Alt Left: A Little Respect Goes a Long Way

Jason: I hate to play the devil’s advocate, but sometimes women, children, men are asking for violence. In other words, without a culture of fear, these people would become so tyrannical as to be worse than possible people who would punch them.

I have always said that the world of men or Man World operates on a Terror Principle. The glue that holds the whole damn thing together is what I call “the threat of a punch in the face.” We men are so violent. Many of us men are terrified of other men. There are countless rules in Man World, and when you break some of them, the penalty can be a punch in the face or worse. I’m nice and decent to men and follow the rules of Man World mostly so other guys won’t punch me in the face.
Or worse!
As a result, I have gotten into quite a few fistfights with other men. Hell, I still get into about one fistfight a year, and I’m 60 years old! I have pulled large knives on and pepper sprayed other men, been roughed up by cops a couple of times, had detectives threaten to beat confessions out of me in their office. I took a baseball bat and smashed someone’s front door down with it. I’ve made bombs that blew up car windshields and firebombs that set lawns on fire. I’ve slashed people’s tires. I’ve turned cars upside down with groups of other men. I’ve blown out glass doors with slingshots.
I’m not bragging here but I know just how dangerous men are. Hell, I’m even dangerous myself! How’s that for confirmatory evidence?
And I am actually a pretty pacifistic fellow. It’s just that I don’t take any shit from anyone, and I believe in paybacks. Almost all of the above, someone attacked me first or harmed me in some serious way.
Women sure act a lot better when they defer to men and are afraid of us. I run into this all the time, even with teenage girls. They defer to me and act a bit like they are afraid of me. As a result of this fear, they defer and are also very nice and almost submissive. My end of the deal is to be very nice back to them, a perfect gentleman.
It’s as if they are saying, “I am afraid of you, so I will defer to you and act submissive to you. In return please don’t hit me or kill me and please be nice to me.”
The men say, “Thank you for your deference and submissiveness. I will be very kind and gentlemanly to you as a result.”
It works perfectly. They have their end of the deal to uphold, and I have my end of the deal to uphold. If I act like a dick, they’re free to turn into bitches real fast, which most of them will do, and is their right.
This is how civilization works. Notice how Japanese women or sometimes even men bow in front of you when they meet you. Everybody’s pretty much kissing everyone else’s ass all the time. It may seem degrading and humiliating, but if people are always kissing your own ass too, it’s no big deal. I kiss other people’s ass; they kiss my ass, no problem.
You end up with a very polite society – so polite it is almost neurotic and too polite. It is sort of a transactional thing. People are cutting these ass kissing deals (shows of pure respect) and in response, the person who received the pure respect has to be grateful for the respect and kind to the person who gave it to him.
The Japanese almost like Blacks in a way in that they think the worst thing is to “diss” someone. It’s just that if you diss a Japanese, he will just think you are either a caveman or barely human, almost on the level of a dog and he will act disgusted with you. When you diss a Black man, he puts a bullet in your head. In both cases though, it’s quite clear. Humans, especially males, demand respect. When it’s not given to them, it can be an unpretty picture.

The White Whale of Affirmative Action

Zamfir: To say that AA no longer exists is legalistic at best. Almost all universities are still very strongly committed to ‘diversity,’ which in practice just can’t be achieved except by discriminating against whites (and Northeast Asians).

What happened was that the relatively clear and straightforward objective measures they had years ago got struck down, so they were replaced by vague ‘holistic’ measures that no one outside the admissions committee or the administration can ever understand.

It’s not exactly the same thing. There’s so much less anti-White discrimination than their used to be. Studies have shown that since getting rid of AA in California, admissions for Blacks and Hispanics to the tougher schools have dropped by a lot, in some cases by 75%. For instance at Berkeley Law School, rates of Black admissions went from 11% – 2%. That’s a huge drop.
And at the state universities, there are no restrictions. Really anyone with good enough grades can go to California state universities if your cash is green. Your grades don’t even have to be that good, as you can go in via a remedial program. State universities have open admissions and no one is turned down due to AA.

Zamfir: And there’s no other way to explain the results. If you look at any objective measures that would correlate with academic achievement, either IQ scores or LSAT’s or GPA’s or whatever, these all predict massive ‘under-representation’ of certain groups in the universities, but that isn’t what you find.

I do not know who you are talking about as in California, state universities have open enrollment and just want your cash. I went to USC, a private university also, and they want is to make sure your cash is green too.
You can always go to a lower tier law school if your money is green. Hardly anyone drops or flunks out of medical school. The admissions program is too rigorous. There’s no AA in med school. You don’t have to go to an elite New York city school. Any old NYC school should be just fine.

And then there’s hiring within the universities. I know of way too many absurd cases to believe that AA doesn’t exist. I’ve seen non-Whites and women with essentially no relevant experience or achievements (PhD incomplete) get hired into high-level tenure stream jobs over White men with 10 fancy publications and years of experience. It’s real.
And wouldn’t it just be crazy to think that the academic community, who are the most fanatical about feminism and anti-Whiteness, the most extreme supporters of AA, would not find someway to implement their values in their own institutions?

I don’t know what to say about university hiring in which there does appear to be a lot of what looks like AA going on. What does Zamfir propose to do about it. AA is already illegal at all universities. So they are getting around the law. What are we supposed to do now?

Who's White? Who's Not White?

Zamfir: If we say Whites are basically people derived from indigenous European populations, or the Euro branch of the Caucasian race, then lots of Southern Italians are borderline cases. Same for many Jews, possibly Berbers, etc.


A few things.
Spaniards and Portuguese are very White. The most Southern Portuguese are 4-5% Black. That doesn’t count.
Sicilians are ~5% Black. That doesn’t count either.
White Berbers are very White.
Jews are some of the purest Whites of them all.
My position is that Arabs are Whites.
Everyone in Turkey, the Caucasus and most of European Russia is White.
All native Europeans including Samis are White.
Iranians, Afghans, Pakistanis, and Northern Indians are more or less White people.
Many Latin Americans are White. Latin Americans up to ~25% White are considered White in Latin America. The rest are mulattoes, mestizos or zambos, or maybe people more properly called mixed race people of some type.

White-non-White mixes too mixed to Be Considered Whites, Maybe Best Called Part-Whites

Some Arabs and Berbers might have so much Black in them that we can’t call them White anymore. It’s hard to call Prince Bandar a White man. Neither are Southern Egyptians or the Blacker Berbers White.
A lot of Indians have so much South Indian in them that they are not really White anymore.
Many people in Eastern India and Nepal are too Asiatic to be called White. Quite a few are pure East Asians.
The peoples of the Stans, Siberia, and East Turkestan are properly seen as mixed race people, but some are White enough to be seen as Whites.  Some people of the Urals are also too mixed to be White.
A lot of these people are more properly seen as mixed race people. Many are Asiatic-White mixes who might be more properly called Eurasians as a mix of Europoids and East Asians.
Many Indians are a different mix altogether, more of a White-Australoid mix for which there is no racial name.
Obviously many Black-White mixes are more properly seen as some form of mulatto.
Many White-Indian mixes in Latin America are best seen as mestizos.
With a lot of these folks, it boils down to more of a case by case basis to determine whether a given Kazakh, Saudi, Mari, Yemeni, Moroccan, Egyptian, Uighur, Egyptian or certainly Latin American is White or is too mixed to be considered properly White. Generally most people with up to 20% Black in them look and act White enough to be considered White. This is probably true for Asian mix. Once you start getting over 20%, things get a lot dicier.

The Truth about Africa, Immigration, and IQ

I have nothing to add here.

Tim Watkins: Immigration patterns are obviously backwards, of what they should be. People should be going from high IQ countries to low IQ countries…from Japan, China, Germany, etc…to Africa…increasing the number of high IQ humans in African countries, to help them solve their problems.
The problem in South Africa was not too many whites. It was too few Whites…Whites felt threatened by the large black majority, so they acted like racist assholes. That doesn’t change the fact that high IQ Whites basically provide all the professionals to make a modern economy run in Africa.
So in African nations the people who are generally the smartest are the ones that leave to emigrate to high IQ countries. This helps countries like the United States but hurts the African countries who can’t afford to lose high IQ people. An example of this was President Obama’s dad, who was a champion African scholar.
Liberals encourage the economic devastation and slow pace of improving the lives of Africans by encouraging Africans to immigrate to America. Liberals do this because they claim, “we are not racist”…but if racism is defined as doing things which hurt other races, then liberals are the most racist people among the White population.
If Africa had 25% of it’s population as Japanese, or Chinese, or White…its problems would very quickly disappear. The biggest problem Africa is facing is not environmental degradation, it’s not poverty, it’s not lack of money, it’s not lack of resources, or anything else…it’s lack of smart people.
Sorry liberals…but that’s the truth. Get your head out of the sand. Your so-called “anti-racism” leads to an awful lot of suffering among our fellow humans in Africa.


Honesty Is Overrated

Let me tell you a story. For the first five years I lived here, my landlord always acted like she hated me, and I just smiled and pretended to like her back. I cannot afford to make this woman mad. I cannot afford to be sincere with her. In my case, sincerity would have gotten me thrown out of this place long ago. Sincerity, like honestly, is overrated.
For instance, in the US we have this idiot attitude that we are supposed to be honest all the time and never lie. Not only is that unrealistic, but in a lot of cases, it’s downright stupid. In many cases, the only smart thing to do is lie. Forced with lying and telling the truth, lying is clearly the smarter case in many situations. Being honest in those situations is sort of suicidal. You are deliberately causing problems in your life just to carry the torch for Sincerity. What’s the point? Is your name Jesus? Why do you have to be honest all the time?
The Japanese are very smart about this, and much of their culture is based on strategic lying. They often lie in order to be polite. You tell a Japanese man that you never lie and he will laugh right in your face and call you a fool. Because of course that is exactly what you are.
Many Americans, for some idiot reason, like to tell people that they never lie. That in itself is of course a lie.
Sometimes this lie is necessary. For instance, in dating. In heterosexual dating, women typically demand honest men. Go on dating sites. “No liars! No players! Honest men only!” If you talk to women in this context (call it pre-dating), and I have talked to countless women in that context, you are often quizzed about whether or not you are honest.
If I am honest, I will have to say, “Of course not. I’m a big fat liar and proud of it. In fact, I am an excellent liar. You will rarely meet a liar as skilled as I am. I deserve a PhD in lying.”
But if I say that, I blow the potential date. So I lie and say that I am honest even to a fault. I say that I am so honest that my honesty gets me in trouble. I am an innocent babe in the woods, ignorant of worldly ways. If she thinks I am a fool for doing that, then I just adjust the lie and admit to white lies, lies of omission and  strategic lying. A number of Americans are uncomfortable accepting of those sorts of good lies, but it’s clear that for an American, the very idea that there are good lies and bad lies opens up a huge can of worms that needs to stay sealed.
Seduction is all about lying anyway.

Japanese Would Rather Freeze than Be Impolite

In Japan, you leave a door open, and after a bit, people will start saying things like, “My, it certainly is cold in here, isn’t it?…Why is it so cold?…etc.” They may look at you pointedly when they say this. You are supposed to get the hint and go look at the door and figure out if you left it open or not.  They are so damn polite that they would rather sit in the cold than ask you to close the door!

IQ and Racial Background of Latin American Indians

Granted, they are primitive Austronesian Asian people with an IQ of 70 and it takes all sorts of social programs to keep them fed and clothed and away from the alcohol but you Gallegos Basque do not even pretend to give a single rat’s ass.

First of all, Amerindians are not Austronesians. Austronesians are Malays, Filipinos, Indonesians and Taiwanese Aborigines. Other people  speaking Austronesian languages such as Polynesians, Melanesians and Micronesians are only part Austronesian.
Polynesians are 1/2 Melanesian and 1/2 Austronesian.
Melanesians vary, but the some of the Austronesian speakers in the Papuan coast and eastern Indonesia are 20% Austronesian and 80% Papuan. Austronesians only settled the coast of Papua, so the interior remained Papuan. The Austronesians brought language but few genes.
I believe Micronesians are 1/2 Polynesian and 1/2 Papuan.
Amerindians are simply Northeast Asians, the same folks as Chinese, Japanese, Mongolians and Siberians, but they are closest to Siberians. The main difference is that the Amerindians are from a more primitive and archaic type of Northeast Asian that may not have gone though the high IQ mutations. I would call them Paleomongoloids, whereas the others are generally Neomongoloids. So Amerindians are just an early version of the highly functional Northeast Asians.
Some relation to the Northeast Asians can be seen in their features and sparse, Northeast Asian like body hair. The hair on their heads looks very Northeast Asian too. Whereas a Northeast Asian baby is calm, cool and collected, an Amerindian baby is silent but very aware and watchful, like an Indian hunter hiding in the woods waiting for a deer. They are so deathly quiet that observers often wonder if they are dead. On the other hand, Black babies are precocious physically, very fast in development and tend to be very active physically and even boisterous. They are quite extroverted.
These racial differences in babies are present from the very earliest stages of life and I am convinced that they are biological in nature. I also believe that this shows that there are obvious differences between the races at least in personality. If those differences are showing up that  early and that uniformly, they cannot possibly be due to culture. Babies are not effected tremendously by culture anyway.
Amerindian IQ is absolutely not 70. They are not that dumb. Scores vary, but a figure of 87 for the whole continent seems pretty good. Some are lower. I believe that Indians in Mexico are 83 and in Guatemala is the same.
87 IQ is not a bad score. Your average human has an IQ of 89. Certainly 87 IQ folks or even 83 IQ folks do not need all sorts of social programs to keep them clothed and fed. Keeping them away from the booze is much easier. These people lived life without social programs for 12,000 years. They did just fine. They don’t need welfare to survive.
Although the 87 IQ is close to the 85 US Black IQ, Amerindians have only 2X the White crime rate, whereas for Blacks it is 7-8X the White crime rate. This shows that attempt to put White-Black crime differences all down to IQ is a fool’s errand, but that is what so many HBD types, usually racists, do. There is more driving Black aggression, crime, violence and antisocial behavior than just IQ.
I am thinking that extroversion and associated problems with impulse control and delayed gratification along with higher testosterone in both males and females may have something to do with it. Also some genetic mutations that elevate the risk of violence and criminality in Whites are present at much higher levels in Blacks. It is seen in only .1% of White men, but I believe the rate is  ~5% in Black men.
We need to stop IQ fetishization and trying to reduce all racial issues to IQ. There’s a hell of a lot more going on with humans than just IQ, and it doesn’t take a genius IQ to figure that out.

Empathy and IQ: Some Misconceptions

There is a common notion by some elitist commenters on this site that the more intelligent people are, the less they care about those who are poorer, lower class or less fortunate than they are. This would suggest that higher IQ people fit the stereotype of vicious and uncaring elites = the 1%. But the truth is so much more complicated.
Actually, the most humanistic, empathetic and humanitarian societies are run by high IQ peoples like Whites and Northeast Asians.  As you descend the IQ scale, you notice that people just can’t seem to do socialism well. One thing that I have noticed is that as IQ lowers, people are less and less likely to want to share resources with their neighbor. You see more and more, “Everything for me and nothing for anyone else.” You see zero sum game politics, tribalism, casteism and all sorts of bullshit.
I have concluded that in order to even have the conception that one ought to share with others, one needs a fairly high IQ. This is because the basic typical human tendency is a tribal “everything for me/us and nothing for anyone else.” That’s how dumb people think because that is a base, barbaric animalistic way of thinking.
Even to contemplate that resources should be shared with one’s neighbor seems to require a higher IQ. We see this also in crime rates. Crime rates are a good proxy for empathy. As IQ declines, crime rates rise, often by a lot. As crime rates correlate with empathy, falling IQ leads to lower empathy. As IQ rises, crime rates fall. Since crime rates correlate with empathy, rising IQ leads to higher empathy.
If this is true, we should also see corruption decline with rising IQ and rise or even skyrocket with falling IQ. And indeed this is what we find. Therefore, corruption = crime rate = empathy rating, all three correlate with IQ. As IQ rises, all of these things will fall, and as IQ falls, all of these things will tend to rise.

White Culture Is One of the Least Rapey Cultures on Earth

Most Islamic cultures are pretty rapey, and India is rapey as Hell. All Latin America and all of Sub-Saharan Africa is rapey as all get out. All of the Caribbean is rapey. The Philippines is pretty damn rapey. India is probably the rapiest place on Earth. Generally speaking, the more Black and mestizo the place is, the rapier it is. South Asian culture is rapey as Hell, and Bangladesh and Pakistan would be rapey too if they were not Islamic. Rapeyness seems to be negatively correlated with how White or NE Asian a place is and positively correlated with South Asian, mestizo and Black cultures. Which of course is what any sane person would expect and is of course the exact opposite of what White-hating Western feminists propose.
Western feminists have decided that White culture and only White culture is afflicted with some bizarre thing called “rape culture” in which rape is normalized. I don’t know about these feminists, but I never lived in any White culture where rape was normalized or sanctioned. If I did, perhaps I would have raped a woman or a girl. I shudder to think about it, but I figure I am just a normal guy. If you give men cultural permission to rape, a lot of them are going to do just that. Even White men. That is why we need strong laws against rape to punish maniacs and make even normal guys like me think twice (or better yet fifty times) before doing something like that.

Repost: What Do the Chinese Think of Blacks?

This is also getting posted around lately. There is a lot of talk on this site about racism, prejudice and ethnic conflicts that result from that all over the world, so I thought you might be interested in this. I hate to say it, but I do not think Chinese like Black people too much. There is also an excellent story of Chinese men staging an anti-Black race riot in China over Black men “stealing their women.” Most groups of men will not put up with another ethnic group taking their women. It is a primal thing.
Hacienda, a Korean nationalist commenter with an anti-White grudge, posts:

“…all those groups seriously hate blacks…”
One thing whites HAVE to stop doing:
Stop trying to be the spokespeople for other races. How the f+ck do you know that Chinese REALLY hate blacks!

I have spent a lot of time around Japanese and Koreans. They seriously hate Blacks, way, way, way, way worse than Whites do. They are like how we used to be. It’s pretty much the same with the East Indians in the US. And I know for a fact it’s true about Hispanics. It’s not that these people hate Blacks and Whites don’t, it’s just that they are vastly more racist than we are anymore. US Whites have lost a lot of their anti-Black racism lately. Things are far different than they were 30 or even 20 years ago.
I recall that during Mao’s era, the Maoist regime used to send bright Africans to college in China. The Chinese male students would chase them down the streets threatening to beat them up and calling them monkeys.
Also, a number of Blacks came to a university town in China recently. As might be expected, they were great players and were quickly cleaning up with the Chinese girls. They would throw parties in their apartments. Only Black men allowed. Only Chinese women allowed. No Chinese men allowed.
The Chinese male students at the university staged a wild, violent riot over the Blacks “stealing Chinese women.” Things got so bad that the Chinese government moved the Black students out of the city.
I also heard one Chinese guy from the Bay Area say that he and every Chinese person he knew in the Bay Area despised Blacks. Turned out that a number of them had been victims of violent crime. In every single case, the Chinese person was victimized by a Black criminal. This was the genesis of their rage.
Those anecdotes, along with the fact that Chinese racial supremacism probably mirrors the Japanese and Korean varieties, lead me to think that Chinese are not too wild about Blacks.
Heck, Chinese don’t even like other Asians. They don’t even like non-Han Asiatics who are their fellow citizens in China. I have had them tell me that Chinese means “Han.” Anyone in China who is not Han is “not Chinese.” Implication is that they are inferior. Even the Cantonese Yue are considered to be barbarians. They are somewhat off the hook as they have been Hanized, but not totally.
If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Gedalia Braun's Piece on Africans

Sam: A possible explanation for Black behavior.
“…common understanding among blacks of what morality is: not something internalized but something others enforce from the outside…”
Tulio: Interesting article. But I’d like to examine multiple perspectives on this topic before I draw any conclusions. I’ve never been to Africa to observe her findings first hand, and given that the author writes for Amren, this individual has an obvious predisposition.
For example she speaks of cruelty and torture in Africa, but that has existed among whites as well. I’ve seen some of the torture devices used during Europe’s middle period. Even looking at them was unbearable. Even in this country witches were burned at the stake. Blacks were hung from trees on false accusations while whites stood around and cheered.
I don’t like her conclusion that blacks have some inherent flaw that makes them incapable of being moral or having any abstract thoughts. Google a list of African proverbs and they contradict everything she just said.

First of all, Gedalia Braun is a man, not a woman. No idea what that first name is all about.
I actually think he is onto something, especially as he lived in various African countries for many years. That was always one of my favorite articles on Amren. The odd thing about that article is that while is not real flattering towards Africans, the author doesn’t seem to hate Africans at all. In fact, it seems that he is rather fond of them despite it all.
I don’t think just writing for Amren should disqualify you as biased. One of the truly disturbing things about Amren that I learned from hanging out there a very long time is that so much of what those articles say is flat out true. That is hard to swallow. However, the site is dishonest and biased as it only reports the downside to Blacks and never says anything good about them, while I know some of you will be amazed, but there are actually quite a few good things you can say about US Blacks if you are looking to write good things about them.
The Black love of cruelty and sadism does seem to be a part of the race. Yes any culture can become extremely cruel and sadistic, even the “highest” races of all which can become downright genocidal under the right conditions of Organized Violence.  Not long ago, two of the “highest” races of all, the Germans and Japanese, engaged in some spectacular cruelty, sadism, out and out evil and even horrific genocide. And yes, European White did use to be quite sadistic and cruel as the torture devices indicate. However, under normal peacetime conditions, most European Whites in Europe and the West demonstrate remarkably little sadism and cruelty, while with Blacks, even US Blacks, it just seems to go on unabated.
I should note that cruelty and sadism are not Black traits. They are human traits! Humans are naturally cruel, sadistic and downright evil, at least at times. Most human societies and most humans have it in them to be sadistic and cruel. I was a pretty vicious little boy, but all my friends were too, so I just figure that boys are just naturally rather evil. But you grow out of it. I still have cruelty and sadism in me of course, but I try to keep it locked up in a cage inside of me and hope it never comes out. My argument is going to be that Blacks are more susceptible to the normal human tendencies than say Whites or Northeast Asians are, not that Blacks are evil and sadistic and White people are real nice. Screw that.
Some of those things may not be race-dependent. For instance, even if Blacks are bad at abstract thinking as a race, if you push their IQ up, their capacity for abstract thinking ought to grow quite a bit. African Americans appear to be dramatically more intelligent that Africans for whatever reason. One standard deviation is nothing to shake your finger at. Hence, even if US Blacks are have some inherent issue with abstract thinking, pushing that IQ up to one SD is going to make US Blacks a Hell of a lot more abstract than Africans.
I should also note that a number of the other downsides to Africans that he writes about – childlikeness, love of cruelty and sadism, needing morality imposed from the outside rather than from within
A lot of that has been said before. Albert Schweitzer wrote much the same things after working for years as a do-gooder in Africa. The fact that he was such a do-gooder makes his remarks particularly potent, as I do not see how a man with that much of a kind heart would deliberately make up a bunch of evil things about Blacks. In fact, if you study so called racist literature down through the years, you will find many of these things that Braun talks about repeated many times. Much early anthropological writings on Blacks are now called racist because they were pretty blunt about the race, whereas now the field is very PC.
For instance, the thing about Blacks being “childlike.” Childlike is not the same thing as childish. Childlike is not a bad thing really. I would love to be childlike in some ways and I hope I am, actually.
Early American writings including I think Thomas Jefferson noted the same thing: they also said that Blacks were childlike.
The morality thing sort of makes sense. In situations where brute force enforces morality, Blacks do pretty well. I heard they do pretty well under Communism. Supposedly you could walk from one end to the other of Maputo in the middle of the night and no one would bother you. Maputo is the capital of Mozambique.
That was under the Communist like government of Samora Machel, who is actually one of my heroes. Havana is the safest large city in the Americas and it is very Black. Blacks also do well under Islam. Reporters have gone to the parts of West Africa that are under Islam and they say that things are a lot smoother, less chaotic and far less crime ridden than in the non-Muslim countries like Sierra Leone and Liberia to the south.
I hear there are also many Blacks in Yemen, maybe up to 40%. They are light-skinned, but there is a lot of discrimination against them. Racially they look like Ethiopians, which is maybe what they are. They commit almost zero crime, even property crime.
Under both Islam and Communism, morality is for sure imposed from the outside in a pretty heavy handed way. It was similar in the typical African village or villages that was ruled by a king. I have heard that pre-1960, Nigeria was mostly a country of small rural villages. There was almost no crime in these villages.
Not only was law enforcement pretty brutal, there was also a heavy shame factor involved similar to what we see with the Northeast Asians, who do not want to commit crimes or even do bad things in general because it will bring shame unto their families. Amazingly rural Africa was able to operate under the same shame-based morality as the Northeast Asians, yet the NE Asians are usually thought to be a “higher” race than Africans. So it looks like some of those things that make these “higher” races higher can actually be imported and be used by the “lower” races, which seems counterintuitive but is also hopeful.
The notion that Black genes make societies inherently unstable is belied by the fact that North Africa (13% Black by genes) and the Gulf (17-21% Black by genes) are remarkable stable places under normal peacetime conditions.
Also Ancient Egypt was 13% Black by genes and it was one of the greatest countries in the history of the world. So Caucasians having a certain amount of Black genes is not the end of the world.

What Race Were the Windover People?

Sam writes:

Oh, so we’re going to go the old, “They were here first” trick huh? Ok. Here’s a story on the 8,000 year old Windover Skeletons and these people were Caucasians. That’s right White people. The Indians came from Siberia and murdered my ancestors. So they need to get the fuck out (if we’re going by the “I got here fist rule”).
Windover Skeletons
If you think I’m kidding or trolling about them being Europeans, I’m not. Europeans have a very distinct facial structure and are totally different from other races. A decent anthropologist can easily tell what race a person is from looking at their skull.

The DNA of the Windover People is Asian. The Caucasian appearance may be similar to Kennowick Man who comes from about that same time frame (Kennowick Man  9,000 YBP Windover People 7,500 YBP), however Kennowick Man only appears Caucasoid because he is sort of an Ainuid.
Kennowick Man’s skull plots most closely with the Ainu and the Moiriori, an extinct Melanesianized Polynesian people from the Chatham Islands. The Ainu are Australoid and the Moriori were a heavily Australoid Polynesian type.
Hence the Windover People are probably Australoids.
When you cross an Australoid with a Mongoloid, sometimes you end up with a pseudo “Caucasoid” phenotype. These people are not really Caucasoids; they just look like them. This is possibly because the number of possible endpoints for human phenotypes is small, and “Caucasoid is one of the few possible endpoints.

Another Way of Looking at IQ: Extra-IQ Factors

RL: Incidentally, two of the brightest commenters on my blog had IQ’s of 113 and 117. The 117 IQ guy was fantastic at philosophy and other forms of abstract thinking. The other fellow was into genetics and anthropology, but he thought in much the same way. A few of these types are so bright that you almost think that their score is wrong. I am not sure what is going on except maybe they are working their brains extra hard, or they have filled their brains up with all sorts of goodies.
Oops I did it again: Myers-Briggs (Jungian) type, life experiences, economic status, degree of neuroticism (“Work their wits hard”), the brain faculty we call “sensitivity”, the other we call “fantasy”, all are factors.

This is so correct. Jim Flynn wrote a book the premise of which was something like “factors above and beyond IQ.” He showed how 1st and 2nd Generation Northeast Asians in the US (mostly Japanese and Chinese) were often working at jobs up that usually required IQ’s 20 points above their level. In other words, a 100 IQ Japanese-American would be functioning on the job at the same level as a typical 120 IQ ordinary American. In other words, the NE Asians might have an IQ of 100, but on his on the job performance was the same as someone with a 120 IQ.
Flynn called these “extra-IQ factors.” In other words, on the job, IQ isn’t everything. I forget what the extra-IQ factors were but they seemed to be things like punctuality, responsibility, resilience, psychological stability, regular attendance, studiousness, reliability, seriousness, conscientiousness, hard working nature, and stick-to-it-iveness or what some are now calling “grit” which boils down to “if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again,” or continuing to hammer away at a problem even after repeated failure – not giving up.
So you see there are personality factors that you can add to your IQ score so you perform at a higher level than your IQ would predict.
I was thinking of this in terms of Blacks, that maybe Blacks could cultivate some extra-IQ factors that would allow them to overcome some of their disadvantage due to lower average IQ. If an 85 IQ Black person could function on the job at the same level as we expect a 105 IQ person to perform at, I think the position of Blacks in the US could improve a lot. Unfortunately the wort of things that were helping the NE Asians were sort of “nerd factors, square factors, uptight factors” that Blacks just don’t seem to do well in, mostly because they look down on this sort of excessive seriousness.
Nevertheless, I am open to the idea of harnessing extra-IQ factors in Blacks to help them to perform better in school and work. Harnessing what seems to be their innate social skills and extroversion might be one of these things.
Myers-Briggs or Jungian personality type: Yes, certain personality types might help one perform above their IQ level.
Life experiences: Correct. Certain types of life experiences and lessons learned and skills gained from them could help push you above your IQ level.
Economic status: Yes, a higher economic status might help you to perform above your IQ level.
Degree of neuroticism or working their wits hard: Correct. Someone who pushes their brain into overdrive and characteristically pushes their mind and intellect to its limits in an almost challenge-testing near-athletic competitive manner could surely perform above their IQ level. I think I have seen some examples of this in my life.
Sensitivity as a brain factor: I could see how this would help you perform above your IQ level, but I am wondering just what this factor is.
Fantasy as a brain factor: If this means something like creativeness or open mindedness or the tendency to think outside the box, I could see how this would help you.

Where Did the Jomonese People Come from?

This East Timorese man looks more Aboriginal, or better yet, Papuan.


A pseudo-Caucasoid or Ryukuyan type in East Timor.



An Ainuid! What is this hairy Ainu man doing in East Timor?

Maricon Power writes:

Robert Lindsay, I do agree on many of your point. The only thing I don’t agree is that Jomons (ancestors of Ainu ) were descendants of the Jomonese Thailand in 16,000 YPB. You’re right that they descended from Southeast Asia but most likely that location is in southern Southeast Asia, maybe Timor.

”According to Hanihara, modern Japanese lineages began with Jomon people who moved into the Japanese archipelago during Paleolithic times from their homeland in southeast Asia.”

This map goes along with Maricon Power’s comment above. That pseudo-Caucasoid is, believe it or not a Ryukuyan Ainuid type.


Another pseudo-Caucasoid Ainuid type from East Timor. He’s even wearing a White man’s cowboy hat!


Yet another pseudo-Caucasoid. That man simply looks like a White man, period. Amazing.
Asien Ost Timor Timor-Leste Maubisse Bergregion Minderheiten
An Ainu man in East Timor! Get a load of that getup, including the most amazing feather hast I have ever seen.

Hello, a study was done using many different Asian skulls. When plotted on a graph with all of the other skulls, Jomonese 13,000 was a perfect match for Thailand 16,000 (Proto-Thai). “Proto-Jomonese” types were probably widespread through SE Asia at the time. The types in Easts Timor and in Thailand are probably the same people.

Everyone who thinks that Australoids are all ugly needs to reconsider that view now. Look at this fellow. He’s an Australoid, sure. And he’s also quite exotic looking. But he’s incredibly handsome, at least to my eyes. Anyone agree?


Another Ainuid-looking fellow. Actually he looks more Aboriginal to me, but Ainu types also look Aboriginal.


There he is! An Ainu in East Timor. Does that garb resemble traditional Ainu clothing? I wonder.

Some Notes on the Ainu

Maricon Power writes:

Robert Lindsay, why do pure Ainu have lighter skinned than Japanese? Are Ainu Northern Australoids (cold adapted Australoids?) or are they pigmented? I’ve seen pigmented Tamils and Veddas that look almost European; even the Australian aborigines would.

Look at this map of glacier cover in Japan at the height of the last glaciation about 20,000 years ago.

It shows the Hokkaido (Ainu land) living in a climate different from every other Asian countries.

Glaciation in Japan at the height of the last Ice Age 20,000 YBP.

The Ainu are indeed cold adapted Australoids, and they are actually Vedda types. A comparison of Veddoids and Ainu will show that they match perfectly.

The map of Ainu land is not correct. 20,000 YBP there were no Ainu in Japan. The ancestors of the Ainu are the Jomon. Jomonese skulls line up perfectly with skulls from Thailand 16,000 YBP. The Jomonese show up in Japan 13,000 YBP. So the Jomon left Thailand sometime between 16,000 and 13,000 YBP and made their way eventually up to Japan. When they first arrived in Japan, the Jomonese ranged over the entire country. They were not in Hokkaido alone.

They only ended up in Hokkaido when the Yayoi came from Korea to Japan 2,300 YBP and slowly conquered their way up the island, defeating and displacing the Ainu along the way. The Ainu were eventually pushed up to Hokkaido where the Japanese no longer pursued them much. Hokkaido is where they were found when modern anthropology discovered them in the modern area, but they have not always been located only there.

How Do We Define a Race of Humans?

aircommodore writes:

Robert, you’ve probably done this already but can you please provide a definition for “race”?

Based on this post here, The Major and Minor Races of Man, where I divided humans up into four macro races, 11 major races and 115 minor races based on genetic distance. The questioner wants to know what my methodology is for determining what a race is and what it is not.

Here was my method and I must admit that my methodology was completely impressionistic in that I would just look at how far certain group[s were from each other to determine where they were racially. I didn’t have any strict figures that I was using (more sort of general ones) but I used the same basic distance for all groups.

At some certain X genetic distance, you a race. At some certain less than X distance, you have groups in the same race.

For instance, I created a South China Sea Race due to data showing that Filipinos, the Ami aborigines of Taiwan and the Guangdong or Hong Kong Han all formed a nice tight genetic race because they were so similar to each other. On the other hand, there is no Guangdong Han Race, Ami Race nor Filipino Race as they are all part of a larger group or actual race. I am not sure what you might call them – perhaps those three could be called ethnic groups.

On the other hand, the Puyuma Taiwan aborigines were far enough apart to even be in a separate race from the Ami.

The biggest races of all – the huge groups with the most genetic distance from each other, form Macro-Races such as Caucasians, Africans, Asians and Oceanians. Included within those groups are eleven Major Races the names of which elude me now as I forget what I called them. For instance, I believe I split Asians into Southeast Asians, Northeast Asians, and Amerindians because those three groups are so far apart that you really need to split them.

Within each Major Race, I split each one up in to a number of Minor Races. Within say Northeast Asians, I had the Japanese-Korean Race consisting of the Japanese, the Koreans and the Ainu because they are so close to each other genetically and they form a nice neat little cluster that is away from all other groups.

The Races of China and Japan

Pretty cool old anthropology article on the Chinese and Japanese races. It’s wrong in some ways, but it still has a lot that should be of value. Obviously such an article could not appear in any anthropology journal today, which is pitiful. Blame PC for that.

The Races of China and Japan

by Harry Paxton Howard

The China Weekly Review, Vol. 60 (12 March 1932), pp. 48–50

The Chinese and Japanese are two separate and distinct peoples, as separate and distinct as is the southern Italian from the Norwegian taken in the mass. There is no scientific basis for the assertion that they are of the same race, and indeed anyone at all familiar with the two peoples is readily able to distinguish between the general type. There is the lesser height of the Japanese (due mainly to shorter legs), the more rugged features, the sharper, longer, and narrower eyes (usually black as compared with the typical Chinese brown), the more brownish skin-color, the much greater frequency of beard.

On the other hand, there are certain sub-types which both peoples possess and which make it possible for thousands of Japanese in this country to pass as Chinese, while there are many pure Chinese who may be mistaken for Japanese. The reason for this is that each people is a mixture of different elements. Some of the elements are common to both peoples. Some elements one people possesses but not the other.

Chinese Racial Origins

Many anthropologists have devoted themselves to analyzing and distinguishing the racial elements in the two countries. Buxton, Li Chi, Shirokogoroff and some others have given special study to the Chinese people, and all distinguish different types among the population, as do also Haddon, Morant and others.

The most complete study to date is that made by Dr. Stevenson of the P.U.M.C. at Peiping, in his ‘Collected Anthropometric Data on the Chinese,’ showing at least two distinct types, though Stevenson is too cautious a scientist to state any definite conclusions as yet. And as regards racial origins in the North, the data given in Black’s study of skulls from prehistoric sites in Kansu and Honan suggest answers to some long-debated problems when considered in connection with some physical types already distinguished by different anthropologists.

First of all there is a Chinese type which is also found among the Manchus and by students is regarded as the fundamental ‘Manchu’ type. It is of short or medium stature, with broad head, low orbits (apparently associate with a long and narrow eye-slit), narrow nose often aquiline, frequently fair and ruddy skin. This type exists in Manchuria and in North China today, and is found further south as well.

Secondly, there is a type which, if placed side by side with the foregoing, will show marked differences. It is taller, with longer skull, wider forehead, higher orbits (‘rounder’ and more open eye), broader nose. It is frequent in North China, but is found to be predominant and characteristic among the Kham Tibetans of the territory adjoining Kansu.

The Primitive Mixture

The study of prehistoric skulls referred to above indicates the existence of these very types in the China of four thousand years ago. The earliest skulls, from Neolithic cities in Kansu and Honan, present ‘several suggestive similarities to Kham Tibetans’ though differing from more recent North China skulls in being longer, ‘with somewhat wide foreheads and longer skull bases, and slightly broader palates and lower orbits.’

The aspects in which these Neolithic skulls differ from the Kham Tibetans, however, are very significant. In addition to the Tibetan type, they include a type with broader head, narrow nose, and lower orbits. Such features are characteristic of the Manchu type referred to above, which fact leaves little doubt that the Neolithic people were a mixture of these Kham Tibetan and ‘Manchu’ types.

Judging from their later distribution, it is probable that the ‘Manchu’ type was more characteristic of the Honan communities, the Kham Tibetan type of those in Kansu, but the study referred to above, unfortunately, does not distinguish between the two localities, grouping them all together as ‘Yang Shao’ (Neolithic).

The Turkish Element

Others of these prehistoric communities, evidently later in date and showing the use of bronze in addition to stone, show the addition of another type which, combined with the previous ones, makes up a mixture hardly distinguishable from the Northern Chinese of more recent times. As previously stated, the primitive mixture differed from the more recent by its narrower skull, broader foreheads, and lower orbits. The new type evidently possessed a broader skull, with relatively narrower forehead and higher orbits.

These features are characteristic of the Turki, with their broad skull, long oval face, and generally non-Mongolian eyes. From the study mentioned…it would appear that the lower orbits are generally an Oriental characteristic. They are apparently associated with the longer, narrower eye. No other race in this part of the world seems to possess just these characteristics, and we know that the early home of the Turkish peoples was somewhere in the interior of Asia. It is an interesting confirmation of the theory held by many historical students (e.g., Hirth), on different grounds, that the Turkish element is present and is of some significance in China.

[It should be understood that the word Turki here refers not to the tribe, but to the racial stock. This stock is predominant among the Turkish peoples, though now apparently mixed with other elements.]

This element, indeed, would explain the presence of the occasional ‘hairy’ type among the Chinese. Most Chinese, like Mongolian peoples as a whole, have little hair either on face on body. The Turki, however, possess a plentiful beard, and a fair supply of hair on the body as well, in distinct contrast to the Mongolian peoples. We find some Chinese possess beards and growth of hair on the body, and the Turkish element would account for this. Hairiness, indeed, is a distinguishing feature of Chinese Moslems, who quite clearly have a strong non-Mongolian element in them.

Four Types

This Turkish element seems to have come in together with bronze in the legendary period just preceding more definite history. The early Hsiung-nu (on the plains to the north of the Yellow River in ancient China) appear to have been Turkish, and Hirth believes that the Chou Dynasty was of Turkish origin. It was apparently in the second millennium B.C. that this element became mixed with the Kham Tibetans and Manchu types referred to above, producing a mixture similar to that of North China today.

There is, however, a fourth type, of the presence of which Chinese history leaves no doubt whatsoever – the Mongol. This type, distinguished from the mass of Chinese by the lowness of the Mongol head and breadth of the face and head, as well as the little flat nose and low stature, has apparently existed for long in the Chinese mixture. Its coming into China was during the historic period, with one invasion after another by Mongol peoples (as well as by others) during the past two thousand years.

There may be distinguished, therefore, four racial types of some importance in North China,— the Manchu, the Kham Tibetan, the Turki, and the Mongol. These four elements, with their combinations, seem to account for every type of any frequency in North China and are found further south as well.

It should be noted however, that three of the types, judging from their present-day representatives, possess certain essential characters of the Mongolian group – hair straight, black, and scanty on face and body; eyes usually relatively long and narrow, generally brown in color, and commonly with the characteristic Mongolian eye-fold; skin color varying from yellowish-white to yellow-brown, though there are fair and ruddy complexions also.

The Turki are closer to the Caucasian owing to their abundant hair on face and body, frequently if not typically wavy; eyes generally full and round (though often – apparently through admixture – with Mongolian fold); skin color from pinkish-white to brown.

The South

The above-named elements are characteristic of North China, but they extend into the South as well. Here, however, they come into contact with other types rarely found among natives of the North. First of all there is an element with wavy or even curly hair, open and round non-Mongolian eye, short stature but relatively long legs, long and narrow head, and broad nose. These characters, which set this type distinctly apart from the Mongolian races, belong to many southern aborigines as well as Chinese, distinguishing a race which Buxton and Haddon link up with the Indonesians or Nesiots.

There is still another element present in the South, a quite different race but now generally mixed with other types – the Negrito. This type is characterized by its woolly hair, very short stature, very dark skin and broad nose, and full or thick lips. Li Chi and other anthropologists have pointed out indications of such a type.

It appears indeed, that the occasionally curly-haired Chinese in the south is usually a cross between this woolly-haired type and either the wavy-haired Indonesian or straight-haired Mongolian element. And other Negroid characters such as prognathism, black skin, pigmentation of the eye, the full or even thick lips also occur. Negrito peoples still exist scattered over a considerable area in southeastern Asia and the adjoining islands, and probably at one time occupied a much greater part of southeastern Asia than at present.

Stevenson believes there is still another type present in the South which he terms Polynesian, rather similar to the Indonesian but with finer and more prominent features.

The Chinese Mixture

There are therefore several races or sub-races among the Chinese people. There is indeed little agreement among anthropologists as to what constitutes a race, some defining 19 or 20, others 40-60, among the peoples of the earth.

There is wide agreement among competent anthropologists, however, as to certain broad divisions of the human species, and Boas…recognizes two main divisions, the Caucasian-Mongolian and the Afro-Australian.

In the first division the Mongolians have straight black hair, flat or broad face, Mongolian eye-fold, frequently yellowish (though often fair, ruddy, or brown) skin color. The Caucasian hair is often wavy or curly and of lighter color, and the Mongolian eye-fold and yellowish skin color are ordinarily absent. The most fundamental distinction between the two however is the relative hairiness of the Caucasian and the hairlessness (on face and body) of the Mongolian.

The Blacks of the second division differ from both members of the first division by their woolly or frizzly hair, their black skin (with a degree of pigmentation which even affects the eye), their frequently thick and everted lips, and by actual bodily proportions, the Negro leg being differently formed from that of ‘White’ or ‘Yellow’ man. The most marked point of distinction between Negro and Australian is the relative hairiness of the latter and the fact that this hair is not woolly but curly or frizzly.

Of these four main physical divisions of mankind we find the Mongolian most common in China. The extent of the Caucasian element depends upon how the Indonesian and Turkish types are classified. Some group the Indonesians with Caucasians because of their wavy or curly hair and open, round, non-Mongolian eye. Elliott Smith groups them together with the Mediterranean peoples as the Brown Race. The Turki are also a people regarding whose classification there is a difference of opinion, their straight black hair making it possible to group them with the Mongolians, while its abundance and their lack of other specifically Mongolian characters marks them as Caucasian.

Besides the Mongolian and Caucasian elements in China, there is only the Negrito, which is slight. We find, therefore, six recognized types in China, three being Mongolian – the Mongol, Manchu, and Kham Tibetan (though Morant thinks the last-named type is not Mongolian at all – two being classifiable as ‘Caucasian – the Turki and the Indonesians – and one being Negrito. There are some other rather infrequent physical types not yet clearly defined and classified.

Japanese Racial Origins

The racial analysis of the Japanese is in some ways easier than that of the Chinese owing to their being concentrated in a very much smaller area and owing to their being a more recent mixture of which the various elements are still fairly distinct in many cases. Three thousand years ago the ‘North China’ type seems to have already been formed, with its Manchu, Tibetan, and Turkish elements, but nothing whatever is known of the Japanese at that period. In the next thousand years the Chinese penetrated into the south and mixed with the Indonesian and other non-Mongolian elements there, but still nothing is known of the Japanese.

There are indications however that while this continual push to the southward was taking place on the mainland, there were movements in a northerly direction off and along the coast. Just when this movement of a southern maritime people reached Kyushu, the big southern island of Japan, we do not know, but it was probably not much before the Christian era. The present distribution of physical types in Japan, however, and their outside associations permit us to outline roughly the development which took place there just as we have done for China.

The early natives of the Japanese islands were the short, fair-skinned, hairy, non-Mongolian people known as the Ainu, now found, in fairly pure form in their communities only in Hokkaido, the most northerly of the three big islands but probably occupying practically the whole of the main island (Hondo) two thousand years ago. This people, whose affinities are Caucasian and who indeed show much resemblance to certain Russian types, were steadily driven north by the invasion from the south, continuing for century after century.

Negritos and Malays

In Kyushu there may have been another element – Negrito – prior to the maritime invasion. The wide territory over which the Negritos are scattered and the probability that they formerly occupied a much greater area than at present has already been referred to. At the present time, as regards Japan, this type seems more common in Kyushu than elsewhere, though it is scattered through the islands, and clearly recognizable Negroid or specifically Negrito types can be noted, though generally mixed with other elements.

In speaking of the Japanese types, our task is simplified by the fact that most of the racial types have already been defined for China. When we speak of the Malays therefore we can state the general type by simply noting that anthropologists tend to regard this type as a mixture of the Indonesian peoples with a Mongolian element from the north. The Mongolian element is shown more specifically in the eyes; the Indonesian in the short stature and occasionally wavy hair. The Malays themselves therefore are an ancient mixture – how old we do not know, though perhaps more recent than the early North China mixture.

This brown Malay element is probably the most important type in Japan, but for fully two thousand years it has been mixed with the Negrito, and also with types from the Asiatic mainland via Korea. These mainland types are of interest here.

Manchus and Ainus

The earliest known center of civilization in Japan was at a point opposite Korea where certain types evidently came across from the mainland. Among these types there was the ‘Manchu’ type which has already been defined, and probably the ‘North China’ type which had already been formed from the mixture of different elements previously referred to. There are Malay and other elements in Korea also.

Of these elements, the Manchu-Korean appears to have left the widest traces in Japan. Though there was some Chinese migration both in prehistoric and historic times, this was not sufficient in quantity or contained too little of the tall Kham Tibetan type, to affect the short Malay physique to any extent. The ‘Chinese type’ however is distinctly present in Japan, though its proportion to the whole is apparently not great.

Far more important than the Chinese element was that of the White aborigines, the savage Ainu.

As the Japanese people (mainly Malay but mixed with Negrito, some Manchu-Korean, and a slighter Chinese element) advanced northward in their steady conquest of the islands, they exterminated, enslaved, or absorbed those of the natives who did not give war before them. They certainly absorbed a very large number of them, as is shown today by the frequency of individuals with Ainu characteristics among the Japanese.

Most recognizable is the Ainu hairiness. Some have estimated that the Japanese people of today are more than one-third Ainu, though this figure is probably too high.

The Japanese Mixture

When we consider the four main physical divisions of mankind already referred to we find the Japanese are a quite different mixture from the Chinese.

While the Malay element is apparently of most importance, this must itself be divided into Mongolian and Indonesian. Another Mongolian element is seen in the Manchu-Korean type and in the occasional ‘Chinese’ type (which includes however other elements). The Mongolian element is therefore the most important quantitatively speaking, though this includes much more of the Manchu type than is the case with the Chinese, as shown by the long, narrow eyes characteristic of the Japanese.

The extent of the Caucasian element depends partly on how the Indonesians are classified, but there is little doubt of the essentially Caucasian characters of the hairy Ainu. The importance of the Negrito element is considerable, much greater than in China.

We find, therefore, six recognizable types in Japan, three being Mongolian – the Manchu type, and the Mongolian elements in the Malays and Chinese – two being classifiable as ‘Caucasians’ – the Ainu and the Indonesians – and one being Negrito.

Through the different methods of combination in the Japanese and Chinese peoples, therefore, we can see some of the reasons for the physical differences between the two. There is little sign among the Japanese of the Kham Tibetan and Turkish types which add height to the Chinese (particularly the northern Chinese) as well as making for a rounder and more open eye. There is no sign among the Chinese of the Ainu type which gives the more frequent hairiness and more rugged features to the Japanese. And so we have two separate people, generally easily distinguishable but containing many individuals of similar types.

Other Differences

Probably more important than race, however, are other differences. For four thousand years and more, the Chinese people have been agricultural villagers, tillers of the soil, conquered by pastoral nomads from time to time but absorbing their conquerors.

But for most of this period, the Japanese were a maritime people, raiding their way north and in the islands of Japan conquering and absorbing a White native population even more savage than themselves. China’s age of military feudalism came to an end two thousand years ago, and though there have been relapses, the essential principles of private ownership and a peasantry free from feudal shackles have remained.

But at that time Japan had not yet emerged from the darkness of savagery, and when many centuries later the light of Chinese civilization shed its rays over the islands, it illuminated a primitive military feudalism which continued to exist down to two short generations ago. The inhabitants of the islands cultivate the soil, but the peasantry remained serfs under feudal masters until a little over half a century ago, and military feudalism remained the law of the land.

It is differences in psychology resulting from these things which are probably more vital and fundamental than the physical differences between the two peoples…

Most Caucasian Populations Have Significant Non-Caucasian Elements

I received this comment today. I deleted the comment and banned the poster because he insulted me, but his comments are interesting nonetheless. His position is that most Caucasian populations are significantly admixed with non-Caucasian, and I am afraid he is right. There are probably few if any pure Whites or pure Caucasians.

The guy appears to be some sort of a Hindu nationalist type and he seems to be making a big deal out of the fact that Indians are mostly White, especially high caste ones of which he seems to be a part. He is quite offended by the idea that Indians are part-Australoid, but that is how they show up on some charts.

He says the Australoid component is more similiar to SE Asians such as Thai people. However, this Asian component also looks something like the Asian part of the Ancient Northeast Asian group. The Asian part of the ANE’s has been called different things, but to me they look Ainuid. So the Asian part of Indians looks like Ainuids/Thais. I think he may really be onto something here. It is a good hypothesis.

He is just wrong about some things below. ANE did not originate in Amerindians (How did that happen? Did it move back from the Americas to Asia?); instead, Amerindians are obviously partly derived from ANE from Northeast Asia itself. The Karitiana of Brazil have the highest ANE ever found. They may be the remains of some of the earliest settlers to the Americans.

The Chukchi are probably also heavily ANE somehow because these very Asian-looking Eskimo like people actually plot Caucasian on some charts! So in Far Northeastern Asia, early Caucasoids and early Asians have been mixing it up for some time. He also notes that Berbers have a lot of Black blood. This is correct. In fact, on some charts, Berbers plot outside of Caucasian altogether and end up slightly into the the Black or African quadrant.

He also says that Ashkenazi Jews have a lot of Asian and Black in them. Asian maybe (ancient Asian). Black, no way. I have seen charts showing that Ashkenazi Jews and other people of the Caucasus have the least amount of Black of any White group on Earth. How hilarious for Stormfronters that Jews are the most pure of all the Whites. Australoids are absolutely not archaic Whites or archaic Caucasians.

This is an interesting blog. What I’d like to point out, however, is that there is quite a bit of misinformation regarding the genetic makeup/ancestry of races and ethnic groups/castes found in India on this blog. I noticed you implied in some of your posts here that Indians are hybrid population between two groups, one most similar to present-day non-White Caucasoids, and one most similar to Australian Aboriginals.

Let me explain what the genetic/latest research has actually shown, as far as India’s demographics and the genetic composition of its castes is concerned. What follows is a detailed explanation of South Asian genetics and therefore, I must warn you, it is a long wall of text but completely accurate and supported by the latest research, despite containing a lot of jargon that may give you a headache. Bear with me here.

Indians are composed of two composite groups: ANI or the Ancestral North Indians, a group which itself is a composite of two or more different Caucasoid populations, that are on average, closest to present-day Georgians in genetic makeup, and ASI, or the Ancestral South Indians, a group which is also a composite of two or more different populations, at least half of which is Caucasoid in nature, with the other half varying in composition from one ethnic group to another.

In other words, while ANI is completely Caucasoid in nature, ASI is 50-60% Caucasoid in nature depending on the caste in question, and the remainder of ASI ancestry is either composed of Mongoloid, proto-Mongoloid, proto-Caucasoid or in exceptionally rare, isolated cases like the Paniya tribe of South India, of proto-Australoid-like ancestry which still isn’t the same as having Australoid ancestry. Keep in mind that Australoids themselves are at least 80% Mongoloid in genetic makeup and are considered to be archaic Whites themselves.

They are also the furthest group genetically on Earth, from the Negroids/Congoids/Bantuids of Sub-Saharan Africa. So, apart from a minority of untouchables of South India and parts of East India who are not even a part of the caste system to begin with, no other group in South Asia has any proto-Australoid-like admixture to speak of. And Indians are predominantly Caucasoid and group with other Caucasoids according to every genetic test/anthropometric study since the dawn of time. More information here.

It is crucial to remember that Indians have nothing to do with Australoids – those people are completely different apart from a very few isolated tribes in India that have real proto-Australoid-like admixture due to their status and extreme isolation. And this admixture has nothing to do with ASI admixture – ASI is just like the paleolithic ANE influence in Europeans, and half of it is Caucasian (at least half, if not more, it varies for different people in India) and it is a composite just like ANI is with different components for different people/castes in India.

The Reich et al paper even pointed out that the Onge were at best a poor proxy to get something without ANI admixture and little ASI admixture, and even then, it was a worse proxy than the Han Chinese. In other words, East Asians were a better proxy than the Onge themselves.

The reason they picked the Onge as a (poor) proxy was because they were the only group they could find in that region without ANI admixture and because they are such an old population that has been isolated and separated from mainland populations for a very long period of time. They also have very few individuals left, so owing to the problems of genetic drift, they assume ownership of a component, and the admixture program tries to force the Onge component in an admixture model of South Asians.

In more recent papers, this has been clarified further and it has been stated that they were simply making a poor guess when using the Onge as a proxy in the model.

Furthermore, to illustrate just how poor of a guess it was, they pointed out that ASI is massively separated from the Onge. In fact, ASI is just as far from the Onge as the Utah Whites (a group of random Euro-descent samples from Utah in the States) are from the Onge, indicating that ASI is as related to Onge as Utah Whites are.

Papuans and Onge have no relation to India at all – the Onge are in SE Asia. Han are a much better proxy. In addition, Indians lack Denisovan admixture and other crucial haplogroups found commonly in the Onge as well.

It must also be said that if Indians are erroneously assumed to have proto-Australoid-like ancestry, so are Europeans.

You might be under the false assumption that Europeans are somehow a “pure” Caucasoid population, when in fact that couldn’t be further from the truth. The latest genetic research conclusively shown that Europeans are all admixed to different degrees between at least four main populations of people: West European Hunter-Gatherer (WHG), Early European Farmer (EEF), Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherer (SHG), and Ancient North Eurasian (ANE).

It has also conclusively shown that all populations of Europeans and other “White” Caucasoids have significant to huge amounts of non-Caucasoid ancestry due to the fact that the ANE/Ancient North Eurasian component is at least 45% East Asian/Mongoloid in ancestry. The ANE component is based on the genome of the infamous Mal’ta boy or MA-1.

In Europe today, it peaks among Estonians at just over 18%, and intriguingly, reaches a similar level among Scots. Finns, Russians and Mordovians also carry very high ANE in addition to very high amounts of much more recent Siberian admixture. What’s even more interesting is that this ANE influence is the very influence found among South Asians, albeit in a slightly different variety known as ASI.

What the aforementioned information means is the following: Indians are not a hybrid population between Caucasoids and Australoids. In reality, the vast majority of Indians are an admixed population between Caucasoids and Mongoloids – except in this case, the Mongoloids are most similar in phenotype and genotype to SE Asians like the Thai.

According to the latest research, the average Indian is at least 75% Caucasian and 25% Asian – these figures have been substantiated by multiple reports including the National Geographic Project’s Geno 2.0 DNA ancestry test samples, the 23andme test samples, and even the Reich et. al paper published in the highly-cited/high impact factor scientific journal Nature.

It has been conclusively proven that South Asians/Indians range from 5-10% Asian to 35% Asian or in other words from 65% Caucasian to 95% Caucasian. The most Caucasian people in the region are from the northwest of the Indian subcontinent, and the least Caucasian people are from the east and south. Only one person broke the magic 35% barrier, and he was a Bangladeshi (38%).

If you’d like a layman’s interpretation of the data in the aforementioned sources, check out this article by Razib Khan, one of the pioneers in the field of population genetics, particularly as it pertains to the archaeogenetics of South Asia as a whole – he writes articles for Discover Magazine, which is a well respected source. He is also a PhD student at UC Davis. Here is a post describing the general findings of genetic research into South Asian populations

In addition to the Reich et. al paper and other landmark papers in this field, the Harappa Ancestry Project, which is helmed by a genetic expert and is working in combination with Reich’s data is also another landmark study into the archaeogenetics of South Asia. It has conclusively proven and further substantiated the results I aforementioned.

According to the samples collected by the project, there is a sharp correlation between caste/location and Caucasian ancestry in India, with the upper castes in all parts of India being significantly more Caucasian than the lower castes, and the North-West Indian/South Asian upper castes being the most Caucasian of all – up to 95%.

All of the Northwest Indian/Pakistani/Nepali/Afghani upper castes are between 5-18% admixed with East Eurasians/Mongoloids; in other words all of them are between 82-95% Caucasian. These castes would include the Rajputs, Jatts, Khatris, Gujjars, Sindhis, Brahmins, Bhumihars, Balochis, Brahuis, and certain upper caste Punjabis, and Pathans. Note that this is only applicable to the upper castes aforementioned that are in the North and North-West of India as well as Pakistan and Nepal.

As for the rest of India (and Bangladesh/Sri Lanka), as I mentioned earlier, the average South Asian is 75% Caucasian and 25% Asian, so a good amount of South Asians are more Caucasian than 75%, and a good amount are less Caucasian.

For instance, the average Tamil (from South India, and well represented in the diaspora in the USA as the “typical Indian” stereotype) is 33-34% non-Caucasian, and the average Bengali/Bangaladeshi is closer to 55-60% Caucasian. The dalits of Tamil Nadu or the lowest caste Tamils (also well represented in the States), are at least 40% non-Caucasian. The lowest castes of India, the Chamars, who are found all over India (also in the States) are also in the 50-60% Caucasian range. Upper caste Indians in the rest of India (apart from the Northwest) tend to be 70-80% Caucasian.

If you’d like to see the data for yourself, here is the link to the spreadsheet.

For reference, the “South Indian” component is 50-60% Caucasian, and the ANE/NE Asian component is 45% non-Caucasian. The SE Asian, Siberian, Papuan, American and Beringian components are all Mongoloid, and the E. African, San, Pygmy and W. African components are all Negroid. Keep in mind that the data here is accurate only for South Asians, other regions are too under-sampled in the project.

Now you might be wondering, if South Asians, particularly the upper castes in the North and Northwest, are between 5-18% admixed, are they alone in this predicament? As I alluded to earlier, they are anything but alone.

Let’s start with Middle Easterners and Northern Africans. Egyptians, Moroccans, Libyans, and other North Africans are on average 15% Black/Negroid admixed. In fact, according to the latest research, the average North African is 15-16% black, and individual countries like Egypt and Tunisia are 18-21% Black on average, so some would be more than 21% black, some less.

The highest admixture is found among Moroccans and Berbers, who can be up to 30% Black/Negroid admixed on average. As far as the Middle East goes, Yemeni people have been shown to be 18-19% black on average, and the Bedouin tribes have been shown to be 16-18% Black on average as well. Qataris are 12-16% Black, and Saudi Arabians range from 14-18% black as well, on average. Jews, particularly the Ashkenazim, have also been shown to be 16.5% admixed with Mongoloid and Black/Negroid on average.

So on average, MENA people are 75-85% Caucasoid and 15-25% Black/Negroid admixed, therefore its safe to say that MENA people are Caucasoid-Negroid hybrids, with some groups being more and others less Negroid. All these figures have been collected by National Geographic and many other researchers.

As far as West Asians/Central Asians are concerned, they show significant amounts of Mongoloid admixture on average.Tajiks have 15% Mongoloid admixture on average, while Turkmen have 16% Mongoloid admixture on average.

However, some groups of Turkmen average 27% Mongoloid, and some are 35-56% Mongoloid. Southern Turkmen on average are only 1/8 to 1/3 Mongoloid or better said 13-31% Mongoloid. However in some parts of Turkmenistan like the northern and eastern parts, the Mongoloid DNA reaches 33-55%. Other parts of Turkmenistan are 33-55% Mongoloid.

Even many Turkish people are 10-20% Mongoloid and 15% Mongoloid on average. Iranians are also Mongoloid admixed – up to 10% on average, with the Azeris of Iran being even more admixed. Tatars are 16% Mongoloid admixed on average.

So, its safe to say that most West Asian groups are a hybrid of Mongoloids and Caucasoids, being on average 80-85% Caucasian and 15-20% Mongoloid, with some groups being much less Caucasian and much more Mongoloid.

Now, lets look at the European data. All non-Sardinian Europeans have been shown to have significant amounts of ANE ancestry due to the Malt’a boy mentioned earlier, and this ANE ancestry is related to/is the same as ASI ancestry in South Asians, relating Europeans to Amerindians and East Asians.

The ANE component is composed of 45% Mongoloid and Australoid-like ancestry (similar to the distant relation that some South Asians have to proto-Australoids), and the Malt’a boy also has a proto-Australoid ASE component on the order of 10%.

This ANE component peaks in the Karitiana Indians of South America

More info about ANE’s relationship to ASI is available at this link which itself references this landmark paper:

It is also pertinent to point out the fact that ANE ancestry in all Europeans with the exception of Sardinians (who have very minor ANE ancestry) is mostly (45-55%) non-Caucasoid in nature, and does not include separate additional East Asian ancestry that is due to much more recent admixture with Mongoloids from the Golden Horde and other admixture events.

ANE or NE Asian is best thought of as very ancient Asian admixture, while the recent admixture is added separately. A recent landmark paper definitively showed a clear signal of admixture in Northern Europe, represented by the ANE/NE Asian component. Here is the link to the paper and here is a link to the layman’s explanation of it.

What this paper definitively shows (as do successive papers recently released after it) is that Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, have huge amounts of NE Asian, also known as ANE, admixture. This is because they are descended in part from an Amerindian population.

What is the actual amount? Well, remember that ANE or NE Asian is made up of two components – one is Caucasian and related to Levantine ancestry and the other is related to NE Asia/Siberians and the American Indians, peaking in the Karitiana Indians of South America.

Therefore, according to the research data in the latest papers, Northern Europeans are 5-18% admixed with Mongoloids, or in other words, Northern Europeans are 5-18% Non-Caucasoid, and the authors pointed out that this is actually a conservative estimate, one that is lower than what the actual value is likely to be – which is purported to be even higher than the 5-18% range, easily crossing over into the 10-20%+ non-Caucasoid range.

Keeping in mind that in the Near East among Lezgins, Chechens and Ossetians, ANE is in the 23-27%+ range. This means that other Eastern Europeans not residing in Northern Europe are also heavily admixed with non-Caucasian ANE ancestry as well. The ANE ancestry is 45% East Asian/Amerindian in composition and 10% SE Asian in ancestry, so 55% non-Caucasian and ANE ancestry ranges from 8-21%+ in almost all Europeans except Sardinians.

A table with ANE scores from a recent paper. Remember how I mentioned earlier that this ANE non-Caucasoid ancestry did not include additional, more recent, non-Caucasoid East Asian ancestry?

Well, lets take a look at that data as well. Russians and Finns are 80-88% Caucasian depending on the person (not including non-Caucasoid ANE admixture which would make them even less Caucasoid) because of much more recent East Asian admixture with the areas with the higher non-Caucasian mixture in the 12-20% range around Leningrad.

Finnish people, according to the latest genetic study, are at least 13-17% East Asian, and Russians, according to the latest genetic study, are 12-18% East Asian. More info here.

Lithuanians and Swedes are at least 10%-20% admixed with recent East/Mongoloid mixture. If we add this recent Mongoloid admixture to the more ancient ANE ancestry in Europeans, we get the following numbers: Russians, Finns and Swedes are 17-30% Mongoloid/Non-Caucasoid and 70-83% Caucasoid. Because of this, Finns have been found to be distinct from other Europeans and don’t cluster as close to them. Russians in the North are much the same way.

Therefore we can sum up the above with the following three sentences:

  • Proto West Eurasians + ANE/ASI-like = Europeans and Latin Americans
  • Proto West Eurasians + ASI/ANE-like = South Asians and Central and West Asians
  • Proto West Eurasians + African = Middle Easterners and Northern Africans

And since everyone in these regions can be as much as 30% non-Caucasoid due to either Mongoloid or Negroid ancestry, (but closer to 20-25% non-Caucasoid), Indians are definitely not alone in being admixed Caucasoids on this planet. They are actually part of the norm, being on average, 75% Caucasian and 25% Asian,

The data clearly shows that Indians are as admixed as other Caucasian groups throughout the world, and in some causes, purer, particularly in the case of the upper caste North and North-West Indians, who are at most 18% admixed or less and thus 82-95% Caucasian.

Is Dravidian Related to Japanese?

Thirdeye writes:

The Tamil-Japonic connection isn’t quite as off the wall as one might think at first glance. There’s apparently a strong Andaman-Indonesian language connection. The convention of repeat plurals seems to have found its way to Japan. There’s also some similarity between the Finno-Ugric languages, which are Uralic outliers in a sea of Indo-European languages, and Dravidian languages that have a remnant in Pakistan. Contact between proto-Dravidian-Uralic and Altaic languages is a real possibility.

If Uralic is close to anything, it is close to Altaic and Indo-European and probably even closer to Chukto-Kamchatkan, Eskimo-Aleut, Yukaghir and Nivkhi. Yukaghir may actually be Uralic itself, or maybe the family is called “Uralic-Yukaghir.”
There is no connection between Austronesian (Indonesian) and the Andaman Islanders. Austronesian is indeed related to Thai though (Austro-Tai); in my opinion, this has been proven. If the Andaman languages are related to anything at all, they may be related to some Papuan languages and an isolate in Nepal called Nihali. A good case can be made connecting Nihali with some of the Papuan languages.
Typology is not that great of way to classify. Typology is areal and it spreads via convergence. What you are looking in search genetic relationship among languages more more than anything else is morphology. After that, a nice set of cognates.
There is probably no connection between Dravidian and Uralic in particular. Dravidian is outside of most everything in Eurasia. It if is close to anything, it might be close to Afro-Asiatic. There also looks to be a connection with Elamite.
Dravidian and Afro-Asiatic are probably older than the rest of the Eurasian languages, and they were located further to the south. Afro-Asiatic is very old, probably ~15,000 YBP.

Racism among Different Ethnic Groups in California: Perpetrators and Targets

Mr E2me writes:

Derek: “They treated me like kin. Asians don’t hate blacks, that is just another white man’s lie to fuel black-Asian hatred.”
I don’t agree with that comment. My experience has been that Asians tend to be the most racist. As a White guy who has spent the last 2 decades in L.A. stewing in the cultural melting pot I have some very definite opinions on whom exudes the most racism.
Asians towards Blacks is def. #1
There is a definite difference in culture for this sort of thing amongst Asians ie, Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, but I find them very united in their dislike of the dark people. They can be very intolerant of Whites as well.
Black towards White is 2nd.
Not as prevalent as the Oriental disdain, but there is a definite intolerance of Whitey by a lot more dark people than there is the other way around.
Tying it up @ 3rd, 4th and fifth would be
Mexican towards Black
White towards Black
White towards Mexican.
These sentiments are there; I just find them fewer and further between than number 1 &2 .

I would tend to agree with this.

      1. US Asians do not like Blacks at all. The ones that hate them the most seem to be the Japanese. They have a strong and abiding dislike for them. Black men do things like run around and have 30 different kids by 17 different women and then don’t marry or support any of them. To a Japanese man, that is the ultimate in dishonor. To them, a man who acts like that is acting like a dog! That is exactly what dogs that run around in the streets do – knock up as many bitches as they can, make lots of puppies, don’t form long term bonds with any of the bitches, and don’t support the offspring.
      2. Here in California, Blacks definitely hate Whites way worse than Whites hate Blacks. CA Whites are very PC and are almost racism-neutered. CA Whites are not supposed to be racist. It is seen as immoral and a social faux pas. If you make a racist remark in public, people will often more or less tell you to shut up. Black people are not very PC, and their racism is often open.
      3. Black racism against Asians would be next. Blacks pick on and prey on Asians mercilessly in schools and in the streets, whereas White racism against Asians is pretty much not allowed in PC California; and anyway, many Whites here like Asians, and there is a lot of White-Asian intermarriage.
      4. Next would be Mexican racism against for Blacks. That is actually quite strong among most Hispanics from Latin America. They are not very PC and are not burdened with White guilt, so they just say and think what they want to. Hispanic racism against Blacks is often open, blunt, and unashamed. On the other hand, the local gangsta types tend to emulate ghetto Blacks.
      5. There are not very many of them, but American Indians here have a profound dislike for Black people for some odd reason.
      6. Down on the list would be White racism against for Blacks. If you bring a Black girl home to your family, it is still a pretty big deal even among White liberals here in California. I ran into that somewhat when I was dating Black women. Mostly your family just acts nervous and your Black girlfriend suspects they are being phony. On the other hand,  it is getting harder and harder to say anti-Black things to fellow Whites because so many Whites are liberals who will get upset and California White culture is becoming wildly PC. Even Whites who make anti-Black statements often make sure to phrase them very carefully so they don’t come across as racist.
      7. White racism against Hispanics. Around here, you will hear more anger towards Hispanics because there are more of them, and disliking Blacks is considered really wrong here in PC California. Also there are not many Black people around here. But also around here, it is quite hard to diss Hispanics to other Whites because nowadays so many White men are married to Hispanic women. Also many Hispanic women appear White and you say something against Hispanics and the White woman next to you gets mad. White racism against Hispanics is getting more and more proscribed here.
      8. Also there is a huge amount of intermarriage going on between Whites and Hispanics. This is more of a cultural issue. If you bring a certain type of Hispanic woman home to Mom, your mother will look down on you because she is “low class.” But another type of Hispanic woman, who is more cultured, more White acting, less barrio, and less into “Mexican culture,” would be just fine. The truth is that many Whites in California treat Hispanics as glorified Whites and there is often this notion that Hispanics are some species of White people with some funny genetics.
      9. And I do know a few Whites who are angry at South Indians for taking over all the gas stations, 7-11’s and hotels.
      10. Negligible:
        • White racism against Asians or American Indians.
        • Black racism against Hispanics or South Indians.
        • South Indian racism against anyone.
        • Asian racism against Hispanics (they don’t care about them) or South Indians.
        • Hispanic racism against Asians or South Indians.


The Major Races of Man

The original title of this post was, Does a Caucasian Race Exist? but I changed it as I put the charts in. First we will look at the existence of a Caucasian race, then we will look at the major races of man.
Many non-Caucasians feel that there is no such thing as a Caucasian race, while still holding that African and maybe Asian are valid racial constructs.
However, Caucasian is as valid a construct as Asian, Australoid, or African, at least on genes. I have not studied skull charts very well.
It is pretty clear based on genetics that you can divide off a Caucasian race, an Asian race, an African race and an Australoid race. You may even be able to divide out an Amerindian race somewhere. But the four big splits are:
That is as clear as air, and I don’t see why it would be controversial.
On most of those charts, Indians would plot with Caucasians, but on some they look a little Australoid. Depends on the chart you look at.
On other charts, Indians are a race halfway between Caucasians and Asians. Also on that same chart, we can see a Horner race halfway between Caucasians and Africans.
Here are some charts of the major races:

This chart shows the incredible distance of Africans from all other human races. Africans are very different.
This chart shows the incredible distance of Africans from all other human races. Africans are very different.

Africans are so far from the other races that racists like to call them a separate subspecies of species, but I doubt if that is valid, and even if it were, it would not be right to go down that road.
Once again we see a very great distance between Africans and all other races on this chart, which divides humans dubiously into 9 separate races.
Once again we see a very great distance between Africans and all other races on this chart, which divides humans dubiously into 9 separate races.

However, I do feel that a 6 race theory based on this chart would be correct:
NE Asians/Arctic NE Asians
New Guinea/Australian
SE Asian/Pacific Islander
European Caucasian/Non European Caucasian
This chart also shows Africans as extreme outliers and divides humanity into 8 races.
This chart also shows Africans as extreme outliers and divides humanity into 8 races.

The races are the same as above:
NE Asians
Arctic NE Asians
New Guinea/Australian
SE Asian
Pacific Islander
except that NE Asians and Arctic NE Asians are separted (possibly a valid choice) and SE Asians and Pacific Islanders are separated (a similarly valid choice). Europeans and non-European Caucasians are subsumed into a single race because the differences between them are slight.
Very interesting chart shows a lot more flow between groups and shows some groups straddling borders of other groups.
Very interesting chart shows a lot more flow between groups and shows some groups straddling borders of other groups.

On this chart, you can see the divergence of East Indians, heading off towards SE Asians. We can also see a pretty dramatic separation between NE Asians and SE Asians, including different types of Chinese. The difference between say a Chukchi, a Samoyed and an Nganasan and a Thai or an Indonesian is quite dramatic.
We also see that “Gurkas,” possibly Nepalese, are separated off into SE Asians, which is interesting. They are on a sort of border between SE Asians and NE Asians.
In addition, the Northern Turkics (like the Altai and the Uighurs) very much straddle the border between Caucasians and NE Asians, falling barely into the Caucasian group. Uzbeks are also on the line, and Northern Chinese and the Chukchi are close to Caucasians. I have seen charts where the Chukchi were actually over into the Caucasian square!
A five race theory.
A five race theory.

This five race theory has:
Amerindians/Arctic NE Asians (Amerindians)
SE Asians/NE Asians/Pacific Islanders (Asians)
That chart is not as fine grained as the others, but it’s based on genetics like all the others are.
All of the above charts are based on genes, so clearly, genetically, we can split out an obvious Caucasian major race. I have a hard time why people do not wish to accept this concept.

Phenotypical Differences Between NE Asians and SE Asians

Dave Coe writes:

What about in terms of looks? I personally find Northeast Asian women more attractive, but all the white guys who go to Asia seem to go the Southeast.

The Mongoloid race is newer in SE Asia than in NE Asia. In NE Asia, there was a full transition from Australoid to Mongoloid 9,000 YBP. In SE Asia, the full transition occurred as late as 2,000 YBP, hence you do tend to see more Australoid features in the SE Asian Mongoloids because the transition was so recent. I suppose to be crude you could say that SE Asians retain more archaic features, and NE Asians have fewer archaic and more progressive features.
There is a lot of overlap though. I can’t believe how Chinese many Filipinas look. I am not sure why this is. Possibly the Taiwanese aborigines from which they are heavily derived had a heavy “Chinese” type component. There has also been a heavy infusion of more modern Chinese types in the past 900 years. There was a particularly heavy wave 900 years ago.
Vietnamese women also have a heavily “Chinese” component.
What happened in SE Asia in the last 2000 years is that there was a very heavy infusion of probably more progressive Chinese phenotypes from southern China that moved in via waves into mainland SE Asia and at least the Philippines. The indigenous SE Asians were more archaic Australoid types  – more properly seen as “Melanesian” types who nevertheless had been transitioning towards a more modern Mongoloid type for a long time. The waves just helped this along in a big way.
The Thais and Lao for instance are primarily derived from a heavy wave from Yunnan 900 years ago that mixed in with indigenous types. In Vietnam, a huge wave overran the area 2,200 years ago via the Cantonese region and subsequently interbred with indigenous types. “Montagnards” are a good example of an indigenous type in Vietnam.
The genetics of Malaysia, Burma, Cambodia and Indonesia are a lot more complicated.

Japanese and Blacks

Tulio comments:

Virulent racism of Japanese towards blacks is something I always doubted. It seemed to contradict what black friends that have visited and worked there have told me. They said it’s absolutely fine and they have experienced little racism and what racism they do experience is stuff that tends to be directed toward foreigners in general such as being denied entry into Japanese only places.
Now one place I thought would be extremely racist to black people is Korea. But according to this black guy living there, he said he’s experienced nothing but hospitality and warmth. That even shocked me.

First of all, I am very happy that well behaved Black Americans can have a great experience in Korea and Japan. Black people really ought to be free to travel to and have fun in as many countries as I could. That a Black American is afraid to travel to some country because they will treat him badly simply because he is Black is very painful for me to contemplate. Maybe we Whites don’t realize how lucky we are.
However, a lot of Japanese Americans, both male and female, have very racist attitudes towards Blacks. I knew a Japanese American, and he was quite racist against Blacks.
You see where these Black guys run around and have like 8 different kids by 8 different women and don’t support any of them. That’s profoundly offensive to Japanese people, especially Japanese men. In East Asian society, a man may father children with more than one woman, but he absolutely must support all of his kids. If he does not, he is just a lowdown dirtball.
When these Black guys have 8 kids by 6 different women and don’t support any of them, to a Japanese man, you are little more than an animal. You’re basically a dog. Because that’s what a dog does. A dog just knocks up any bitch he can or as many bitches as possible, then runs away and leaves her and doesn’t help her raise any of the young.

American English Teacher in Korea Goes Nuts on Bus, Attacks Korean Couple

Video on the video site here.

Interesting video. This Black English teacher in Korea got into it with an older couple on a bus. The Korean man said something in Korean that sounds like “nigga” but really it just means something totally different. The older man had no idea that “nigga” in Korean means something bad in English because he doesn’t speak English. The English teacher goes totally nuts, starting screaming and yelling at the Koreans, and then starts manhandling both the man and the woman. The Korean man wants to fight back but is afraid to.

This American guy totally blew it on the bus. He totally lost it. What a moron. I hope the Koreans send him home for this. That’s all I can say.

This video is getting a lot of play on the Net and making the rounds.

Being Black in Japan


The race realists and White nationalists frequently say that the Japanese absolutely detest Black people.* Based on this video, I would say that that is somewhat of an exaggeration. However, also based on this video, I would say that the Japanese aren’t the biggest Negrophiles on Earth.

All in all, the Black experience in Japan is more nuanced than either the Negrophobic or Negrophilic extreme. It’s somewhere in between. This guy has had some difficulties, but he doesn’t say he’s been living in Hell. On the other hand, he’s a quite civilized young Black man, and he also seems pretty smart, so even here in the US most Whites are going to be pretty nice to him. How will the more common ghetto Black type to one degree or another go over in Japan? Probably a lot worse, I would imagine.

He does say one interesting thing. In Japan, a foreigner is a foreigner. So a Black man is likely to be treated about the same as a White man in Japan. They’re all the same – foreigners.

There are few Blacks in Japan period, and most of the ones over there are Oreos like this guy. Nevertheless, I have heard that of all ethnic groups in Japan, the small group of Blacks have the highest crime rate. Which should surprise no one.

Good video – check it out.

*What I have seen is more the case is that many Japanese-Americans have a strong and abiding racism towards Blacks. I know this from some of these types that I have known, generally 2nd or 3rd generation. As an example, see the all too common ghetto Black behavior of a man running around and making babies with  a number of different women,and then not supporting any of them (also relatively common in Africa by the way).

To a Japanese man, that is perfectly normal behavior – for a dog! Because that’s what a dog does – he runs around and knocks up various bitches down the years, then takes off and refuses to support any of the whelps. So to a Japanese man, a Black man who does that is not even human – he’s simply a dog. Japanese men are supposed to be husbands and fathers, and a man who refuses to support his kids is treated as the lowest sort of garbage.

Japanese in Japan are probably a bit differnt because they simply don’t have much experience with Blacks. Japanese-Americans have dealt with Blacks in their families and extended circles for two or three generations, and I think they don’t like what they saw.

A North-South Chinese Mix Cline in SE Asia?

Repost from the old site.

A question from the comments about the Are SE Asians Australoids? article:

Aren’t Khmer a little more Australoid than people in Vietnam (at least Northern Vietnamese), most Thai, and Laotians? There seems to be a clear cline in Southeast Asia, the areas bordering China seem to have more NE Mongoloid Admixture than those of the Malay archipelago and the Khmer. I’m basing this on appearance and not genes, which you pointed out, rightly so, as being misleading.

This question keeps popping up because so many folks are convinced, based primarily on appearance, that many SE Asians are part-Australoid.

First of all, the Vietnamese, Filipinos, Thai and Khmer are all quite close to the Southern Chinese genetically. Of these, believe it or not, the Filipinos are possibly the closest of all. The Vietnamese are also very close, but I don’t have any figures. Both the Filipinos and the Vietnamese are very close to the coastal Southern Chinese of Fujian and Guangdong Province bordering the Taiwan Strait.

Next come the Thai, Lao and the Khmer. These groups are much closer to the Southern Chinese than Malays or Indonesians. All of them are about the equidistant from the Southern Chinese. Filipinos are much closer to the Southern Chinese than these three groups.

The Thai and Lao are primarily a Southern Chinese group called the Tai that came down into that area in a massive wave about 800 years ago. To some extent they bred in with whatever people were already there. This Tai group came from Yunnan.

The Vietnamese are very closely related to the Southern Chinese. A huge wave of Southern Chinese poured into Vietnam 2,200 years and bred in with existing people. This group came from the Taiwan Strait – the area north of Vietnam along the coast.

The Khmer came down into the area possibly 5,000 years ago with the first wave of Austroasiatics. They also came from Southern China, probably Yunnan once again, but longer ago than their neighbors the Thai, Lao and Vietnamese. The Austroasiatics are considered to be some of the original people of the SE Asia.

The Zhuang of South China are probably the purest relatives of the original Austroasiatics. They came from Central China (possibly originally as the Dai) to Yunnan about 5,000 years ago. One line went to the Zhuang in Guangxi in Southwest China and another line went to the modern Tai-Dai in Yunnan.

Also, the Khmer bred in much more than their neighbors with people from India who came about 1,500 years ago. So, the Khmer contain more of the original Austroasiatic group and less of recent Southern Chinese mixture than the Thai, Lao and Vietnamese. This accounts for their appearance.

Filipinos are closer to Southern Chinese (Guangdong) than any of the groups above except maybe Vietnamese. They are also very close to Taiwan aborigines. Most people have a hard time understanding this because they look so different from most Southern Chinese. But there are Chinese from around Fujian and Hong Kong who look quite dark and, to my mind, SE Asian-looking.

Malays are Taiwan aborigines in large part (Austronesians), and are also are made up of Southern Chinese who came down 4,000 years ago as Austroasiatics.

The Austronesians came through the Philippines, down into Borneo and Sumatra and then up into Malaysia about 2,000 years ago. The Malay do have some Papuan genes, but so do the Southern Chinese and the coastal Vietnamese. Once again, the Malays have less recent Southern Chinese admixture and more archaic Southern Chinese admixture (Austronesian and Austroasiatic).

Malays also definitely have Australoid ancestors in the Semang, the proto-Malay and the Senoi, although we can’t see it in their skulls or much of it in their genes.

The Indonesians in the Center and East of the country have quite a few Melanesian Australoid genes, but the ones in the West have almost none. The ones in the West appear to be Taiwanese aborigines similar to Filipinos.

It’s really a common fallacy that there is such a cline in SE Asia, with folks becoming more Australoid and less Chinese as you go south. What there is is that in some places, you find more recent Southern Chinese mixture and towards the South, you get more archaic Taiwanese and archaic Southern Chinese mixture.

A modern Southern Chinese woman from Chengdu Province. Isn’t she beautiful? God I love this kind of woman. It’s possible she may use some sort of skin whitener to make her skin look more white, or she may just stay out of the sun. White skin has been highly valued for a long time, and my blogging colleague Dragon Horse (feel free to check him out – he’s smart as Hell) notes that it had been highly valued long before Chinese even knew much about Europeans.

In other words, Chinese were not trying to look like White Europeans – they hardly even knew who they were. A preference for lighter skin was simply an independent development in China based on their own considerations and values. Many will look at this woman and say she has a NE Asian facial type. Well, that may be so, but Caucasians are closer to NE Asians than she is as a Southern Chinese. The genetic distance between Southern Chinese and Northern Chinese is vast.

We only find a few Australoid genes in SE Asians and even then only in Southern Chinese, coastal Vietnamese and Malays. Skull-wise, nothing exists, except that the Senoi of Malaysia do have Australoid skulls.

I guess people say this based on appearance. There is a SE Asian native type characterized most prominently by Malays, Khmer, Filipino, Western Indonesians, etc. that people think looks a bit primitive, and they associate that with Australoids.

Really it’s just a native indigenous development, although it does seem to represent a more archaic type – either archaic Taiwanese or archaic South Chinese – and has nothing to do per se with Australoids.

Recall however that the whole region slowly transitioned from Australoid types to modern SE Asian types about 5000 years ago, and that’s later than most groups. Maybe that is what people are seeing. But there’s nothing we can measure in genes or skulls.

Thai, Lao and Vietnamese don’t have any NE Asian mixture that we can see. There is a Southern Chinese look that can resemble Northern Chinese, but the two groups are very far apart. Even Southern Chinese don’t have much northern mixture, but there are some groups that are more northern than others.

The Wa (Va) of Yunnan and Burma are about 50-50 Northern and Southern Chinese, and the Hmong have more Northern Chinese than other Southern Chinese groups.

A Hmong woman. We have a huge Hmong population here in the Central Valley. By and large, they are good people and I like them a lot. The Hmong are interesting among Southern Chinese in that they have more Northern Chinese than most of the rest of the Southern Chinese. They also have a unique genetic line going back up to 42,000 years (!). It’s pretty incredible that some sort of proto-Hmong have been evolving for that long.

The website I got this off described Hmong as partly Australoid, but I think that’s silly. They are saying this by looking at the faces and saying that the face looks somewhat Australoid. The Hmong are probably less Australoid than that Chengdu woman above.

I find some of these Hmong women, like this one, to be really beautiful. They definitely look different. They have round, moon-shaped faces, and short, stocky, bodies. Character-wise, they are very Chinese-like.

Their IQ in the US is only 82.5 (lower than US Blacks) but that must be due to language difficulties. Their verbal IQ was insanely low, while their performance IQ was quite high. The Hmong have also been living like hillbillies for centuries, so there is probably a lot of potential for Flynn Effects in the US. That’s a traditional costume she is wearing.

Caucasians are closer to Northern Chinese than Southern Chinese are.

A classic NE Asian, in this case a Manchu woman. The Caucasians that they most resemble are Northern Turkics such as some of the people in the Altai and the residents of the Stans.

I can’t see much difference in phenotype between her and the Southern Chinese beauty above, but maybe folks who understand Asian phenotypes better can see these things. These people are also quite close genetically to Amerindians. Koreans, Japanese and NE Chinese are all quite genetically close, although I guess they mostly hate each other and would not want to believe that.

A Tajik man. Boy, does he look Jewish or what? These people are quite closely related to NE Asians and also to Northern Indians. They are closest to Iranians. A very interesting people, they are thought to be the original Aryans. Funny how Aryans White Power types go back to Aryan dudes who look like nice Jewish boys. Wonders never cease.

People base so much popular anthropology on superficial appearances, but that’s not really scientific.

Table Manners: Are You Supposed To Leave Some Food on Your Plate?


This is a sore issue between me and my extremely uptight, ultra-White family. The “table manners” game. They’ve always insisted that my table manners are atrocious. I think that’s ridiculous. No one else has ever remarked on them except for one Black girlfriend, who was one of the most uptight people I’ve ever met. I actually don’t like slobs either, and I am White, culturally and obviously, but I think that at some point you are just too White.

My violations?

  1. Putting my left wrist on the table while I eat with my right hand. I really hate the eating with one hand thing and keeping the other forearm off the table in your lap. I feel like my left arm just got chopped off!
  2. Finishing every last bit of food on my plate.
  3. Eating soup. Something asinine about eating soup that I can’t quite remember. Could it be leaning over the bowl? You’re not supposed to lean over the bowl?
  4. Using my left fingers as a “pusher” to help ease recalcitrant food onto my utensil. I guess I could use a piece of bread to do this, but I’m usually too lazy. Anyway, my uncle, a wealthy business owner who spent all his life having business meals, uses his fingers to push too.
  5. Eating with my mouth open. This accusation really pisses me off, because even I don’t think I do that! Like I said above, I’m into manners too.

Can’t think of anymore right now.

My father being dead is not a good thing, but I am glad I don’t have to listen to his table manners crap anymore.

The only one I looked up about was the “always leave a bit of food on your table.” The version I learned was the White genteel version that says you leave some food on your plate to show you’re not a pig. Also, trying to get the last scraps does tend to involve some of those “pushing” violations.

According to this article, that rule is all but dead. It’s a rule from the older generation, and at the moment in the US and around the world for that matter, it’s either out or on its way out. Around the world, manners seem to be moving in the Japanese direction: eat it all up to show how appreciative you are. The only problems are in a few countries where, if you lap it all up, the host thinks you didn’t get enough to eat, so they demand that you have seconds. In other places and in some US groups, it’s considered rude to leave any food on your plate!

If there’s one thing that sucks about being White, it’s this table manners crap. There’s no way on Earth that other cultures are as nutty about this stuff as we are.

Early Homo Sapiens Sapiens in Africa

From the study of skulls we can learn what early humans in Africa looked like. By early humans, I mean modern man, not earlier types.

Very early skulls from Africa resemble either Khoisans or no living type. Some Khoisan type skulls (broadly defined) can be found going back as far as 90,000 years. Boskopoid skulls from 35-50,000 YBP seem to look like Khoisan (Mirazón Lahr,p. 282). Early Kenyan skulls look also look Khoisan.

Negroes appear in the fossil record in Congo, Mali, Niger and Chad from 6,000-12,000 YBP. They develop in the course of agriculture as Khoisan and Pygmy types gathered into agricultural villages in the regions above. In hunter-gatherer societies, women need men and marry early, hence there is little competition for females and every man gets a woman. In African agricultural societies, there was plenty of food, and women no longer needed a man to provide for them.

Since women no longer needed men, women got picky. Extreme competition for women developed among men, and one man or a small group of men tended to monopolize the women. This is the “chief” syndrome also seen in primitive agricultural societies in New Guinea.

Extreme competition led to the largest, strongest and most aggressive males dominating the group and preferentially passing on their genes. Hence, Negroes developed into big, strong, good athletes with high testosterone which drove high aggression. This is one theory for high Black crime rates.

In contrast, Pygmies are not aggressive at all, and tend to be rather meek and shy. Khoisan have low testosterone and have low levels of overt aggression.

Nilotics appear in Kenya 8-12,000 YBP. Originally, when these Nilotic skulls were first found, they were mistaken for Europeans. These are the classic “Horner” types of the Horn of Africa. It is amazing that Nilotics would be mistaken for Europeans, but they do have a more Caucasian look to them.

Recent Sub Saharan Africans have skulls that are more gracile than Europeans (ibid. p. 283), so it is a lie to say that Blacks have primitive or robust skulls.

The only really robust or primitive skulls nowadays in the study were found in Australians (65% are robust), Pantagonians, the Ainu and 1 Polynesian. This largely lines up with the Australoid racial group, which developed in a robust fashion for some reason.

The most gracile skulls were 13 E Asians, 13 SS Africans, 11 SE Asians, 7 Europeans, 1 Inuit, 1 S Asian and 1 Australian. So we can see that the most modern and gracile skulls are found in Blacks and Asians. Europeans are also modern and gracile, but not so much as the others. We also see that while Australians generally have the most robust skulls on Earth, some Aborigines have very gracile skulls. Australians are best seen as an extreme mixture.

Why did man leave Africa, and which route did he take? The reason for leaving was apparently a terrible drought in East Africa. For instance, between 135,000 and 75,000 years ago, East African droughts shrunk the water volume of  Lake Malawi by at least 95%, causing migration out of Africa.

Which route did they take? Researchers say their study of the tribes of Andaman and Nicobar islands using complete mitochondrial DNA sequences and its comparison those of world populations has led to the theory of a “southern coastal route” of migration from East Africa through India. They took the Indian Ocean coastal route.


Mirazón Lahr, Marta. 1996. The Evolution of Modern Human Diversity: A Study of Cranial Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

The Difference Between Phenotypical Race and Genetic Race

A commenter asks me some questions about my races of man post.

I believe that a bit more changes are necessary to be made to the race classifications you have here Robert. I believe that the Garos, Nicobarese, Negritos (Orang Asli, Semang, Aeta, Senoi, etc.), Melanesians, Micronesians, and possibly Ainus should be classed as Australoid.

Now, hear me out if you will: They have mixed to varying degrees with Mongoloids, but still maintain Australoid appearances, so it is nonsensical (I believe) to class them as Mongoloid simply due to some Mongoloid admixture.

I also believe that a separate “mixed-race” macro category (or “non-classifiable”) category should be made for those in your categories who are of mixed-race. Caucasoid-Mongoloid: Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Uighurs, Tatars, and Hazara. Caucasoid-Negroid: Djiboutians, Eritreans, Mauritanians, Bejas, Somalis, Ethiopians, and certain mixed-race Berbers (all Berbers shouldn’t be classed as belonging to one macro race).

And those certain Pacific Islanders, be they Melanesians or Micronesian, who are obviously a Australoid-Mongoloid mixture.

The Nepalese are a mixture of Indo-Aryans from India as well as Mongoloid groups from the Himalayas (so they are a Caucasoid-Mongoloid mixture).

The Ainus have mixed with the Mongoloid Japanese due to promoted miscegenation by the Japanese government, so many Ainus now have Mongoloid genes, but I still think that they are distinct enough from Mongoloids to be possibly classed as Australoid (which you yourself have called them).

I thank the poster for his input.

The problem here is that the poster is confusing phenotypical race with genetic race. The races of man post dealt only with genetic race, using Cavalli-Sforza as a template and then expanding from there. The problem is that genetic race often does not line up with phenotypical race. For instance, some types are Australoid by phenotype, but not by genes. Only the Andaman Islanders, Papuans and Aborigines seem to fall into an Australoid race by genes.

The Garos are similar to other groups in the far east of India such as the Naga. The Nicobarese are very strange, but the general idea is that they are just archaic SE Asian types, migrated down from Yunnan Province in China maybe 5000 YBP with some of the original Austroasiatic speakers.

I have no genetic data on the Orang Asli or the Senoi. The Senoi at least are certainly Australoid by phenotype. Once again, these are ancient Proto-Malay early Austroasiatic types migrated down from Yunnan 5000 YBP or so. The Orang Asli are some of the original people of the planet outside of Africa, but are they phenotypically Australoid?

The Aeta are phenotypically Australoid, yes, but genetically, they are closer to Filipinos than to anyone else.

Melanesians and Micronesians genetically fit into a nice little category within the Oceanians of the SE Asian race even though they have some Australoid mix – the Melanesians much more than the Micronesians.

A mixed race macro-race of some sort did not make sense to me in terms of a rational classification, though I did think about it. Some groups are just too recent to be classified at all, such as Hispanic mestizos and mulattos.

For groups like the Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Uighurs, Tatars, and Hazara, I had to look up percentages of Asian and Caucasian. If they were a bit more Caucasian, they went into Caucasian. If they were more Asian, they went into Asian. Groups for which I had no data were not listed. It was scatter-shot, but I could not think of anything else to do.

For the Djiboutians, Eritreans, Mauritanians, Bejas, Somalis, Ethiopians, and certain mixed-race Berbers, I did try to fit most of these into some race or another. However, I will agree with you here that I may need a new category. I have long contemplated a sort of Horner Major Race, splitting the Horners off from the rest of the Africans. The Horners are just too different from the rest of the Africans. They are about 1/2 way between Africans and Caucasians.

I realize that the Berbers are a mess, but there was not much I could do with them, and I don’t want to make a major race out of them. Sometimes you just have to improvise.

The Nepalese fit well into Caucasian on most charts. Granted, they are some of the most diverse Caucasians out there, but so are the Indians for that matter.

Although the Ainu are phenotypically Australoid, genetically they are quite close to the Japanese and the Koreans, so it makes sense to call them NE Asians genetically.

White Men Can't Bang

Repost from the old site.
The title is a take-off on the movie, White Men Can’t Jump. It appears that, in addition to deficient basketball skills, White men, at least in the California, are also deficient in gangbanging skills. Whites have a very low rate of street gang membership, at least in California. Sadly, that is not true of other ethnic groups.
I am not writing this post to stir up racism, but only to explain such phenomena as White flight, especially noticeable in California.
It is worth noting that once you get to high-income cities in the state like Walnut Creek, these cities are often pretty diverse ethnically these days. There are good numbers of Hispanics and Asians in that town, and Blacks on the streets are not rare.
At a certain income level, better-behaved, more integrated members of all ethnic groups will be present in a town and ethnicity per se will probably have little effect on crime or gang membership – the rates will be pretty low for all groups.
The problem seems to occur at lower income levels, especially poor or low-income areas, and there crime and gangs are correlated with race. In those areas of California, low-income Whites are often fairly well-behaved, while low-income Blacks and Hispanics are simply a catastrophe.
I recently moved from a mostly-White small town in California in which many of the White residents were poor or low income. There were no gangs and there was no graffiti.
Crime rates were so low that I often left my car or home unlocked. Pathology existed, but it tended to be more mild or inner-directed (drug and alcohol abuse, minor drunken fights, domestic disturbances) rather than more virulent or directed outwards.
I moved to a city about three times as large that is 70% Hispanic. It is probably about as poor and low income as the White town I came from. In the low-income area I live in, depraved Underclass “nigga-gangsta” culture holds sway as the local Hispanics are in thrall to gang, drug and gun culture. That is the only way to describe it.
Pimping, open prostitution, open drug sales, open fistfighting, public drunkenness, graffiti everywhere, high crime rates – the place is a train wreck. Welcome to the “hood”, as locals proudly describe it. I have already suffered a theft from my apartment, while I suffered no thefts in 16 years in the poor White town. The young people often seem overtly menacing, predatory and amoral.
Gangs are omnipresent, and there may be as many as 6,000 gang members in a town of 50,000. Whereas the poor Whites directed their aggression inwards with drug and alcohol abuse, the poor Hispanics direct it outwards, threatening and harming others.
I finally realize what White flight is all about. Most Whites don’t really care what your race is or what your skin color is. Based on grotesquely elevated Black and Hispanic crime and gang membership rates in California, for Whites to flee large Black and Hispanic populations is not necessarily an act of racism at all – it is an act of sheer logic and self-protection.
Not only is it rational for Whites to flee large groups of Blacks and Hispanics, it is also rational for well-behaved Blacks and Hispanics (and there are many millions in California alone) to flee these areas too. And we are already starting to see this in the state.
I had already calculated differential crime rates among ethnic groups and plotted them to IQ in a previous post in an attempt to try to understand crime, ethnicity and intelligence. Unfortunately, IQ did not explain differential ethnic crime rates well.
I recently got ahold of data on gang membership in California and decided to use it to calculate rates of gang membership per ethnicity and then compare the groups. I have included the crime and IQ charts from the previous post for comparative purposes. It turns out that gang membership is a vastly worse problem than crime per se, and the ethnic dimensions of it have not been adequately explored.
In order to do that, let us look at the figures for California, from a 1996 document that is already 11 years out of date. This is the way things were 11 years ago. I lacked figures for the nation as a whole.

Gang membership rates1:
Amerindians: None Known, minimal
Whites:      Baseline
Polynesians: High, figures unknown2
(SE) Asians: 18 X higher than Whites (!)
Hispanics:   54 X higher than Whites (!!)
Blacks:      140 X higher than Whites(!!!)

Now compare to crime rates themselves, this time for the nation as a whole. Asian crime rates are low, but gang membership is high, a seeming paradox. If the increase in crimes committed by certain ethnic groups compared to Whites seems shocking, the increased rate of gang membership is truly out of this world and surreal.

Crime rates (based on The Color of Crime):
Asians:      78% lower than Whites (!)
Whites:      Baseline
Amerindians: 2X higher than Whites
Polynesians: 2X higher than Whites
Hispanics:   3.3X higher than Whites
Blacks:      8.2X higher than Whites (!)

Now let us look at IQ scores.

IQ scores:
Whites:          103 (link)
SE Asians:       93.53
Hispanics:       89
American Indians 87 (link)
Blacks           85 (link)
Polynesians      85 (link, link)

The rates of gang membership are vastly more than would be expected by IQ; nevertheless there is indeed a linear relationship which is surprising, except in the cases of Polynesians and Amerindians. With 1% of California’s population, Amerindians may be too small of a population to do much gang-wise. Polynesian figures for rates of gang membership do not exist, but seem to be high.
In particular, the rates of Black crime and gang membership are vastly more than would be predicted by IQ.
Furthermore, these figures do not take into account the Flynn Effect (FE), whereby the average Black and Polynesian today has the same IQ as Whites of 1957, the average Hispanic today has the same IQ as Whites of 1970 and the average SE Asian today has the same IQ as Whites of 1985.
As IQ’s have gone through the roof over the last 40-50 years, paradoxically, crime and gang membership rates in the ethnic groups above have similarly skyrocketed. Since no one proposes a theory whereby rising IQ leads to increased crime, rising IQ has nothing to do with differential ethnic crime and gang ratios.
Nevertheless, there is still a disturbing White – SE Asian – Hispanic – Black ranking in IQ and gang membership (leaving aside Amerindians). IQ may still be relevant to crime and gang ratios if the FE has not effected some aspect of IQ that is tied into crime.
It is true that the FE has not led to an across the board, broad increase in general intelligence. For more on the FE and controversies about what it is measuring, see my post here.
Whites from 1957-1970 (whose IQ’s ethnic IQ’s now compare to) were even less likely to join gangs than Whites are today, in fact, their gang membership was about zero, and even their crime rates were relatively low.
However, by 1970, there were already noticeable Black and Hispanic gang problems in the US.
It seems, based on comparisons of ethnic IQ’s to those of Whites from 1957-1970, that there is absolutely no way whatsoever to explain high ethnic crime rates based on intelligence. When attempting to explain rates of ethnic street gang membership, we need to look elsewhere than IQ.
Let us look at Philippe Rushton’s R/K Selection Theory. I am not a fan of his and the theory has some major issues, but at least one part of it makes sense.

                Blacks Whites   Asians
Aggressiveness  +      Baseline  -
Cautiousness    -      Baseline  +
Impulsivity     +      Baseline  -
Self-concept    +      Baseline  -
Sociability     +      Baseline  -

Greater extroversion will tend towards the Black end, and greater introversion will tend towards the Asian end. Rushton’s theory has some issues. For Asians, he used only NE Asians, and not SE Asians, American Indians or Hispanics, who are part Amerindian. Studies have shown that Papuans, Polynesians, Negritos, Micronesians, Melanesians and Aborigines are also Asians, yet they are excluded.
From a very early age, Asians are placid, introverted and less aggressive. Blacks are at the furthest end of activity and extroversion scale. As we know from all races, more extroverted folks tend to be more aggressive. Whites are known to be somewhere in between. I do feel that this explains a lot of behavioral differentials between races.
At worst, Asian societies are so conforming and rules-oriented that they seem boring and oppressive.
As far as Blacks, at worst, a society of extroverts of any race would definitely have issues with not just aggression but unreliability, irresponsibility, drug and alcohol abuse, more partying and less studying, precocious and profligate sexuality, impulsiveness and even chaos.
Indeed, sociopaths are simply extroverts taken to the behavioral extreme, as schizoids and obsessives are the result of introversion gone wild.
This works pretty good for Asians, Whites and Blacks on a number of variables, including crime rates (see table above).
However, this theory completely falls flat on its face when trying to explain elevated crime rates of Amerindians and Hispanics (see table below).

                Asians Whites    Am Indians
Aggressiveness  --     Baseline  --
Cautiousness    ++     Baseline  ++
Impulsivity     --     Baseline  --
Self-concept    --     Baseline  --
Sociability     --     Baseline  --
Crime rates     --     Baseline  2X (!)
Gang membership --     Baseline  --
                Asians Whites    Hispanics
Aggressiveness  --     Baseline  -?
Cautiousness    ++     Baseline  +?
Impulsivity     --     Baseline  -?
Self-concept    --     Baseline  -?
Sociability     --     Baseline  -?
Crime rates     --     Baseline  3.3X (!)
Gang membership --     Baseline  140X (!)
                NE Asians Whites    SE Asians
Aggressiveness  --        Baseline  -
Cautiousness    ++        Baseline  +
Impulsivity     --        Baseline  -
Self-concept    --        Baseline  -
Sociability     --        Baseline  -
Crime rates     --        Baseline  -
Gang membership --        Baseline  17X (!)

Based on the data above, Amerindians should be expected to be even more introverted than Asians. Hispanics might be expected to fall somewhere in between Whites and Asians. SE Asians should be expected to possibly fall between NE Asians and Whites on all variables.
If Asian babies are placid, then the Indian baby is like a rock – an alert rock, but a rock nevertheless. Indian babies are known to be silent, and amazingly, it is not even easy to make them cry.
Indian women cart them around in pouches on their backs in Mexico, and if you did not know better, you might think they were asleep or even dead. Hispanics in the US are about 60% White and 40% Amerindian.
SE Asians, although they are genetically diverse from NE Asians, are still Asians. I do not have any proof, but I would assume that SE Asian babies are placid like NE Asians. As they grow older, SE Asians seem more quiet and introverted than Whites and Blacks, though maybe less so than NE Asians.
This intuitively appealing theory fails totally when trying to explain high crime and gang membership rates of Hispanics, high crime rates of Amerindians, and high gang membership rates of SE Asians. All of these groups tend towards the less activated, more controlled and introverted Asian end, and all are Asians or part-Asians of one type or another.
A biological explanation may work for Polynesian crime and gang membership rates, because recent evidence shows that they have a “warrior gene” that effects MAO in the brain in greater numbers than other groups. This results in impulsiveness, risk-taking, aggression, violence and elevated elevated levels of smoking and drinking. They probably selected for it on their long, risky trips across the seas.
But there is no evidence that any other group above has such a gene in such high numbers.
I confess that the relative frequencies of gang memberships and ethnic groups bothers me, because I can’t figure out why some groups are more prone to this than others. Then again, if you can come up with a rational theory that even partly explains any kind of crime, you are practically eligible for a Nobel Prize. Criminology is the ultimate Black hole of theory and scholarship.
More and more, it seems that culture, possibly poverty (at least in some groups anyway), and not genes or IQ is what drives gang membership and crime rates.
Yet different races are more or less prone to crime and gang membership even when they live in poverty. Poor Whites commit relatively few crimes and are much less likely to join gangs than the poor of many other groups.
As yet, we lack a good explanation for this.
As a beginning theory, and because I honestly cannot come up with anything else, I might offer that there is still something protective in White culture in California right now that is keeping Whites from joining gangs at high rates. What that protective factor is, I have no idea, but I do not think that this has anything to do with it.
As far as what is causing such high rates of gang membership in the other groups, a depraved gang, drug and gun culture has developed among certain groups for complex reasons. It has then spread outwards to other groups, while expanding in the core groups. The protective factor that insulates White culture is apparently lacking to various degrees in the other groups discussed.
If and when any considerable sector of young US Whites begins to adopt the Underclass gangbanging criminal culture of other ethnics, the US is going to be in for some very serious problems. It is only the relative resistance (so far) of US Whites to gangsta culture that is keeping the nation from a Goyaesque crime, gun and gang Hell.


1. Rates were calculated based on 1996 street gang numbers per race computed against the ethnic group’s % of the California population as of recent years.
Whites had 5,000 gang members and have 49% of the state’s population.
Asians had 25,000 gang members and have 13% of the state’s population. This distorts the Asian rate by overestimating gang membership in NE Asians because most Asian street gangs are SE Asians, but I did not have access to breakdowns in the state’s Asian population per country.
Hispanics had 170,000 gang members and have 33% of the state’s population.
Blacks had 100,000 gang members and have 7% of the state’s population.
2. In California, Polynesian gangs are about 80% Samoan and 20% Tongan.
3. I toss out an estimate of SE Asian IQ of 93.5 based on a Hmong IQ of 96.5, a Vietnamese IQ of 99.5 (link, link, link) and a Lao/Khmer IQ of 89 . A rough average of these gives a SE Asian IQ of 93.5, which is not low at all. The Vietnamese IQ is from two major studies in Vietnam. One in 2001 found an IQ of 101 and one in 2006 found an IQ of 98.