Setting the Record Straight About Pre-Contact Africa

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

Agriculture was probably developed by Africans before it was developed by anyone else. There is evidence for agriculture or pre-agriculture in Africa (West African Guinea Highlands) as early as 12,000 YBP. You must realize that Africans originated many things that we as humans do. The next to develop agriculture were the Mayans (corn), the Chinese (rice) and the Papuans (yams), all at 9,000 YBP. The Egyptians and Mesopotamians were not far behind. Africans even had plantation agriculture as early as 900 CE in Tanzania.
I doubt if Caucasians developed agriculture 11,000 YBP. Are we referring to Mesopotamia, the Levant or Egypt here?
Animal husbandry was also developed very early on in Africa. It may have been developed in the Western Sahara before anywhere else on Earth. A figure of 9,000 YBP is suggested for animal husbandry in the Sahara. However, pigs may have been domesticated in Papua around this time also. Animal husbandry was widespread in Africa, particularly in the Sahara, the Sahel and Ethiopia, on contact. I don’t know much about animal husbandry further south, but I have heard there was a shortage of animals to domesticate.
At any rate, the invention of the hoe and subsequent hoe agriculture along with the spear played a major role in the history of Africa. Both derived from the early development of metallurgy in the form or iron. Indeed, the Iron Age came to Africa before it came to Europe. The development of iron metallurgy and the subsequent creation of those two iron tools allowed the Bantus to expand massively all over Central and South Africa in only the last 2-3,000 years.
Africans definitely had civilizations, that’s for sure. Mostly in West Africa but quite a few in the Sahel too. There was even a civilization in Rhodesia. Early European explorers drew drawings of large African cities. Looks like civilization to me. Civilizations were especially common in Nigeria. They had manufacture, trade, agriculture for export, all sorts of things.

A Look at Precontact Igbo Society

This is from a good friend of mine, a young Black guy I am mentoring. We have all sorts of great discussions. As you can see, I am such a horrible racist that I mentor young Black guys! How many racists do that? This also looks like a pretty well structured society, which seems to belie the myth that these people were complete savages pre-contact. They actually had a fairly elaborate system of social and political organization.

My few Afrocentrist readers like Hucipher might be especially interested in this

The Social Order of Pre-contact Igbo Society

Negro Major – This could either refer to the King Priest or the Judge Priest depending on which Igbo system you are talking about. The King Priest would be the only real political figure in centralized Igbo society, possibly playing the role of “Loyal Patron” or “Grand Manipulator.” In the case of the Awka, the major Igbo tribe who sold slaves, he was probably the latter; with the Nri, a tribe where slaves ran to to be free, the former.

Judge Priest – The Judge Priest of decentralized Igbo society was closer to what we would call a judge or priest in our own societies. While he was seen as a man of power, he didn’t hold an executive role.

Negro Concilium – These would be the heads of village families who participated as a council. Not only did their political role make their organization democratic, but throughout the status system, this group was the focal point where things were kept “egalitarian yet complex,” possibly the best way to describe this system. In order to retain this status, one  must have had good communication skills and be what we might call “fluent speakers” and needed to maintain discipline in their administrative role.

Negro Plebeian – These would be the various tradesmen who were disciplined in their crafts and developed a hard work ethic.

Negro Minor – Younger members who were fodder for the other roles.

Negro Vulgus – Murderers, thieves, and possibly rapists who broke the laws of their societies. However, domestic abuse probably evoked little concern. These were actually looked down upon in Black societies that had an active system law enforcement, such as the Ashanti or the Igbo, and the  Malians under Ibn Battuta who developed a system of law and order due to a religious culture.

Are Arabs Usually in a State of War?

RL: Most people in the region have been living in peacetime most of the time since independence.

Swank: Seems to detail a different picture here…

There has not been a war fought on Moroccan territory. Morocco has been at peace 100% of the time since Independence.

Algeria fought a civil war from 1991-2000.  That is 10 years out of 53.

There has not been a war fought on Tunisian territory. Tunisia has been at peace 100% of the time since Independence.

Libya fought a 4 day border war with Egypt in 1977. There was an on and off war in Chad for 8 years between 1978-1987. There has been civil war since the overthrow of Ghaddafi. That is 12 years of war out of 63 years. Libya has been at peace 93% of the time since Independence.

Egypt was involved in several wars with Israel, but they didn’t last long. The total adds up to maybe 2 years at most. That’s 2 years of war out of 93 years.

Indeed, Palestine has been embroiled war almost all the time since 1947.

Jordan has only fought some wars with Israel. Maybe 2 years of war out of the last 66 years.

Syria fought several wars with Israel, but the combined total only lasted two years. They fought a war with the Muslim Brotherhood that went on perhaps 1 year. There has been a civil war since 2012. That is 6 years of war out of 64 years.

Saudi Arabia has not been in any wars since 1920 that I am aware of. However, there was an internal civil war that lasted a few years recently, but it was a very low level war. Saudi Arabia was briefly targeted in the Gulf War but that was only for a year. That’s 3 years out of 95.

Oman has not been in any wars since 1920 that I am aware of. Oman has been at peace 100% of the time since Independence.

Bahrain has not been in any wars since 1920 that I am aware of. Bahrain has been at peace 100% of the time since Independence.

UAE has not been in any wars since 1920 that I am aware of. UAE has been at peace 100% of the time since Independence.

Qatar has not been in any wars since 1920 that I am aware of. Qatar has been at peace 100% of the time since Independence.

Kuwait has been at war only with Iraq and that was only for a few weeks. That is 1 month out of 95 years.

Yemen did fight a civil war that lasted maybe 8 years. This resulted in a split in the country. There has been an internal war against Al Qaeda for maybe 4 years now. That’s 12 years out of 54.

Iraq fought a brief war with the British in 1941, but it only lasted one month. There was civil war in Mosul in 1959, but it lasted no more than a week. Iraq fought a number of wars with Israel, but those amounted to no more than 2 years. The Iran-Iraq War lasted 8 years. The Gulf War was over in less than a year and was by an internal civil war on 6 months. Iraq has been at war since the Iraq War in 2003, 11 years. Since 1932, Iraq has been at war for 22 years. That is 22 out of 83.

Lebanon fought a few wars against Israel, adding up to no more than 2 years. There was a brief civil war in 1958 lasting no more than one month. There was a major civil war in Lebanon for 15 years, from 1975-1990. Hezbollah fought a 1 month war with Israel in 2006. There was a brief civil war in 2007 with the Lebanese army fought a 4 month civil war against Fatah-al-Islam. In 2008, Hezbollah fought a 1 week war with the government. The Syrian Civil War has spilled over into Lebanon for the last year. Lebanon has been at war for 19 out of 70 years.

Conclusion: Most countries in the Arab World have been at peace most of the time since Independence.

My Views on Black People, with a Note on Afrocentrism

Darryl writes:

My last question to you Mr Robert Lindsay is what if the Egyptians are discovered to be Black or a darker skinned race – a true African race – then what? Just a hypothetical? How do your views of them change?

Are you sure you are basing your findings on fact and not on personal feelings. Your answer sounds more emotionally involved than needed (same for the others as well). Just what happens if they are discovered as Black?

I would just accept it. As a non-racist Leftist, I am somewhat pained that Blacks do not have enough accomplishments yet to speak of. I am constantly looking around for Black achievement and accomplishments and I try to play them up whenever I find them because there is so much talk of non-achievement that it is painful.
There is a wealth of material about the stagnation, retardation in terms of progress and wealth of failures and shortcomings of the Black race. There is a chorus of millions screaming this all the time. It’s trite, insulting to Blacks and demeaning to the bullies who beat up on Blacks like this.
Now and then, I write about the downside of Blacks, but it’s an overdone topic, and all it does is incite racism against Blacks. Some of my friends on here like Tulio and Alpha are Black, and I don’t feel like inciting racism against them.
So when it comes to Blacks, I prefer to look on the sunny side or else think about them as little as possible. Although Blacks might find it insulting, I don’t think Black people are all that important. The mistake that both Afrocentrists (and to a lesser extent ethnocentric Blacks in general) and anti-Black racists have in common is that both think that Black people, their behavior, evolution and track record is extremely important. In fact, to anti-Black racists, Blacks are almost at the center of their universe.
That’s ridiculous. Black people simply are not that important in my opinion. And as long as you pretty much ignore or avoid most of them, you won’t have a lot of problems with them either. Black problems are for Blacks to deal with, wring their hands over, and figure out. Whites like me are here to help, but Black issues are not at the center of our world; in fact, they are peripheral.
This also demonstrates the idiocy of Afrocentrism. Instead of dealing with the very real problems that Blacks face today, they spend all of their time in a defensive project aimed at revealing the great historical past of Black people. The ego-defensive nature of this movement is painfully obvious if not embarrassing to anyone who will look. That the past is dead is trite but true. It doesn’t matter if the claims of Afrocentrists are true or not. It doesn’t matter what Blacks did or did not do in the past. Let the dead lie. Life is for the living. Black people need to focus on the reality of Black people in the present and forget about the Black past.

Blacks Beat Whites – Film at 11

Repost from the old site.
I see idiots.
I see White Supremacists.
I see White Supremacist idiots (there is no other kind).
It’s fun to stroll over to American Renaissance once in a while. While there is a good understanding of race there and folks are not afraid to broach the subject, there is also a staggering amount of stupidity, mostly in the comments. What is hilarious about all this Dumbness is that this Dumbness is being scribbled by folks who are dedicated to the premise that they are members of the most intelligent race on the planet.
Ho ho ho!
I see this problem with nationalists, especially ethnic nationalists, and ethnic supremacists (of all varieties) all the time, although I confess that Chinese Supremacists are the least stupid of all, and sometimes I think there is no one dumber than an Afrocentrist. Gosh, is there something to the IQ thing after all?
The problem is that once you become an ethnic supremacist, you have to construct a particularly insane and insipid worldview whereby your group did all the great things in the whole history of the world, is superior to all the other groups, and the competing groups all did nothing and are inferiors.
Even if your group was not running around secretly doing all the great stuff, you need to put down all the achievements of the other groups (“The Aztecs and Maya were too stupid to invent wheels!”), while elevating the often meager achievements of your own group. Talk to a Nordicist sometime about the Germanic tribes running around with bearskins and spears and he will convince you that they were far beyond the Egyptians.
This leads to some rather breathtaking displays of brain rot. Only in White Supremacist fora will you still find intelligent humans debating whether or not humans came out of Africa. It’s just so insulting! That the White Man came from niggers! How dare you say that?
But really now, if you recognize that before that we came from frogs, it’s not so insulting.
Only on these fora do you find folks insisting that Whites were the original settlers of the Americas (!) and that Amerindians are interlopers who need to be sent back home (!). Only here do you find serious discussion of whether or not Africans still retain an “ape gene” (!) that all the rest of us have lost, at least when we are not drunk.
Only here do “White Historians” regale rapt listeners with tales of how stealth-Whites (probably disguised as other races) roamed around the world for 1000’s of years, secreting building all of the great civilizations on Earth (!) for only a consultant’s fee, and then slipping silently back to Europe or wherever while the Egyptians, Indians, Khmer, Maya, Inca, Chinese and all the rest of the inferiors got all the credit (!).
Yes, White Nationalism is a fountain of stupidity that never dries up.
Let us look at my latest finding from American Renaissance. It is from an article about fossils. The post has now been deleted by the editors (see here), probably because it makes White people look too stupid.
About the article – I think it had something to with Neandertal. One of these WN guys’ favorite obsessions is with Neandertal. Every sensible human on Earth knows that Neadandertal lived and died in Europe, going extinct 29,000 years. Everyone except…White nationalists!
ROTF.
These slobbering morons still insist, against all scientific evidence, that Neandertal gave rise to Homo Europeanansis Superioris. Now why anyone would want to claim ancestry to this big-browed hulk is beyond me, but WN’s just love it. I suspect it is because they get to claim that they are not descended from niggers!
Anyway, the comments section took off and all the usual WN droolers strolled in from their group homes waving their arms in weird ways and making animal noises. Soon the conversation degenerated as usual.
These guys’ contempt for Blacks knows no bottom floor. In the comments, they insisted, against all evidence, that Blacks had never accomplished anything in Africa before Whites showed up and taught them how to eat with forks and walk standing up.
First of all, let us note that African Blacks discovered iron (went through the Iron Age) before European Whites did. This fact is common knowledge in any anthropology department, but not one massive-brained WN European Supermen has either heard of it or will have anything of it.
I certainly am not arguing that Africa was some cultural pacesetter.
But the facts on the Iron Age are clear. Africa skipped over the Bronze Age (and the Copper Age for that matter) altogether and went straight to the Iron Age. That’s right, straight from Neolithic to Iron, how ’bout that? I dare WN’s can put a “Black ignoramus” spin on that one!
It is true that two groups did beat the Africans to the punch. Iron was developed in Anatolia in the year 2000 BC. It was then independently developed by the Ganges civilization in India in the year 1800 BC. In third place, in the year 1500 BC, are the quite-Black Africans of Nigeria. And Cleotis done it all without Massa’s help!
Iron Age Timeline:
1. Anatolia (Turks, WN’s insist that Turks are not even White) 2000 BC
2. India, Ganges Valley (Indian Caucasians, WN’s say they are not White) 1800 BC
3. Africa, Tok, Nigeria, and Termit, Niger 1500 BC (Dumb niggers!)
4. China 1300 BC
5. Middle East 1100 BC
6. Greeks (WN’s concede these folks are White?) 1100 BC
7, etc. Everyone else (Northern European “superiors”)
The Iron Age in Black Africa, straight from Wikipedia. From the text:

Inhabitants at Termit, in eastern Niger became the first iron smelting people in West Africa and among the first in the world around 1500 BC.

Other sources put the onset of the Iron Age in central Nigeria at the same time, in Tok, Nigeria. The Africans at Tok and Termit could not possibly have learned iron smelting from Arabs, as Arabs did not get it until 1100. No way did Hittites or South Indians teach it to them either. They just figured it out on their own, those big Black dummies.
The painful truth is that Blacks crushed Euro Whites in terms of beating them to the Iron Age. Whites were left pitifully in the dust by Africans. Oh God, how embarrassing.
Along with all Black innovations, WN geniuses insist that this Iron Age thingie must have come by way of Arabs. Now, WN’s always insist that Arabs are non-Whites, but in a race between niggers and A-rabs, the Arabs automagically turn White for a day, if only to beat the Blacks and claim the gold for Whitey.
Another common folly on almost all WN sites is so dumb it’s embarrassing.
Did you know that African Blacks had no agriculture until Whites showed up and taught them how to grow stuff? Neither did I! Neither does anyone in any anthropology department on Earth! But this crap is Gospel on WN sites, where it is common dogma that niggers are so dumb, they can’t even figure out how to grow food!
The truth is that agriculture in Africa goes all the way back to 5000 BC in the Sahel. That’s 7000 years ago, and it’s way before ag came to Europe. Once again, Euro Whites were completely creamed by African Blacks who beat them to agriculture. Agriculture occurred independently in West Africa, Egypt and the Sahel at around the same time. INDEPENDENTLY.
Anthropologists do not agree that West African agriculture was a diffusion from North Africa. It is considered to be an independent development.
Contrary to popular rumor, African Black folks (or niggers, as WN’s refer to these humans) are not too stupid to grow food. They were growing lots of food just fine before White folks even showed up.
Growing food is called agriculture. That’s the word grownups use when they discuss growing food, WN kiddies. Agriculture. Say it slowly and repeat it until you can say it well.
Sahelians today are racially the same as they were 7000 years ago when they independently developed agriculture. They have hardly changed one bit.
The civilizational attributes of the Sahelians came from their own culture. There is no evidence at all that all of their achievements came from some mystery Arabs cruising on through.
North Africa was all Black until 15-18,000 years ago, when some non-European looking Caucasians (minus that lovely White skin) moved down from Europe and pushed the Blacks south. No one knows what these proto-Europeans looked like, but they may have resembled Berbers. The resulting mix of mostly White, part Black in North Africa is the leftovers of this invasion.

References

UNESCO. 2002. Iron in Africa: Revisiting the History.

Of Vikings and Nubians, or Who Were the Real Mediterraneans?

Anyone who thinks Nordics were the original “Greeks” or “Romans” or “Persians” or “Egyptians” are a bunch of uneducated, inferiority-complexed morons in denial of the truth because of their emotions and obvious ignorant bias. Seriously. First off, Nordics with light features in hair and eyes and pale white skin only BURN in the sun if they’re not mixed with “darker peoples” genes. Nordics are up north in Europe because the sun is way less strong up there, duh!

Mediterranean people (or true origin, not migrants now there today) can easily tan and have dark hair, eyes, etc. to easily take the stronger sun rays on their skin and eyes. It’s so obvious only a moron (yep, many out there) would be able to actually deny this with confidence. Anyone can look up ancient art and pottery of Greeks and clearly see the very curly, swarthy BLACK hair, brown eyes, etc. And also in many pictures they show men with BLACK hair and brown skin.

Also seen in many Minoan paintings, who were of similar or same genetic stock as the Greeks. Look up ancient Persian pictures and you see men with BLACK hair and also very Semitic facial features, well what a shock, just like today’s Middle Eastern population as a while!

Look up Cyrus the Great (Persian). Nordicists are simply in absolute denial, because deep inside they actually have inferiority complexes. They know most ancient history of amazing civilizations have NOTHING to do with them.

When did Nordic people “come on the scene”? Only when they invaded Roman lands when Rome was in decline. Nordics/Germanics stole all the wealth and technology and also mixed with Roman peoples over hundreds of years. This is why you see people with light features in Italy, Spain, France, etc. today.

The ancient Romans even said the GERMANIC tribes to the north lived like uncivilized animals, didn’t clean themselves, did not have public baths, ran around barefoot, etc. Germanic/Nordics never built anything like Rome or Greece, until they had to come down, invade and steal everything like a bunch of animals, because they could not do it on their own without outside help.

This is actual fact Go google image search the Germanic invasions of Rome, and see for yourself. It started at around 300 A.D., and of course many Nordic migrants came over the last 1500 years to live there as well. So much history they ignore (thus, they’re ignorant) because it destroys their superiority complex. That superiority complex is really a mask to cover their… yep, again: inferiority complex.

Sorry guys, but you’re not as “superior” as you always claim. YOU burn in the sun, which many would say is a sign of inferiority, actually. You know damn well if you tanned nicely but most others did not, you would call the genetic defects and albino inferiors, etc. But since you are the ones that burn, you ignore this and try to point at other things. The emotional denial and ignorance of your kind is so high.

All your quotes of people supposedly saying Greeks had “gold hair” is BS lies. More likely implanted quotes by inferiority complexed Nordics who want to steal history.  And also, even if light hair was seen, guess what? Hair dye was used all throughout the ancient times, whether Egypt, Persia, Rome, Greece, etc. Look it up, they dyed their hair different colors, even blue and oranges in Egypt.

This is most interesting post, and I agree with it in general. The Nordic-Med history is similar to the Egyptian-Nubian history. Meds produced a superior civilization, and Nordics produced an inferior civilization. When the superior civilization, the Meds, began to die, the inferiors, the Nordic barbarians, charged down from the North and conquered the ruins. And proceeded to not do a thing with it either, as the Dark Ages ensued.

Similarly, the mixed race Egyptians (90% White, 10% Black) produced a superior civilization for millenia. The Nubians to the south produced an interesting but frankly inferior civilization. As the superior Pharaohnic civilization began to die, the inferior Nubian “barbarians” charged up from the South and conquered the ruins. So in many ways, the Nubian Blacks of Upper Egypt and the Nordics are soul brothers.

Vikings are seafaring blond and red niggas from the fjords. Nubian Blacks are are dark desert Vikings gone berserker.

We can probably also theorize something powerful civilizations – that as they start to decline, they grow fat, lazy or decadent, and soon they are overrun by inferior but violent and charged civilizations, who lord it over the ruins for a bit until it all collapses.

Muslims in France

Repost from the old site.

Clearly, the North African, mostly-Caucasian Muslims in France (primarily Algerians) have been a disaster. They are the ones that are rioting all the time and tearing up the country. Contrary to popular rumor, the N African Muslim population in France is ~10%, not 20%. The Black population is not known, but surely it is much smaller than the 10% North African population.

The North Africans are there primarily due to French colonialism and imperialism. Algeria was a former French colony, brutally ruled by France for 134 years, from 1830 to 1964.

The Algerians fought a horribly brutal war of independence, in which 25,000 French and 1 million Algerians were killed. Incredibly, the anti-Communist Right in the US still sings the praises of French colonialism in this war, and makes the revolutionaries out to be the bad guys.

It’s true that the Algerian revolutionaries did not fight a very nice or pretty war. Yet they paid for it with 40 times the casualties of the French. To the dead person, I don’t think it really matters how they got killed (an accusation against the revolutionaries is that they killed people in brutal ways such as beheadings).

It’s true that you can go on the Internet, usually to Zionist sites, and see some horrible photos of those killed by the Algerian revolutionaries. A specialty was chopping the head off, chopping the genitals off, and stuffing the guy’s dick in his severed head.

Anyway, colonialism is always wrong, period. The French were wrong, and they lost. After the war, Algerians started showing up in France in large numbers. White nationalists (who, by the way, never met a White imperialist or colonialist project they did not adore) claim that the Algerians are in France due to insane liberals bringing them there to diversify France and I guess to dilute the European Whites.

The French may be liberal, but they are not retarded like liberal Americans and liberal Scandinavians.

I would like to point out that none of this White nationalist bullshit is true.

First of all, the Algerian Muslim immigrants were not brought in as some loony liberal experiment in diversity, but instead as pro-French refugees fleeing soon before or after the FLN won the war. Think of the fall of Saigon.

The White nationalist line is that the French used to be hardcore and nasty and brutal (after all, the guillotine was still used until the 1970’s) and the French Foreign Legion was brutal as Hell in the Algerian Civil War, but now the French have gone soft and wimpy, and they are letting Muslim punks run all over them.

That hardcore France the White nationalists love so much was rejected by none other than the French people themselves after the criminal colonial wars of Algeria and Vietnam. There was a big scandal about all the murdering and torturing the French Foreign Legion was doing in Algeria.

The US anti-Communist Hard Right, to this very day, sees this humanist sentiment, and its attendant rejection of colonialism, and even, to some extent, at least in popular culture, embrace of national liberation movements (see Régis Debray and Fritz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth ) as a sign of weakness (see my prior post on the Straussian impulse driving the neocons).

Note that Fanon’s seminal work appeared in 1961, the year of his death, in the midst of the Algerian revolution, and that Debray started pushing his foco theories right around this time ( Revolution in the Revolution appeared in 1967).

The rebels were even worse than the Foreign Legion, but the French did not want to see themselves as brutal, colonialist maniacs.

This was also a period when France was supporting other imperialist and colonial powers in the Suez War in 1956, where British and French colonialism, with their colonial Jewish puppet state, attacked Egypt and tried to grab the Suez Canal back from Nasser, who had rightly and properly seized the canal as Egypt’s property.

After that, the French turned their backs on colonialism (more or less – they still, to their discredit, hold colonies in the South Pacific), and to some extent on imperialism – but not totally – see the crucial French role in the armed coup that threw out President Aristide in Haiti – elected with the support of 92% of the population.

France as a colonial and imperial power was more or less finished by the late 1960’s, Situationists and other crazies were rioting in Paris in the summer of 1968, and the torch of imperialism passed to the US after the British lost stomach for it after Suez.

Suez pretty much led to a “peasant revolt” in the UK against British imperialism due to the blatant and sickening imperialism of the Suez War. British imperialism, of course, continues today, even, outrageously, in the Labor Party, really the last place anyone would hope to find it. See British support for the imperialist invasion and colonial occupation of Iraq for more.

To the dismay of White nationalists, who assume any criminals rioting in the streets must be a bunch of niggers*, the problem kids are North African Caucasians, not Blacks. These Arabs don’t act this way in North Africa. The whole mess is really because they are Muslims and refuse to assimilate. All other theories seem to fall flat on their faces.

White nationalists try to blame this mess on France being taken over by multiculturalist liberal idiots, but France has always been extremely assimilationist and anti-multiculturalist, so this isn’t a failure of multiculturalism at all. In fact, France has been brutal and cruel towards the Bretons, the Basques and the Corsicans, all of whom have every right to take up arms against the French state.

The Algerians are just a problem immigrant group that flat out refuses to assimilate.

One problem here is that the French have always assumed that all immigrants would just lose it all and become Frenchmen. There was never much racism in France and everyone was French anyway, so there was no need for affirmative action.

There is good evidence that the Muslims experience widespread discrimination in employment. The French refuse to remedy this with the only working remedy for discrimination – affirmative action and enforcement of anti-discrimination laws.

White nationalists argue that the discrimination is to be expected based on the behavior of so many of the Algerians, but that misses the point. If amelioration of discrimination against Algerians makes them happier, would they not riot less?

The Muslim areas are not particularly dangerous, unless maybe if you’re a cop. They give off instead the impression that Little Italys used to give off in this country, of a safe zone where the state does not rule and someone else does instead. In the Little Italys, it was the Mafia, and they did keep the crime rate down.

If one were not a resident, people knew that, and you were being watched, but everyone left you alone. The Islamists have, in a similar fashion, taken hold over Algerian zones. Therefore, the Islamist shadow state in the banlieus has a lot of responsibility for the insane rioting that goes on there just about every night.

There is not much to be done at this point except for France to quit importing Algerians. White nationalists like to scream that the French should deport all the Muslims. But I believe that most of these rioting idiots are citizens and hence un-deportable.

If I were running France, I am not sure what I would do.

The Muslims are yet only 10%, so it will be quite a while, if ever, before they have a majority.

*used sardonically.

Does Multilingualism Equal Separatism?

Repost from the old site.

Sorry for the long post, readers, but I have been working on this piece off and on for months now. It’s not something I just banged out. For one thing, this is the only list that I know of on the Net that lists all of the countries of the world and shows how many languages are spoken there in an easy to access format. Not even Wikipedia has that (yet).

Whether or not states have the right to secede is an interesting question. The libertarian Volokh Conspiracy takes that on in this nice set of posts. We will not deal with that here; instead, we will take on the idea that linguistic diversity automatically leads to secession.

There is a notion floating around among fetishists of the state that there can be no linguistic diversity within the nation, as it will lead to inevitable separatism. In this post, I shall disprove that with empirical data. First, we will list the states in the world, along with how many languages are spoken in that state.

States with a significant separatist movement are noted with an asterisk. As you can see if you look down the list, there does not seem to be much of a link between multilingualism and separatism. There does seem to be a trend in that direction in Europe, though.

Afterward, I will discuss the nature of the separatist conflicts in many of these states to try to see if there is any language connection. In most cases, there is little or nothing there.

I fully expect the myth of multilingualism = separatism to persist after the publication of this post, unfortunately.

St Helena                        1
British Indian Ocean Territories 1
Pitcairn Island                  1
Estonia                          1
Maldives                         1
North Korea                      1
South Korea                      1
Cayman Islands                   1
Bermuda                          1
Belarus                          1
Martinique                       2
St Lucia                         2
St Vincent & the Grenadines      2
Barbados                         2
Virgin Islands                   2
British Virgin Islands           2
Gibraltar                        2
Antigua and Barbuda              2
Saint Kitts and Nevis            2
Montserrat                       2
Anguilla                         2
Marshall Islands                 2
Cuba                             2
Turks and Caicos                 2
Guam                             2
Tokelau                          2
Samoa                            2
American Samoa                   2
Niue                             2
Jamaica                          2
Cape Verde Islands               2
Icelandic                        2
Maltese                          2
Maltese                          2
Vatican State                    2
Haiti                            2
Kiribati                         2
Tuvalu                           2
Bahamas                          2
Puerto Rico                      2
Kyrgyzstan                       3
Rwanda                           3
Nauru                            3
Turkmenistan                     3
Luxembourg                       3
Monaco                           3
Burundi                          3
Seychelles                       3
Grenada                          3
Bahrain                          3
Tonga                            3
Qatar                            3
Kuwait                           3
Dominica                         3
Liechtenstein                    3
Andorra                          3
Reunion                          3
Dominican Republic               3
Netherlands Antilles             4
Northern Mariana Islands         4
Palestinian West Bank & Gaza     4
Palau                            4
Mayotte                          4
Cyprus*                          4
Bosnia and Herzegovina*          4
Slovenia and Herzegovina*        4
Swaziland                        4
Sao Tome and Principe            4
Guadalupe                        4
Saudi Arabia                     5
Cook Islands                     5
Latvia                           5
Lesotho                          5
Djibouti                         5
Ireland                          5
Moldova                          5
Armenia                          6
Mauritius                        6
Lebanon                          6
Mauritania                       6
Croatia                          6
Kazakhstan                       7
Kazakhstan                       7
Albania                          7
Portugal                         7
Uzbekistan                       7
Sri Lanka*                       7
United Arab Emirates             7
Comoros                          7
Belize                           8
Tunisia                          8
Denmark                          8
Yemen                            8
Morocco*                         9
Austria                          9
Jordan                           9
Macedonia                        9
Tajikistan                       9
French Polynesia                 9
Gambia                           9
Belgium                          9
Libya                            9
Fiji                             10
Slovakia                         10
Ukraine                          10
Egypt                            11
Bulgaria                         11
Norway                           11
Poland                           11
Serbia and Montenegro            11
Eritrea                          12
Georgia*                         12
Finland*                         12
Switzerland*                     12
Hungary*                         12
United Kingdom*                  12
Mongolia                         13
Spain                            13
Somalia*                         13
Oman                             13
Madagascar                       13
Malawi                           14
Equatorial Guinea                14
Mali                             14
Azerbaijan                       14
Japan                            15
Syria*                           15
Romania*                         15
Sweden*                          15
Netherlands*                     15
Greece                           16
Brunei                           17
Algeria                          18
Micronesia                       18
East Timor                       19
Zimbabwe                         19
Niger                            21
Singapore                        21
Cambodia                         21
Iraq*                            21
Guinea-Bissau                    21
Taiwan                           22
Bhutan                           24
Sierra Leone                     24
South Africa                     24
Germany                          28
Namibia                          28
Botswana                         28
France                           29
Liberia                          30
Israel                           33
Italy                            33
Guinea                           34
Turkey*                          34
Senegal                          36
Bangladesh                       39
New Caledonia                    39
Togo                             39
Angola*                          41
Gabon                            41
Zambia                           41
Mozambique                       43
Uganda                           43
Afghanistan                      47
Guatemala                        54
Benin                            54
Kenya                            61
Congo                            62
Burkina Faso                     68
Central African Republic         69
Solomon Islands                  70
Thailand*                        74
Iran*                            77
Cote D'Ivoire                    78
Ghana                            79
Laos                             82
Ethiopia*                        84
Canada*                          85
Russia*                          101
Vietnam                          102
Myanmar*                         108
Vanuatu                          109
Nepal                            126
Tanzania                         128
Chad                             132
Sudan*                           134
Malaysia                         140
United States*                   162
Philippines*                     171
Pakistan*                        171
Democratic Republic of Congo     214
Australia                        227
China*                           235
Cameroon*                        279
Mexico                           291
India*                           415
Nigeria                          510
Indonesia*                       737
Papua New Guinea*                820

*Starred states have a separatist problem, but most are not about language. Most date back to the very formation of an often-illegitimate state.

Canada definitely has a conflict that is rooted in language, but it is also rooted in differential histories as English and French colonies. The Quebec nightmare is always brought up by state fetishists, ethnic nationalists and other racists and nationalists who hate minorities as the inevitable result of any situation whereby a state has more than one language within its borders.

This post is designed to give the lie to this view.

Cyprus’ problem has to do with two nations, Greeks and Turks, who hate each other. The history for this lies in centuries of conflict between Christianity and Islam, culminating in the genocide of 350,000 Greeks in Turkey from 1916-1923.

Morocco’s conflict has nothing to do with language. Spanish Sahara was a Spanish colony in Africa. After the Spanish left in the early 1950’s, Morocco invaded the country and colonized it, claiming in some irredentist way that the land had always been a part of Morocco. The residents beg to differ and say that they are a separate state.

An idiotic conflict ensued in which Morocco the colonizer has been elevated to one of the most sanctioned nations of all by the UN. Yes, Israel is not the only one; there are other international scofflaws out there. In this conflict, as might be expected, US imperialism has supported Moroccan colonialism.

This Moroccan colonialism has now become settler-colonialism, as colonialism often does. You average Moroccan goes livid if you mention their colony. He hates Israel, but Morocco is nothing but an Arab Muslim Israel. If men had a dollar for every drop of hypocrisy, we would be a world of millionaires.

There are numerous separatist conflicts in Somalia. As Somalians have refused to perform their adult responsibilities and form a state, numerous parts of this exercise in anarchism in praxis (Why are the anarchists not cheering this on?) are walking away from the burning house. Who could blame them?

These splits seem to have little to do with language. One, Somaliland, was a former British colony and has a different culture than the rest of Somalia. Somaliland is now de facto independent, as Somalia, being a glorious exercise in anarchism, of course lacks an army to enforce its borders, or to do anything.

Jubaland has also split, but this has nothing to do with language. Instead, this may be rooted in a 36-year period in which it was a British colony. Soon after this period, they had their own postage stamps as an Italian colony.

There is at least one serious separatist conflict in Ethiopia in the Ogaden region, which is mostly populated by ethnic Somalis. Apparently this region used to be part of Somaliland, and Ethiopia probably has little claim to the region. This conflict has little do with language and more to do with conflicts rooted in colonialism and the illegitimate borders of states.

There is also a conflict in the Oromo region of Ethiopia that is not going very far lately. These people have been fighting colonialism since Ethiopia was a colony and since then have been fighting against independent Ethiopia, something they never went along with. Language has a role here, but the colonization of a people by various imperial states plays a larger one.

There was a war in Southern Sudan that has now ended with the possibility that the area may secede.

There is a genocidal conflict in Darfur that the world is ignoring because it involves Arabs killing Blacks as they have always done in this part of the world, and the world only gets upset when Jews kill Muslims, not when Muslims kill Muslims.

This conflict has to do with the Sudanese Arabs treating the Darfurians with utter contempt – they regard them as slaves, as they have always been to these racist Arabs.

The conflict in Southern Sudan involved a region in rebellion in which many languages were spoken. The South Sudanese are also niggers to the racist Arabs, plus they are Christian and animist infidels to be converted by the sword by Sudanese Arab Muslims. Every time a non-Muslim area has tried to split off from or acted uppity with a Muslim state they were part of, the Muslims have responded with a jihad against and genocide of the infidels.

This conflict has nothing to do with language; instead it is a war of Arab Muslim religious fanatics against Christian and animist infidels.

There is a separatist movement in the South Cameroons in the nation of Cameroon in Africa. This conflict is rooted in colonialism. During the colonial era, South Cameroons was a de facto separate state. Many different languages are spoken here, as is the case in Cameroon itself. They may have a separate culture too, but this is just another case of separatism rooted in colonialism. The movement seems to be unarmed.

There is a separatist conflict in Angola in a region called Cabinda, which was always a separate Portuguese colony from Angola.

As this area holds 60% of Angola’s oil, it’s doubtful that Angola will let it go, although almost all of Angola’s oil wealth is being stolen anyway by US transnationals and a tiny elite while 90% of the country starves, has no medicine and lives unemployed amid shacks along former roads now barely passable.

The Cabindans do claim to have a separate culture, but language does not seem to be playing much role here – instead, oil and colonialism are.

Syria does have a Kurdish separatist movement, as does Iran, Iraq, and Turkey – every state that has a significant number of Kurds. This conflict goes back to the post-World War 1 breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The Kurds, with thousands of years of history as a people, nominally independent for much of that time, were denied a state and sold out.

The new fake state called Turkey carved up part of Kurdistan, another part was donated to the British colony in Iraq and another to the French colony in Syria, as the Allies carved up the remains of the Empire like hungry guests at a feast.

This conflict is more about colonialism and extreme discrimination than language, though the Kurds do speak their own tongue. There is also a Kurdish separatist conflict in Iran, but I don’t know much about the history of the Iranian Kurds.

There is also an Assyrian separatist movement in Iraq and possibly in Syria. The movement is unarmed. The Assyrians have been horribly persecuted by Arab nationalist racists in the region, in part because they are Christians. They have been targeted by Islamo-Nazis in Iraq during this Iraq War with a ferocity that can only be described as genocidal.

The Kurds have long persecuted the Assyrians in Iraqi Kurdistan. There have been regular homicides of Assyrians in the north, up around the Mosul region. This is just related to the general way that Muslims treat Christian minorities in many Muslim states – they persecute them and even kill them. There is also a lot of land theft going on.

While the Kurdish struggle is worthwhile, it is becoming infected with the usual nationalist evil that afflicts all ethnic nationalism. This results in everyone who is not a Kurdish Sunni Muslim being subjected to varying degrees of persecution, disenfranchisement and discrimination. It’s a nasty part of the world.

In Syria, the Assyrians live up near the Turkish and Iraqi borders. Arab nationalist racists have been stealing their land for decades now and relocating the Assyrians to model villages, where they languish in poverty. Assad’s regime is not so secular and progressive as one might suspect.

There is a separatist conflict in Bougainville in New Guinea. I am sure that many different tongues are spoken on that island, as there are 800 different tongues spoken in Papua New Guinea. The conflict is rooted in the fact that Bougainville is rich in copper, but almost all of this wealth is stolen by Papua New Guinea and US multinationals, so the Bougainville people see little of it. Language has little or nothing to do with it.

There are separatist movements in the Ahwaz and Balochistan regions of Iran, along with the aforementioned Kurdish movement. It is true that different languages are spoken in these regions, but that has little to do with the conflict.

Arabic is spoken in Khuzestan, the land of the Iranian Arabs. This land has been part of Persia for around 2,000 years as the former land of Elam. The Arabs complain that they are treated poorly by the Persians, and that they get little revenue to their region even though they are sitting on a vast puddle of oil and natural gas.

Iran should not be expected to part with this land, as it is the source of much of their oil and gas wealth. Many or most Iranians speak Arabic anyway, so there is not much of a language issue. Further, Arab culture is promoted by the Islamist regime even at the expense of Iranian culture, much to the chagrin of Iranian nationalists.

The Ahwaz have been and are being exploited by viciously racist Arab nationalists in Iraq, and also by US imperialism, and most particularly lately, British imperialism, as the British never seem to have given up the colonial habit. This conflict is not about language at all. Most Ahwaz don’t even want to separate anyway; they just want to be treated like humans by the Iranians.

Many of Iran’s 8% Sunni population lives in Balochistan. The region has maybe 2% of Iran’s population and is utterly neglected by Iran. Sunnis are treated with extreme racist contempt by the Shia Supremacists who run Iran. This conflict has to do with the fight between the Shia and Sunni wings of Islam and little or nothing to do with language.

There is a separatist movement in Iran to split off Iranian Azerbaijan and merge it with Azerbaijan proper. This movement probably has little to do with language and more to do with just irredentism. The movement is not going to go very far because most Iranian Azeris do not support it.

Iranian Azeris actually form a ruling class in Iran and occupy most of the positions of power in the government. They also control a lot of the business sector and seem to have a higher income than other Iranians. This movement has been co-opted by pan-Turkish fascists for opportunistic reasons, but it’s not really going anywhere. The CIA is now cynically trying to stir it up with little success. The movement is peaceful.

There is a Baloch insurgency in Pakistan, but language has little to do with it. These fiercely independent people sit on top of a very rich land which is ruthlessly exploited by Punjabis from the north. They get little or no return from this natural gas wealth. Further, this region never really consented to being included in the Pakistani state that was carved willy-nilly out of India in 1947.

It is true that there are regions in the Caucasus that are rebelling against Russia. Given the brutal and bloody history of Russian imperial colonization of this region and the near-continuous rebellious state of the Muslims resident there, one wants to say they are rebelling against Imperial Russia.

Chechnya is the worst case, but Ingushetia is not much better, and things are bad in Dagestan too. There is also fighting in Kabardino-Balkaria and Karachay-Cherkessia. These non-Chechen regions are getting increasingly radicalized as consequence of the Chechen War. There has also been a deliberate strategy on the part of the Chechens to expand the conflict over to the other parts of the Caucasus.

Past rebellions were often pan-Caucasian also. Although very different languages are spoken in these areas, different languages are still spoken all across Russia. Language has little to do with these conflicts, as they have more to do with Russian imperialism and colonization of these lands and the near 200-year violent resistance of these fierce Muslim mountain tribes to being colonized by Slavic infidels.

There is not much separatism in the rest of Russia.

Tuva reserves the right to split away, but this is rooted in their prior history as an independent state within the USSR (Tell me how that works?) for two decades until 1944, when Stalin reconquered it as a result of the conflict with the Nazis. The Tuvans accepted peacefully.

Yes, the Tuvans speak a different tongue, but so do all of the Siberian nations, and most of those are still with Russia. Language has little to do with the Tuvan matter.

There is also separatism in the Bashkir Republic and Adygea in Russia. These have not really gone anywhere. Only 21% of the residents of
Adygea speak Circassian, and they see themselves as overrun by Russian-speaking immigrants. This conflict may have something to do with language. The Adygean conflict is also peripherally related the pan-Caucasian struggle above.

In the Bashkir Republic, the problem is more one of a different religion – Islam, as most Bashkirs are Muslim. It is not known to what degree language has played in the struggle, but it may be a factor. The Bashkirs also see themselves as overrun by Russian-speaking immigrants. It is dubious that the Bashkirs will be able to split off, as the result will be a separate nation surrounded on all sides by Russia.

The Adygean, Tuvan and Bashkir struggles are all peaceful.

The conflict in Georgia is complex. A province called Abkhazia has split off and formed their own de facto state, which has been supported with extreme cynicism by up and coming imperialist Russia, the same clown state that just threatened to go to war to defend the territorial integrity of their genocidal Serbian buddies. South Ossetia has also split off and wants to join Russia.

Both of these reasonable acts prompted horrible and insane wars as Georgia sought to preserve its territorial integrity, though it has scarcely been a state since 1990, and neither territory ever consented to being part of Georgia.

The Ossetians and Abkhazians do speak separate languages, and I am not certain why they want to break away, but I do not think that language has much to do with it. All parties to these conflicts are majority Orthodox Christians.

Myanmar is a hotbed of nations in rebellion against the state. Burma was carved out of British East India in 1947. Part of Burma had actually been part of British India itself, while the rest was a separate colony called Burma. No sooner was the ink dry on the declaration of independence than most of these nations in rebellion announced that they were not part of the deal.

Bloody rebellions have gone on ever since, and language has little or nothing to do with any of them. They are situated instead on the illegitimacy of not only the borders of the Burmese state, but of the state itself.

Thailand does have a separatist movement, but it is Islamic. They had a separate state down there until the early 1800’s when they were apparently conquered by Thais. I believe they do speak a different language down there, but it is not much different from Thai, and I don’t think language has anything to do with this conflict.

There is a conflict in the Philippines that is much like the one in Thailand. Muslims in Mindanao have never accepted Christian rule from Manila and are in open arms against the state. Yes, they speak different languages down in Mindanao, but they also speak Tagalog, the language of the land.

This just a war of Muslims seceding because they refuse to be ruled by infidels. Besides, this region has a long history of independence, de facto and otherwise, from the state. The Moro insurgency has little to nothing to do with language.

There are separatist conflicts in Indonesia. The one in Aceh seems to have petered out. Aceh never agreed to join the fake state of Indonesia that was carved out of the Dutch East Indies when the Dutch left in 1949.

West Papua is a colony of Indonesia. It was invaded by Indonesia with the full support of US imperialism in 1965. The Indonesians then commenced to murder 100,000 Papuans over the next 40 years. There are many languages spoken in West Papua, but that has nothing to do with the conflict. West Papuans are a racially distinct people divided into vast numbers of tribes, each with a separate culture.

They have no connection racially or culturally with the rest of Indonesia and do not wish to be part of the state. They were not a part of the state when it was declared in 1949 and were only incorporated after an Indonesian invasion of their land in 1965. Subsequently, Indonesia has planted lots of settler-colonists in West Papua.

There is also a conflict in the South Moluccas , but it has more to do with religion than anything else, since there is a large number of Christians in this area. The South Moluccans were always reluctant to become a part of the new fake Indonesian state that emerged after independence anyway, and I believe there was some fighting for a while there. The South Moluccan struggle has generally been peaceful ever since.

Indonesia is the Israel of Southeast Asia, a settler-colonial state. The only difference is that the Indonesians are vastly more murderous and cruel than the Israelis.

There are conflicts in Tibet and East Turkestan in China. In the case of Tibet, this is a colony of China that China has no jurisdiction over. The East Turkestan fight is another case of Muslims rebelling against infidel rule. Yes, different languages are spoken here, but this is the case all over China.

Language is involved in the East Turkestan conflict in that Chinese have seriously repressed the Uighur language, but I don’t think it plays much role in Tibet.

There is also a separatist movement in Inner Mongolia in China. I do not think that language has much to do with this, and I believe that China’s claim to Inner Mongolia may be somewhat dubious. This movement is unarmed and not very organized.

There are conflicts all over India, but they don’t have much to do with language.

The Kashmir conflict is not about language but instead is rooted in the nature of the partition of India after the British left in 1947. 90% of Kashmiris wanted to go to Pakistan, but the ruler of Kashmir was a Hindu, and he demanded to stay in India.

The UN quickly ruled that Kashmir had to be granted a vote in its future, but this vote was never allowed by India. As such, India is another world-leading rogue and scofflaw state on a par with Israel and Indonesia. Now the Kashmir mess has been complicated by the larger conflict between India and Pakistan, and until that is all sorted out, there will be no resolution to this mess.

Obviously India has no right whatsoever to rule this area, and the Kashmir cause ought to be taken up by all progressives the same way that the Palestinian one is.

There are many conflicts in the northeast, where most of the people are Asians who are racially, often religiously and certainly culturally distinct from the rest of Indians.

None of these regions agreed to join India when India, the biggest fake state that has ever existed, was carved out of 5,000 separate princely states in 1947. Each of these states had the right to decide its own future to be a part of India or not. As it turned out, India just annexed the vast majority of them and quickly invaded the few that said no.

“Bharat India”, as Indian nationalist fools call it, as a state, is one of the silliest concepts around. India has no jurisdiction over any of those parts of India in separatist rebellion, if you ask me. Language has little to do with these conflicts.

Over 800 languages are spoken in India anyway, each state has its own language, and most regions are not in rebellion over this. Multilingualism with English and Hindi to cement it together has worked just fine in most of India.

Sri Lanka’s conflict does involve language, but more importantly it involves centuries of extreme discrimination by ruling Buddhist Sinhalese against minority Hindu Tamils. Don’t treat your minorities like crap, and maybe they will not take up arms against you.

The rebellion in the Basque country of Spain and France is about language, as is Catalonian nationalism.

IRA Irish nationalism and the Scottish and Welsh independence movements have nothing to do with language, as most of these languages are not in good shape anyway.

The Corsicans are in rebellion against France, and language may play a role. There is an independence movement in Brittany in France also, and language seems to play a role here, or at least the desire to revive the language, which seems to be dying.

There is a possibility that Belgium may split into Flanders and Wallonia, and language does play a huge role in this conflict. One group speaks French and the other Dutch.

There is a movement in Scania, a part of Sweden, to split away from Sweden. Language seems to have nothing to do with it.

There is a Hungarian separatist movement, or actually, a national reunification or pan-Hungarian movement, in Romania. It isn’t going anywhere, and it unlikely to succeed. Hungarians in Romania have not been treated well and are a large segment of the population. This fact probably drives the separatism more than language.

There are many other small conflicts in Europe that I chose not to go into due to limitations on time and the fact that I am getting tired of writing this post! Perhaps I can deal with them at a later time. Language definitely plays a role in almost all of these conflicts. None of them are violent though.

To say that there are separatists in French Polynesia is not correct. This is an anti-colonial movement that deserves the support of anti-colonial activists the world over. The entire world, evidenced by the UN itself, has rejected colonialism. Only France, the UK and the US retain colonies. That right there is notable, as all three are clearly imperialist countries. In this modern age, the value of retaining colonies is dubious.

These days, colonizers pour more money into colonies than they get out of them. France probably keeps Polynesia due to colonial pride and also as a place to test nuclear weapons and maintain military bases. As the era of French imperialism on a grand scale has clearly passed, France needs to renounce its fantasies of being a glorious imperial power along with its anachronistic colonies.

Yes, there is a Mapuche separatist movement in Chile, but it is not going anywhere soon, or ever.

It has little to do with language. The Mapudungan language is not even in very good shape, and the leaders of this movement are a bunch of morons. Microsoft recently unveiled a Mapudungan language version of Microsoft Windows. You would think that the Mapuche would be ecstatic. Not so! They were furious. Why? Oh, I forget. Some Identity Politics madness.

This movement has everything to do with the history of Chile. Like Argentina and Uruguay, Chile was one of the Spanish colonies that was settled en masse late. For centuries, a small colonial bastion battled the brave Mapuche warriors, but were held at bay by this skilled and militaristic tribe.

Finally, in the late 1800’s, a fanatical and genocidal war was waged on the Mapuche in one of those wonderful “national reunification” missions so popular in the 1800’s (recall Italy’s wars of national reunification around this same time). By the 1870’s, the Mapuche were defeated and suffered a devastating loss of life.

Yet all those centuries of only a few Spanish colonists and lots of Indians had made their mark, and at least 70% of Chileans are mestizos, though they are mostly White (about 80% White on average). The Mapuche subsequently made a comeback and today number about 9% of the population.

Because they held out so long and so many of them survived, they are one of the most militant Amerindian groups in the Americas. They are an interesting people, light-skinned and attractive, though a left-wing Chilean I knew used to chortle about how hideously ugly they were.

Hawaiian separatism is another movement that has a lot to do with colonialism and imperialism and little to do with language. The Hawaiian language, despite some notable recent successes, is not in very good shape. The Hawaiian independence movement offers nothing to non-Hawaiians (I guess only native Hawaiians get to be citizens!) and is doomed to fail.

Hawaiians are about 22% of the population, and they are the only ones that support the independence movement. No one else supports it. It’s not going anywhere. The movers and shakers on the island (Non-Hawaiians for the most part!) all think it’s ridiculous.

There are separatists in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh, but I doubt that language has much to do with it. Like the myriad other separatist struggles in the NE of India, these people are ethnically Asians and as such are not the same ethnicity as the Caucasians who make up the vast majority of the population of this wreck of a state.

This is another conflict that is rooted in a newly independent fake state. The Chittagong Hill Tracts were incorporated into Bangladesh after its independence from Pakistan in 1971. As a fake new state, the peoples of Bangladesh had a right to be consulted on whether or not they wished to be a part of it. The CHT peoples immediately said that they wanted no part of this new state.

At partition, the population was 98.5% Asian. They were Buddhists, Hindus and animists. Since then, the fascist Bangladesh state has sent Bengali Muslim settler-colonists to the region. The conflict is shot through with racism and religious bigotry, as Muslim Bengalis have rampaged through the region, killing people randomly and destroying stuff as they see fit. Language does not seem to have much to do with this conflict.

I don’t know much about the separatist struggle of the Moi in Vietnam, but I think it is more a movement for autonomy than anything else. The Moi are Montagnards and have probably suffered discrimination at the hands of the state along with the rest of the Montagnards.

Zanzibar separatism in Tanzania seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with language, but has a lot more to do with geography. Zanzibar is a nice island off the coast of Tanzania which probably wants nothing to do with the mess of a Tanzanian state.

The conflict also has a lot to do with race. Most residents of Zanzibar are either Arabs or descendants of unions between Arabs and Africans. In particular, they deny that they are Black Africans. I bet that is the root of the conflict right there.

There were some Talysh separatists in Azerbaijan a while back, but the movement seems to be over. I am not sure what was driving them, but language doesn’t seem to have been a big part of it. Just another case of new members of a fake new state refusing to go along for the ride.

There were some Gagauz separatists in Moldova a while back, but the movement appears to have died down. Language does seem to have played a role here, as the Gagauz speak a Turkic tongue totally unrelated to the Romance-speaking Moldovans.

Realistically, it’s just another case of a fake new state emerging and some members of the new state saying they don’t want to be a part of it, and the leaders of the fake new state suddenly invoking inviolability of borders in a state with no history!

In summary, as we saw above, once we get into Europe, language does play a greater role in separatist conflict, but most of these European conflicts are not violent. In the rest of the world, language plays little to no role in the vast majority of separatist conflicts.

The paranoid and frankly fascist notion voiced by rightwing nationalists the world over that any linguistic diversity in the world within states must be crushed as it will inevitably lead to separatism at best or armed separatism at worst is not supported by the facts.

I See Race-Denying Idiots

Repost from the old site.
I see idiots.
I see race-denying idiots.
I see them everywhere.
I see them on the Egyptology Forum, in particular, linking to one of my posts, The Major and Minor Races of Mankind.
That post is a massive work undergoing continuous revision that is based largely on Cavalli-Sforza’s groundbreaking work in genetics. It divides humanity into 3 macro races, 8 major races and 90 minor races.
Hey! There is a race for everyone! Don’t despair, folks, there is probably a race out there waiting just for you, lonesome you.
It seems that post is upsetting everyone. White Nationalists hate it, and now, over on the Egyptology Forum, Black Nationalists or Afrocentrists or whatever those morons are called hate it too. If White Nationalism is dumb, Black Nationalism is dumber still.
Many of the things supposedly invented by Blacks have turned out on analysis to not to have been invented by Blacks.
I don’t blame Blacks for reacting this way in the face of incessant propaganda from White Supremacists and various other racists, backed up by “science”, that repeats with hammer-like insistence that Blacks are idiots, evil sociopaths and losers who have never amounted to a thing and never will, as is the destiny of their genes.
Hence the pitiful migration of Blacks into Egyptology, in a sad and sorry effort to claim the heritage of ancient Egypt for themselves.
It’s bizarre that Black Nationalists, while promoting the Black race, also love to claim that race does not exist. They somehow hold both of these opinions simultaneously. Don’t ask me how.
In that forum, I am described as a racialist (!) misrepresenting Cavalli-Sforza’s findings. But I did no such thing. I just used his data (and others) to divide humanity into races, based, almost exclusively, on genetic distance.
In a few cases, I had to go outside genetics. In North Africa, there were two cases where mostly-White folks were clustering with mostly-Black folks into single races. Instead of lumping Whites and Blacks together into single subraces, which seemed too weird, I had to (arbitrarily) send Whiter folks to Caucasian and darker ones to Black. The cases involved Algerians and the Beja in one case and Nubians and Berbers in the other.
Curiously, these cases do add weight to the race-denier’s arguments that race is a slippery concept. When you have Blacks and Whites lumping with each other genetically into singular small groups, what does it all mean?
For the record, Berbers are about 12% Black, and Algerians may be about 6% Black. The Beja and the Nubians are about 50-50 Black and White, although I think the Beja are 53% Black. The Beja are an interesting and attractive group of pastoralists who live in northern Sudan. The Nubians are the group of what are often referred to as light-skinned Blacks living in southern Egypt.
Photos of Berbers of various types, North African Arabs and dark-skinned Egyptians from the Aswan Dam area (possibly Nubians) are found on this blog in a recent post here.
Later on on the Egyptology thread I get called a racist (!) and White Supremacist (!). But my post makes no such claims at all to White Supremacy. It merely chops up humanity into groups based on genetic distance – nothing more, nothing less.
These guys are serious idiots.
The reason I am called a White Supremacist racist is because I am supposedly saying that their precious Black Nubians were actually White Berbers.
But I said no such thing. I merely noted that two disparate groups, one mostly-White (Berbers – though Black Berbers exist) and another 50-50 Black-White (Nubians) cannot be distinguished racially, on even a minor level, in terms of genetics.
Berbers are actually somewhat variable – the Moroccan Berbers are 5% Black and the Algerian Berbers are 10% Black.
That’s it.
The reason Black Egyptology idiots hate the notion of race in Egypt so much is because the ancient Egyptians were about 9% Black, just like the Egyptians of today. Further South, you get into their beloved Nubians, who were and are 50-50 Black-White, but the Nubians only ruled Egypt for 100 years or so at the very end of the Empire as it was completely falling apart.
On an anarchist blog recently, I was thrown off and banned for making a simple proposal: that Whites should be free to feel pride. I hedged that White pride is ok, as long as you can feel that way without becoming a racist asshole.
I base this on my experience with people from various different races, ethnic groups and nations all over the world. Virtually all of them were ethnocentric about their ethnic group or race, and that clearly went beyond mere patriotism for their state and flag in almost all cases.
It is only Whites in the US, Europe, Australia, Canada and New Zealand who are ordered to take no pride in themselves whatsoever, and worse, who are ordered to abase themselves as some sort of racial criminals for all of our nefarious acts down through the ages.
At the same time, White countries only are ordered to open their borders to anyone and everyone from the rest of the world (in particular, the non-White world) who wishes to flood in here.
It interesting that China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore are not also ordered to open their borders. Nor are the Gulf Arabs. In fact, many, or even all, of these states have ferociously racist immigration policies, but the Western Cultural Left has nothing to say about this. It is almost as if only Whites can be racist.
I realize that unfortunately this sounds like a White Nationalist rant, but it is sad that only the WN’s are making this perfectly reasonable argument, and on this argument, the WN’s at least are right on the mark.
There are some negative effects from this. I had a light-skinned Black girlfriend once for about a year. Once I told her I was not attracted to darker Black women, and she got all upset. I was racist! A White guy dating a Black woman, of all things, and he still can’t escape the racism charge .
White men have told me that they told people, when asked, that they were not interested in dating Black women because they were not attracted to them, and they were immediately denounced as racists.
As might be expected, hyperaggressive young Black males are mass-targeting White females for sex in mixed-race high schools across our land. I don’t really mind, but it is a bit sickening, let’s face it. Are Black women really so horrible or ugly that these guys must mass-pester White girls?
In many cases, the White girls say no, and when they do, they are immediately hammered with the racism charge, which typically leads to White guilt, which I guess in some cases leads to the Black kid getting some White pussy.
I really need to say something here.
Your house, your state, your attractions and your sex life are yours and yours alone. You don’t have to let anyone into your home. You don’t have to make friends with anyone. You don’t have to let any immigrants into your country, or you can let any immigrants in that you want to. You can be attracted to anyone you want to. And certainly, you can have sex with anyone you want to.
You may be racist about who you let into your home, who you make friends with, and who you let immigrate into your land. After all, your borders are like the locked door on your home – you’re not really obligated to let a soul in.
You can be attracted to anyone you want to – your own race or any combination of others. You can obviously date, have sex with, and marry anyone you want to and you can limit your partners to your own race or any others.
There’s nothing racist about these intensely personal decisions, and the implicit demand that Whites are racist unless they are turned on Black booty or big Black guys, invite whole blocks of Black folks into their homes, invite 2 billion mostly Third World people to flood into their lands, or, most offensive of all, have sex with non-Whites, is utterly outrageous.
The demand that Whites self-abnegate all positive feelings about themselves and their heritage has had some nasty side effects.
12-20 million illegal Hispanic immigrants have flooded into the US, many into my home state.
Immigration are like seasoning on a dish. A little bit of it is nice, but in California it feels like someone dumped the salt shaker and some spice jars into the pan and ruined the casserole.
There is a very real and creepy feeling of living in a foreign land here, or of having been invaded, even invaded by a foreign army. Parts of California have reverted, in all intents and purposes, to provinces of Mexico.
This is jarring to Native Californians. Our cities and streets have Mexican names. I was taking Spanish lessons at age six, as my mother, in 1963, had already seen the writing on the wall. Growing up, our friends, best friends and girlfriends were Mexican-Americans. We didn’t hate Mexican-Americans then and we don’t hate them now.
We went on wild trips to Mexico to fish, chase women or just rampage around blasted out of minds on alcohol, marijuana and LSD. We always returned stunned at the horrible and cruel poverty we saw, and were always glad to drive through the border back to the US.
The illegal alien millions are essentially re-creating Mexico here in the US. If you have ever been to Mexico, you won’t think that is a good idea.
My point is that the destruction of White ethnic identity in even its most mild form is what allowed this lunatic invasion and de facto annexation of my state to a foreign Third World country to take place. Whites were neutered, so they sat by passively while this outrage occurred, or, even more perversely, cheered it on.

King Tut Was a European

Map of R1b distribution in Europe. R1b were the Old Europeans pushed to the far west by invading Indo-Europeans.

DNA tests show that King Tut’s Y-DNA matches that of modern day Western Europeans. The lineup is with R1b. The match with modern West Europeans is rather deceptive.

In truth, I believe that R1b is ancient European, or “Old Europe” DNA. It’s found mostly in the Basques these days. It’s probable that the R1b group came from the Caucasus at some unknown time. They probably spoke languages related to the Basques and the languages of the Caucasus. They were overrun by the Indo-European invasion of Europe about 6,000 years ago. The only holdout was the Basques in the high Pyrenees of Spain and France.

So, rather than showing the King Tut was a West European, it shows that he was racially, a member of the “Old Europe” group. No one knows quite what these people looked like, however reports of the “Old Europe” group in the UK say that they had dark hair, dark eyes and were rather swarthy.

Based on drawings, Egyptians seem to have been an olive skinned race similar to the Meds of today. They were surely not either traditional White-Whites and they were definitely not Blacks. The Egyptians made it clear that the Black Nubians were not the same people as Egyptians. The drawings show Nubians are Black Africans and Egyptians as olive-skinned Med types. The Nordicists love to claim the Egyptians. They’re full of shit as usual. The Egyptians were a bunch of swarthy wop non-Whites, you Nordicist turds. Choke on that.

A common White Supremacist lie holds that Egypt was originally “White” (supposedly Nordic too). With time, Egyptians gained more and more Black genes until they hit the 10% figure, whereby any race that has 10% Black genes starts to experience civilizational collapse.

This is a lie. According the Journal of Physical Anthropology, the ancient Egyptians were the same as modern Egyptians racially. The ancient Egyptians test at ~91% Caucasian and 9% African. If anything, this is positive news. It shows that races that are a little bit Black can do some great things, like create the greatest civilizations on Earth.

The website is a disgusting White Supremacist site out of Europe, and the comments are full of WS nutcases, and even worse, Afrocentrists polluting up the threads with “Egypt was Black” crap.

The End of the Mahdi Rebellion

General Gordon Brown, Governor of Sudan, dies on the steps of his palace at the hands of the Mahdi Army.

The year is 1885. It is winter, January 25th. The Mahdi Rebellion against the Egyptians, and really, the British, is over. General Charles Gordon, governor of Sudan, had only arrived a year prior. He died on the steps of his palace, fighting off the Mahdi warriors alongside his assistant, both firing pistols at the encroaching jihadis. His assistant was knocked unconscious.

When he came to, Gordon was dead, and his head had been cut off. When the head was placed at the Mahdi’s feet, he ordered it placed on a tree branch, where people would mock it as they walked by, children would throw stones at it, and hawks would circle it above.

The Mahdi Rebellion was one of the major Muslim jihads of the modern era. The Mahdi was a Sudanese Muslim who declared that he was the “Mahdi” or messianic redeemer of Islam. The Mahdi Army in Iraq is a recent reincarnation.

It was really an anti-Western jihad and an anti-colonial rebellion, as the British were controlling Egypt. The Sudanese Muslims actually defeated the British here, though the assembled army was not the actual British army, but more a collection of laggards, incompetents and mercenaries – 7,000 Egyptian soldiers. “Perhaps the worst army that has ever marched to war,” Churchill called them.

Gordon has several million rounds of ammo, artillery, cannons, thousands of men, but it fared him little well against the surging Mahdi warriors besieging Khartoum. In the winter, the Blue Nile receded, leaving muddy flats exposing the palace. The city was besieged, and food was running out. The civilians and troops were waylaid by cholera and starvation. After nearly a year of siege, Khartoum fell, and Gordon lay dead.

The Mahdi then ruled Sudan for the next 11 years until the British took it back under the fake cover of an Egyptian claim to the Sudan. This time the real British army invaded the Sudan. The Mahdi fought hard, but they were cut down with machine guns. A fake colonial entity called the Anglo-Egyptian administration administered the frank colony of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan until 1956.

Sudan got its independence in 1956, and the South immediately rejected joining the Sudan, a rejection which would culminate in decades of war. I figure that Sudan has so fucked up the business of running of a state that “Sudan” has no right to exist. Break it up into as many pieces as you wish, I say. Hardly anyone but the Arab Muslim ruling class around Khartoum wants to be part of the shithole called Sudan anyway.

There has to be some way away from this inviolability of borders crap, and it collides with the right to self-determination anyway. States are like parents, and the nations within them are like children. If you can’t manage your kids, they are taken away from you and given to someone who can. If you can’t manage the basic tasks of running a state, your right to run the state should be revoked, and the nations within should have the right to decide their destiny.

They Walk Among Us

Neandertals, that is.

New data indicates that all of the Out of Africa (OOA) people (that is, everyone but Blacks) are related to Neandertals, in part anyway. About 1-4% of our genome is Neandertal. This % is much mistaken. White nationalist sites are saying that this means the difference between Blacks and Whites is 4%, while the difference between humans and chimpanzees is only 2%. Whoa! Another blow to the multiculturalist scum! Turns out “niggers” really are apes anyway, or worse, apes are more human than niggers!

Forget it. They didn’t do the math right. The Neanderthal difference between Whites and Blacks accounts for a whopping .04% of the total. It’s not much of anything. And those high percentages of genetic convergence with non-humans can be misleading.

Multiculturalists like to shriek about how much genes humans share with each other, but so what? Humans share 98% of their genes with chimps. So? So are humans chimps or what? Nope, at least not most of us. We share something like 75% of our genes with flatworms. So are we flatworms? No, not most of us anyway.

Sequencing of the human genome to look for human-Neandertal interbreeding has been going on for some time. For a long time, there was no evidence of any human-Neandertal breeding, but that was because they had not finished sequencing the entire genome. Now that they have finished, it’s clear that there was breeding between humans and Neandertals.

The breeding occurred when we first moved out of Africa 70,000 YBP, when the breeding occurred in the Middle East, and later on, there was more breeding in Eurasia. That breeding occurred soon after we moved out Africa in the ME means that all Out of Africa humans are related to Neadertals. Blacks are the only humans with no Neandertal in them.

Range of the Neadertals in Europe, Eurasia and the Middle East. They lived from about 400,000 to 30,000 YBP.

Much nonsense is being parroted about about this interbreeding. It was interbreeding because Neadertals and humans are so far apart genetically that Neandertals are a completely separate subspecies from modern humans. Subspecies of living organisms can always interbreed, but are usually prevented from doing so since they do not inhabit overlapping territories.

The fervor on the White nationalist boards is high, and predictably idiotic. WN’s all around the globe are swooning over these hideous, primitive Neandertal creatures.

A Neandertal kid. Good Lord, even the kids are hideous. I think they might still be alive, actually. I've seen kids like this around some trailer parks.

We bred with Neadertals! Niggers didn’t! Dontcha realize that this makes Whites superior to niggers, and it makes niggers inferior? Many theories are tossed about. Whites bred with Neandertals, and that’s what makes us superior to inferior niggers (those cool Neandertal genes), bla bla. Many posts are glorying in the wondrous beauty, brains and achievements of the great Neandertals.

Yeah, like I want to be related to this guy. Get real.

I had to LOL the whole time I was reading this stuff. This is one of those times I feel like playing Lou Reed’s song, “I Wanna Be Black.” Seriously, Blacks are superior for not having any fucking non-human Neandertal blood in them, not inferior! That Neandertal, non-human blood in us doesn’t make us better than Blacks, in fact, it’s an embarassment! At least Blacks are fully human! We Whites are part non-human. FFS, how humiliating is that?

I realize that there's porn for every fetish out there, but it's hard to believe there would have been much of a market for Neandertal porn. I hear Black guys never fucked these chicks. Good for them!

Neandertal women were incredibly ugly. Yes, our people mated with them. To me, this means that either guys will fuck anything, or human females love to fuck stupid hulking brutes who can barely even speak (Neandertals were apparently not able to speak human language, but they probably had advanced sign language).

There are many posts suggesting that breeding with Neandertals is what gave Whites and Asians their brains, since, you know, Neadertals were so damn smart and all. It’s true that Neandertal did have a large brain. But so what. So does a fucking elephant. But some suggest that most of the brain had gone over to memory. One theorist suggested that a Neandertal could remember every single day of his life, nice if he ever got questioned by the cops for an unsolved Paleolithic murder, but not much good otherwise.

In addition, all OOA folks have Neandertal in them, including Papuans (IQ 64) and Aborigines (IQ 62). Yeah, lot of good those super Neandertal rocket scientist brains did them, huh?

It’s clear that the Out of Africa folks (Yeah, the “niggers”) thoroughly outcompeted the Neadertals. Much is made of the Neandertal toolset, but the OOA folks had a better one. And the OOA folks had speech, which may have trumped them all. No one knows if we exterminated the Neadertals or if they just could not compete in a changing environment (I figure we took them out) but at any rate, the OOA folks handed the Neandertals’ asses to them quickly.

That WN’s are falling all over themselves for these hideous Neandertal non-humans shows how stupid racial nationalism is. At the end of the day, its sin is the sin of pride. As pride makes  a man act foolish (consult any good Greek tragedy) so does racial nationalism, nothing more than egotism writ across the entire race, with the volk subbing for the ego.

It's possible that either some Neandertals still live among us, or some Whites have a lot of Neandertal genes. Some researchers say that Nickolai Valuev, a Russian boxer, may be up over 90% Neandertal. Looking at him, it's clearly possible, but his genome has not yet been sequenced. He eats multiple pounds of red meat every day, another clue to his possible Neandertal roots.

One last theory.

Jews are Neandertals.

That’s the Jews are so evil, you know. Because they aren’t human. LOL.

Is Afrikaans Close to English?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtKKJSfYraU&feature=related]

Cruising around the Net researching my piece on the Dutch languages, I read up on Afrikaans quite a bit. Afrikaans is the language, very close to Dutch, spoken in South Africa. It seems to be a Dutch dialect from a few centuries ago. It’s rather close to Flemish, and of course it is close to Dutch. It is often described as a simplified Dutch, and some Dutch speakers feel it almost resembles Dutch “baby-talk” or child speech. There are theories that Afrikaans is a creole (a simplified form of a language) but these seem to be discarded, though it does have influences from other languages, especially English and various African languages.

A number of English speakers on the Net said that as an English speaker, they could either communicate or almost communicate with Afrikaans speakers, each using their own language. I decided to test that out by listening to the “De La Rey” video above. There were English subtitles, but I turned my head away so I could not read them and just listened to the song trying to figure out English words.

If you listen to it with the subtitles up there, you can see a lot of cognates, but when we talk to other humans, we don’t get subtitles floating over each other’s heads so we can understand better.

I could hardly understand one single word of the Afrikaans speech in this song. I got Transvaal, but that’s just a place name, and your average uneducated American would never pick that up. I also got flammen, and I thought that might be flame. Close, it’s fire. The idea that Afrikaans and English are the slightest bit intelligible in spoken form is not supported.

Anyway, it’s a cool song. You might as well check it out. It’s banned in South Africa, though there’s nothing racist about the song. It talks about the Boer War, in which the Afrikaans speaking Boers fought against the British military around 1904 or so.

Your more educated White nationalists around the world love this war for some reason. I’m not really up on what the war was all about – apparently an anti-colonial rebellion? Anyway, this Boer War is an integral part of the South African legendary history of their time in this land, hence this song is part of their heritage. Where these Blacks think it’s racist, I don’t understand.

Goodbye and Good Riddance

Eugene Terreblanche was just murdered by Black farm workers in a wage dispute. A few years back, Terreblanche got into it with a Black guy at a gas station and severely beat the guy. The Black guy suffered serious brain damage as a result. I don’t know the details of the incident.

Eugene Terreblanche made racial hatred his whole raison d’ etre, and he reaped the hatred that his karma sowed. What comes around, goes around; paybacks are a bitch; you get out of this world what you put into it. Insert favorite aphorism here.

See that swastika-looking AWB insignia in the background? That’s not an accidental design. If being a White advocate means sticking up for bastards like this, I’d almost rather throw in with the Abagonds, but it ain’t much of a choice.

Terreblanche was a White nationalist hero, and there are a lot of comments on White nationalist sites about the White farmer murders. It is a very serious problem. 8% of the White farmers in South Africa have been murdered in the past 16 years.

But it’s not some extermination campaign because they are White. As with most rural violence, it’s tied up in land tenure. If those White farmers had as much land as your average Black farmer did, they wouldn’t be getting killed any more than anyone else in South Africa. Those few White farmers have most of the farmland, and almost all of the good farmland, in the country.

The Blacks were removed from the land, banana republic style, to squatter “homelands” which quickly become overpopulated, overfarmed and badly eroded. But it was shitty land anyway (Malan 1990). Meanwhile, ~5% of the farmers (all White) owned 90% of the good farmland. Switch continents and it could be the Philippines, Colombia, Brazil or El Salvador 1980. Sometimes geography and even racial dynamics are irrelevant, but a White nationalist will never understand this simple truism.

Obviously, there needs to be some kind of a land reform, but it’s been stalled. The Black farmers are landless or have tiny and infertile plots, and they are attacking the White farmers to kill them and take over their land. Were a decent land reform done, none of this would be happening.

By the way, if you want to read an awesome book by a White South African that is coming from something like the Liberal Race Realism of this blog, check out the reference.

References

Malan, Rian. 1990. My Traitor’s Heart: A South African Exile Returns to Face His Country, His Tribe, and His Conscience. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.

AIDS began in Africa in 1904

That’s a lot earlier than I thought.

I knew about the HIV-tainted blood and tissue from Kinshasa, Congo, in 1959 and 1960. Sequencing those samples back, it turns out that they were born around 1904.

Previous research has shown that HIV jumped from monkeys to man in Southeastern Cameroon. Contrary to what the racists say, no one thinks it was due to Black guys screwing monkeys. Racists are so stupid! African guys will just about screw anything, I think, but I’ve never heard of them boning monkeys. The traditional thinking is that Africans kill monkeys for food and butcher them up before they eat them. They get monkey blood all themselves when they do this. Presumably, this is how the species jump (SIV -> HIV) occurred.

HIV must have gone on very low simmer for decades until it finally started breaking out in the Kinshasa region around 1960.

Oh Well, At Least They’re Not Starving

Here.

And the poorest are “suffering” from the increase in obesity the worst. I’m actually sort of happy to hear this. It’s really discouraging to hear about all of the malnutrition, emaciation and out and out starvation over there. Obesity isn’t a piece of cake, but it’s better than looking like a gigantic walking twig.

I figure they will live a lot longer being fat than being skinny and starving too, even though obesity isn’t good for your lifespan. Most people don’t live very long over there anyway, and you know a lot of that is related to not enough food. Obesity will still cut their lives short, but not as bad as emaciation.

I honestly never thought I would see the day this would happen. I figured Africans would be starving at least until I die, and possibly for eternity. Another bright spot is that the fattening would not have occurred without lots of cheap, high calorie foods over there. If there’s one thing Africa always seems to lack, it’s cheap, high-calorie food.

Turns out Brits are getting fatter too, but increased obesity is a world trend.

How Much IQ Gain Might We See in Africans Transplanted to the West?

This is an interesting question that we have been discussing in the comments threads.

I haven’t taken an official position on genetics and IQ yet, because I don’t want to say that some race or another, particularly, say Blacks or Hispanics, is genetically inferior to some other race. It’s not something I want to believe, much less say. At some point, the evidence will become so overwhelming that one will look like a kook if you deny that, but we are not really there yet.

I deeply fear that this may be the case though. Nevertheless, the evidence is not yet so clear-cut that one is almost engaging in pseudo-science to deny it, hence it is still safe to hedge one’s bets and be an IQ agnostic.

One of my principal agendas on this blog, though, is to fight the (what I call) pseudo-science that says IQ and other intelligence tests are meaningless in terms of measuring brainpower; that is, I advocate that IQ tests are indeed meaningful and real measures and are not culturally biased or whatever.

This latter is still a common position, especially in the softer sciences, but increasingly I feel that it needs to be called out as BS. One can certainly be a Leftist and believe in the reality of IQ and other psychometric tests. An acquaintance of mine, James Flynn (discoverer of the Flynn Effect), is a Leftist who very much believes in the reality of IQ.

Deep inside though, I really do fear that genetic Black IQ may be as low as ~70, possibly ~67. That’s what it is in Africa. Caribbean Blacks with a bit of White in them and maybe a better environment only score ~71. I really think that the true genetic IQ of US Blacks ought to be ~72.5, just going by their African + White mix.

What is very strange though is that the US Black is so unaccountably high, why it is ~87 and not ~72.5, where we would expect it to be on account of their genetics. In other words, US Black IQ is way too high to be explained by genetics alone.

No one really knows why this is. Either they engaged in some eugenics while here in the past 100 years or so to select for higher IQ’s, or the nutrition and extremely advanced environment of the US has jolted the IQ up. Anyway, the evidence seems to suggest a gain of about 15 IQ points in US Blacks, relative to Whites in about 100-125 years.

Concomitantly, we have seen a massive increase in head size in US Blacks. The head size changes seem to be due partly to nutrition but also partly to genetics.

The only way they could be due to genetics is if US Blacks have been eugenically selecting for IQ somehow in the past 125 years. At the same time, the US Black phenotype has become much more progressive and much less archaic, particularly with regard to prognathism. That is, in the past 125 years, US Blacks seem to have been selecting for both more progressive features and higher IQ. This makes sense since more progressive phenotypes tend to have higher IQ’s.

So Blacks closed the B-W IQ gap in the US by about 15 points in the past 125 years. Now that right there is quite shocking!

Then we have Britain. Several lines of evidence suggest that Anglo-Jamaican IQ in the UK ought to be ~72. That’s what is in Jamaica. Nevertheless, Jamaican Blacks have about the same IQ’s as US Blacks (86 to ~87 for US Blacks).

This is very odd, but it lines right up with the evidence from the US, and suggests that merely moving Blacks in an advanced Western environment results in an IQ gain of about 15 points. In Black kids, it’s even higher. Black kids in the UK and US have IQ’s as high as 95 (age 5). It does plunge back down, but once again, that looks like the Western environment is jacking up Black kids’ IQ’s by up to 25 pts.! Now that does drop to a 15 pt gain with adulthood, but still.

I think this is hopeful. To me this suggests that if you move Africans into a Western environment, by the second generation, their IQ’s could well gain up to 15 pts. If the average African IQ is 67, that would give them IQ’s of 82. That’s not great, but it’s probably workable. India and Pakistan have IQ’s in that range, and they more or less function.

What worries me is the possibility that Blacks in the West can only achieve about a 15 point IQ gain on account of the improved environment. After that, they might ceiling out. I’d rather see them close the gap altogether.

Now the US Black IQ of ~87 is not low by world standards. That’s the same IQ, approximately, as many Latin Americans, Arabs, Polynesians, Micronesians, Melanesians and Filipinos. Most of those folks seem to be able to create more or less functional societies. I’m aware that US Blacks can’t even seem to run Detroit, much less a whole country, but whatever the reason for that is, I don’t think it’s because they’re stupid.

Now even an ~87 IQ may not be so great in the West. Here in the US, Blacks possibly have one of the lowest IQ’s of any major group, despite the fact that an 87 IQ isn’t all that low. In advanced Western societies, the key term is group competition. If there’s a tiger after you and me, I don’t have to outrun it, I just have to outrun you. And here is the rub. If even at an ~87 IQ, US Blacks are outcompeted by most other groups, the relatively higher IQ will be less meaningful since they will still tend to fall behind the competition.