgin on the north and south walls of the Arena Chapel and Duccio di Buoninsegna’s Maesta Altarpiece for the Siena Cathedral.
Around 1340, one of the first works including landscapes and regular people with no religious significance was done, Ambrogio Lorenzetti’s Allegory of Good Government in the City and Allegory of Good Government in the Country, two frescoes in the Sala della Pace in the Pallazo Pubbico in Siena. The moving away from religion and focus on our real world shows how the Late Middle Ages were leading into the Renaissance.
The periods of the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance seem to blend together. The Renaissance ran from around 1350-1600. The Late Middle Ages are thought to be from 1300-1450, so there is definitely overlap. The truth is that the Late Middle Ages shade into and lead into the Renaissance. In the Renaissance, we get the first non-religious art since the fall of Rome.
I don’t have much to say about the art of China and Japan except that it is good. It’s difficult to compare this art with the art produced in Europe. They all had their own styles  and it’s hard to say if any one of them is better than the other, but I don’t think that Japanese art is any better than what was being done in Europe at the time.
Islamic art is actually very good, especially the tilework on the interior of mosques up on the domes. This is excellent art, and as good as what was being done in Europe. The only thing you can say about Islamic art is that their ridiculous religion bans them from drawing humans.
I have seen some early Jewish art, but I wasn’t much impressed by it. Jews are very smart and many modern artists are Jews, so Jews can clearly make great art. The problem here is that like in Islam, Jews were forbidden to make graven images, and the forbidding of idol worship means you can’t draw people, and that tends to really limit your artwork. The fact that Islam has the same prohibition means to me that Islam has borrowed from Judaism.
The art of Central America is interesting, and some of it is not bad. I don’t think it’s superior to European art, but I’m not sure if it’s inferior either. Some of the gold ornamentation is really great.
I really hate to bag on Blacks here, but I should say something about African art. I was not very impressed with it. The best building was the Great Friday Mosque in Djenne, Mali, built in the 1200’s. It’s made of mud and wood. It’s ok, but compared to what was being built in Europe and the Arab World at the time, it’s not much at all. Afrocentrists like to go on about the Great Zimbabwe built around 1300. Yes, it’s a long wall made of stones with some conical structures here and there. If this is Africa’s greatest architecture, I don’t know what to say. It’s not much.
However, I was very impressed by statue heads and masks out of Benin from 1400-1650 and continuing on to 1900. Some of that is excellent. It is usually made of brass. However, I am told that they were already coming under the influence of Europeans, especially Portuguese, and this spurred this nice art. I don’t care what influenced them. There is some cool art coming out of Benin around the time of European Renaissance.
I’m not so impressed with the earlier stuff out of Yoruba or the very early stuff out of Nok in Nigeria. However, we must acknowledge that Nok was one the flashpoints for early African civilization and more was accomplished here sooner than anywhere else in Africa.
At any rate, today Africans produce some superb art, especially African masks. Travelers to Africa with some cash often pick them up and it’s a great investment. I’d love to have one on my wall.
In the 1800’s, all art and music was in the classical traditions. If you wanted to be an artist of a musician, you had to go to school and study the classics. That was really the only way to paint or make music. Hence, art and music had stagnated. The classical art and music had been taken to the limits and the best had already been done. Michelangelo and Beethoven were not going to be surpassed. There was nothing to innovate anymore.
One of the first impressionist was Édouard Manet. His first impressionist painting, Le déjeuner sur l’herbe (The Luncheon on the Grass) (1863) was a strange painting of a two clothed men eating a meal with a naked woman in a park. It caused a scandal because the people pictured were real people, not religious, historical, mythological, political or monarchic figures (the five permitted types).
It was not really possible to paint a real person. All art had to be of one of the five types of persons above. The idea of painting a real person was ridiculous.
Manet’s painting caused a scandal not because the woman was nude. It was ok to paint nudes if they were of the five types of persons allowed. The idea that someone would paint a nude of a real life person was outrageous.
It was made even worse because people knew the names of those who were painted – the men were his brother, Eugene Manet, and his girlfriend’s brother and future brother in law, Ferdinand Leenhoff and the woman was Victorine Meurent, Manet’s favorite model and later an artist in her own right.
Further, the subject matter was seen as shocking, nearly pornographic. What were the clothed men doing eating with the naked woman? It was as if they were both going to have sex with her at the same time in a menage a trois .
What Manet did with that painting was like saying, “Screw you,” to the Art Establishment of the time. It was like punk rock, an act of artistic defiance. It was anti-art, anti-classical art, and anti-Art Establishment.
Manet many and his supporters got banned from a major art exhibition in 1863, the Salon de Paris. The jury of the Académie des Beaux-Arts, which dominated the French art scene at the time, voted to exclude his painting from the Salon, and those of many other Impressionists were also banned.
This research takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support more of this valuable research.


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)