The Politics of the El Paso Mass Shooter: The Rise of a Racist Left?

As you well know a few weeks ago, a young White man went into a Walmart in El Paso, Texas and shot the place up. He was angry about mass Hispanic immigration to Texas, which he described as an invasion. His targets in the store were mostly Hispanics.

He admitted that he was motivated by Brandon Tarrant, the New Zealand mosque shooter.

He felt that with increasing Hispanic immigration, Hispanics would take over the state and Hispanic culture would be writ large there. Further, once they had control, they would try to put in Open Borders because that is what most Mexican immigrants want: Open Borders, at least for Mexicans.

I’m not trying to justify this guy’s monstrous crime, but that last paragraph is probably straight up true and it’s something we might want to think about, seeing as we are dead set on turning this country into yet another Latin American country.

He was actually leftwing on economics. He was definitely not a conservative Republican, that’s for damn sure. His manifesto was all about the workers, and it attacked corporations for being anti-worker. His beef against immigrants was that they were taking jobs from natives. The piece was very anti-corporate and condemned both the Democratic and Republican parties. His piece also had strong environmentalist overtones.

This is pretty typical nowadays. Tarrant, the New Zealand mosque shooter, was also mostly on the Left other than race.

These guys are not exactly on the left or right in an American sense. They are more like Third Positionists, who are left on economics and right on social issues. Third Positionists are considered to be neither left nor right.

How on Earth can they call this El Paso guy hard rightwing when he slams corporations, is strongly pro-worker, and condemns the Republican Party? Since when is anyone on the US Right pro-worker or anti-corporate? If you are those things, you are not a part of the US Right de facto.

I am wondering if we are seeing a Racist Left or maybe the left wing of the White Nationalist movement here.

Many Illegal Immigrant Trump Supporters Do Want What Is Best for Our Country

Incidentally, a lot of the anti-illegal immigration Trumpies actually want what’s best for the country too. I dislike a lot of the fanatical attitude about these folks and in particular the way Trump is going about it which is unnecessarily harsh and yes, divisive. But I do believe in giving credit where it’s due. Just because I dislike Trump supporters doesn’t mean that their hearts are in the right place on some issues.

Importing vast numbers of low-IQ, poorly educated peasants from Third World Mesoamerican countries doesn’t seem to benefit the US one bit. Everywhere these people settle in large numbers turns into something of a slum. Not nearly as bad as a Black ghetto but usually a decline from a previously existing White locale.

Illegal aliens are not good for America. Illegals are bad for America. They drive down wages while driving up rents. Their descendants increase the crime rate by 3.3X. And there are no jobs that Americans won’t do. I lived in a White working class town for many years and there was not one job that a White person would not do, including many that are the illegal-lovers say Americans won’t do.

Farm work is a bit different, but around here, a lot of legal immigrants and even 2nd generation American citizens (possibly anchor babies) go out and work in the fields. In fact, by age 18-23, many former gang associated types are out working in the fields! Isn’t that incredible? From gangbanging to picking crops in the fields, something Americans won’t do.

It’s not all illegals out in the fields or in the packing houses. I hear about jobs in those places regularly and I often hear, “You need papers.” So they’re only hiring people who are here legally. In fact I have heard in the last few years that a lot of the farms and ranches are requiring papers for field work.

I was told that this is one reason why a lot of the illegals are going home. I suppose I am guilty of furthering this problem. After all, I like to hire young illegal alien Mexican women as maids. I mostly do this to try to seduce them because I’m a scumbag, but I also like to get the place cleaned up and help them out.

Alt Left: Is US Immigration Dysgenic?

Sami: Very good points, Thinking Mouse.
The majority of our immigration comes from Latin American, average present IQ 90-95, and from East Asia, average present IQ 100-107. This averages out to close to 100 as it is, if you look at those two groups in combination. And this doesn’t take into account the Flynn Effect (though, unfortunately, I doubt Mexican American Barrio culture, as it presently is, at least, is something that would do much to accelerate the Flynn Effect, sorry to say.
And we get smaller input from places like the Middle East, present average IQ 84-90, if Richard Lynn’s methods for assessing this are valid (highly questionable, at best). However, Arab Americans and Iranian Americans both have average incomes and average levels of educational attainment — both considered to be rough proxies for average IQ — than the White American average. So, it is clear, that within American culture (in stark contrast to the case with Europe) those groups seem to be Flynn-effected upward.
In short, I am unconvinced that our present immigration policy is dysgenic.

Instead of simply not being Flynn-effected, I would argue that barrio culture is actually IQ-impairing. I don’t have any evidence for that, but I can hardly think of a more aggressively, belligerently, arrogantly ignorant culture in the US. Even US Black culture is more educated and intellectual than US barrio culture. Isn’t that pitiful?
Latin America does NOT have an average IQ of 90-95. Most of the immigration is from Mexico, IQ 90. The rest is from Central America, IQ 85-90. Average IQ of Hispanics in the US is ~90. We don’t get that much immigration from East Asia. China is where most of it comes from, IQ 105. Combined together, you get IQ 96, but there are many more Hispanics, so that lowers it to ~93. At the end of the day we don’t know what the IQ of immigrants, legal and illegal, is in the US.
Hispanic IQ in the US is not undergoing any Flynn rises compared to Whites. It just stays at 90. Arab and Iranian IQ is not high, but in the US, they may be selected. Anyway, they appear much smarter than Hispanics here in the US, whatever their IQ’s are.
You have only to look at large Hispanic communities to see that the IQ is not the same as a nearby White town. This Hispanic city here may have an IQ of 93. I came from a nearby White town which probably had IQ of 100. The differences were so stark it was shocking. So you can see that even seven IQ points at a macro scale like that has a huge effect on the intelligence of a city. You can really see IQ differences when you look at whole cities full of people of different IQ’s.
US IQ has always been 100. In recent years it has fallen to 98. How did that happen?

Intellectual Cultures Around the World That Are Superior to America's

One thing I have noticed is that people from other cultures acknowledge the existence of intelligence far more than Americans.
Arabs, South Indians, Afghans, Pakistanis, Iranians, Turks, Khmer, and especially Chinese people have extreme reverence for intelligence and education.
If they spend any time with me at all, almost all of them act like they are almost stunned to the point of fainting by the breadth of my knowledge. They simply don’t believe that I learned it all from reading. I must have lived in these countries that I talk about.
Mexicans come from a complete retard culture in Mexico itself, but the less intelligent ones, especially if they were born in Mexico, often acknowledge that some people are wicked smart. If they were born here, they were born into Mexican-American culture, one of the most retarded and ferociously anti-intellectual cultures on Earth. Like I said, even Mexico has a more intellectual culture than US Mexican Americans. Mexico’s higher level culture is even more intellectual than that of America itself.
When you get down to South Americans, they are much more likely to acknowledge that intelligence is a thing and a good thing at at that. This is because South America in places like Colombia, Peru, Chile, Uruguay, and Argentina have retained a lot of the intellectual culture of Old Spain, including a reverence for literature and what my Argentine girlfriend called “men of letters.” Peruvians and Argentines in particular are very intellectual and especially literary.
Brazil’s culture is pretty stupid, but at the higher levels where people are much Whiter, it is highly intellectual and often very educated. In particular they take pride in their knowledge of the Portuguese language, which is not an easy language to completely master at all. The extreme hedonism of Brazilian culture, even among White Brazilians, somewhat masks the intellectual culture of the Whiter Brazilians.

More Support for My Theories about Hispanic Intelligence, Culture, Etc.

I would however say that this mostly applies to Mexican-Americans. I am not even sure if it applies to Mexicans in Mexico because there is actually a High Culture in Mexico. In Mexico City there is opera and the main paper has a large book review section every week. In other words, a true highbrow intellectual culture, right in the heart of Mexico. It goes without saying that the members of this highbrow culture are White or a lot Whiter than average Mexicans. But in Mexico, White and people involved in highbrow White Mexican culture extends all the way down to 60-70% White. These people have an idea of lowbrow culture as being “naco.” Naco is also associated with quite a bit of Indian blood. In Mexico, it’s not whether you have Indian blood or not. It’s more a matter of just how much Indian blood you have. I have never thought that Indians were particularly dangerous. Even the racist Latin American Whites that I read on Stormfront (I read 1,000 pages of their threads) said that Indians were fairly harmless. They said that they could get loud, rude and verbally violent, but it didn’t often expand beyond that. One said, “You have give an Indian a handful of tortillas and a six pack, and he’s good for the night. He goes off quietly and you never hear from him again.” On the other hand these Latin American Whites were scathing in their views of Latin American Blacks, who they viewed as very violent and downright dangerous as Hell. It is interesting to note that in Latin America, the existing Blacks are often quite mixed with not only White but also Indian. The result – a White – Indian – Black mix like Hugo Chavez and many others in the far north and the east of Latin America (Venezuela,  Colombia and Brazil ) and the far south of Central America (Panama) and parts of the Caribbean (Puerto Rico) – is called a Zambo. This term is a source of some ridicule among Latin American Whites like Chileans or Peruvians (some of the worst Whites in Latin America) as a term for a mystery casserole of a human so badly mixed that they are nearly indescribable, but a lot of Zambos are quite beautiful. Cali, Colombia is a Zambo city and the women of Cali are said to be the most beautiful in all of Latin America.
The high culture of Mexico City compares starkly with the rest of Mexico.
Your typical Mexican mestizo is a pretty lowbrow person – he’s probably never read a book in his life nor does he wish to. Nevertheless, even the lowliest cook in a corner market knows how to read and write. They definitely teach you that in Mexican schools and most Mexicans have been to school.
And most Mexicans from Mexico,  even a lowly corner cook like I mentioned, know something about Mexican history – the Civil War of course and even the clerical contra rebellion afterwards ~1930 that most Americans have never heard of. Every Mexican knows who Emilio Zapata and Benito Juarez are. I was stunned at how many of these very uneducated people had even heard of Frieda Kahlo. How many Americans know who she was?
How many Chicanos know even a parallel basics of US 20th Century history? And you will never meet a Mexican-American who knows who Frieda Kahlo is nor do they care to find out.
Beyond that, we descend even lower to Mexican Indians, who not only don’t read books but may not even know what a book is. Mestizos believe in some strange saints in their profoundly syncretic Catholicism, but when you get out to the Indian villages, people actually still believe in witches. As you can see, the descent from High Culture down to beyond lowbrow is a steep one indeed. You will nearly break a leg walking too quickly down that slope.
The South Americans I have met in the US are not so anti-intellectual as the Chicanos below. South America after all has a much better High Culture than Mesoamerica. South American High Culture is so intact because the culture of Spain still lingers down there to a great degree while it has nearly vanished from Mesoamerica. I have talked to rich people in Lima and Bogota who literally spent half the year in Spain. Literally.
I had an Argentine girlfriend once. She often called me Senor instead of my first name (imagine an American girlfriend routinely referring to you as sir) and was in stunned awe of the fact that I was an hombre de letras or a “man of letters.” Intellectualism is a big deal in Argentina.
The Salvadorans and Nicaraguans I have met in the US were highly politicized, and I was shocked at how smart they were. You think you are dealing with another “ignorant Mexican in a mini-mart” until you start them off on politics, and they start rattling away and soon leave you in the dust. Every Salvadoran I have ever met has heard of La Matanza (The Massacre), and that happened in 1932. And I’ve not met one yet who could not tell me who Farabundo Marti was (see La Matanza above).  How many Americans know who Farabundo Marti was?
Most Americans don’t have the slightest idea what either of those things are. It just goes to show that you can take a society with an IQ like Chicanos and supercharge them politically and possibly even culturally if the objective conditions are right. The Colombians, Peruvians, and Chileans I met here and outside the US (not to mention the Argentine woman) had a shockingly deep knowledge of politics for an ordinary person, and the Latin Americans were often as learned as a Spaniard or at least wished to be.
How many Americans know who Tupac Amaro was? But the young Peruvian woman I knew all about him and even knew quite a bit about his wife, who is a proto-feminist hero down there to some mestiza and indigena women..
I never asked her who Jose Carlos Mariategui was, but I am sure she could have told me all about him too. Another Peruvian woman I met knew all about Jose Arguedas and his famous novel The Fox Above and Below, which ties in with Mariategui, if you think about it. Arguedas was one of the most famous figures in Peruvian literature and his own daughter, incredibly enough, sat on the central committee of the Shining Path. Sendero was about indigenismo and to a lesser extent feminismo than anything else.
They even his name in the formal long name of their group – El Partido Comunista del Peru en la luz del pasado sendero luminoso del Jose Carlos Mariategui or The Communist Party of Peru in the Light of the Shining Path of Jose Carlos Mariategui.
Here is a recent comment from a half-Mexican American who agrees with most everything I have said about these people.

As a half-Hispanic raised with Hispanics, I mostly agree with this. My Mexican mother who immigrated illegally to the US paid tens of thousands for in-vitro fertilization, and that’s what pulled me out the ditch. This was evidently high-quality sperm because I still managed to turn out above average.
The people around me were impressed that I actually liked to read and learn. When I was young, the other Hispanics were amused that I could memorize the times tables and recite miscellanea about science and history, besides being capable of drawing dragons properly.
To give you context, my mother has been living in the US for over 25 years, and still does not understand a drop of English. They have a culture which consists of strong work-ethic (never missing a day of work and so on) followed by self-induced brain death post 9-to-5. They just watch mindless television and do not learn.
I discovered my own origins at the age of ten. I also achieved standard atheism at the age of nine (which I consider a standard benchmark for the ability to display rudimentary acts of rationality.) Then it took me years of hard work to unwire all the Catholic stupidity in my mother’s brain. This culture has no concept of logical reasoning, so her mind kept swinging in repetitive loops whenever I tried to carefully and methodically pin her down to the implications of specific arguments.
I succeeded in that endeavor, and am now in the process of teaching her where she is actually standing by explaining the crucial insights of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. People may laugh at the fact that she didn’t know the Earth was a sphere orbiting the sun, but yet most ‘educated’ humans alive today are just as ignorant about reality. For example, by not knowing that there is no universal now sweeping forward, or by holding the belief that we are made of little billiard ball particles bouncing around.
In my experience, whites at least fake like they want to learn. They’ll say “Oh yeah, that’s cool. Schrodinger’s cat is dead and alive… lol… because it’s all probabilistic, hur dur” or something. Of course, they don’t know jack-shit and also prefer to consume mindless media, but their culture says it’s okay to be smart. Hispanics just don’t give a shit. A lack of intellectual culture is their biggest setback.
The ghetto lower-middle income schools I went to were torture. The kids couldn’t do basic algebra; the teachers were underachieving whites who couldn’t get higher paying jobs in other districts or who preferred having less responsibility because black and hispanic parents wouldn’t bitch to them about grades, or have any expectations whatsoever really. And the teachers made no secret about this, they outright told us this was the reason.
Also, what you say about Mexicans bringing Mexico is absolutely true. I stayed in La Villita when I went to university in Chicago because some kind family members we barely knew were willing to rent super cheap. As I walked through the dirty streets past yet another leather boot store blasting trumpet music I almost felt ashamed, like ‘How could Mexicans escape to a new country and yet prefer to make it Mexico again?”

The Intelligence of Hispanics

The Hispanic IQ is 90. I am sure you want to say that’s low, but the IQ of the average human is 89. So if you think 90 IQ people are stupid, then you have to think your average human on Earth is a complete idiot. And I suppose some might like to make that case.
Having lived around these people, the first thing I will say about them is they are not stupid at all. But even though they are not dumb, on the other hand, they are not real smart either. It’s a very average type of human, even on the low side of average. The main thing about them is their ignorance. Hispanics are frighteningly, terrifyingly ignorant. Why this is, I have no idea.
Around here your average Black person knows more about history, sociology, even psychology, and especially politics than the Hispanics do.  They Hispanics don’t know, and it seems like they don’t want to learn.
It is also interesting to note that the ignorance comes largely though not exclusively from Mexicans. A lot of them have told me that they only had 2-5 years of education. A 40 year old woman told me her kids only had 5 years of education. The second generation who are born here act worse than the immigrants, and they are just as ignorant, if not more. At least the Mexicans seem to have some desire to learn. The 2nd Generation doesn’t even want to learn anything. They are very happy with empty heads.
The Mesoamerican immigrants know a lot more about politics than the Mexicans do. In particular the ones who went through revolutions such as Nicaragua and El Salvador know quite a bit about politics.
One strange thing is that the people you meet from South America seem a lot smarter and especially less ignorant that the Mesoamericans. I’m not sure why that is, but the culture of Spain is still very prominent down there, and that culture revered learning, men of letters, etc. The women down there actually love intellectual men because it is a sign that you are upper class or have an upper class mindset.
They’re certainly intelligent enough to function and more or less run a metropolis. It will work so much better if there are a few Whites around to keep the lights on and whatnot. We have had a couple of towns around here that have gone 100% Hispanic, no Whites anymore, and it is not a good thing. It’s not even a decline. It’s more of a complete collapse.
Does this mean they are stupid? I’m not sure about that.
A better argument is that when the Whites all leave, and you have a city that’s 100% Hispanic, Mexico takes over. It just becomes another town in Mexico. Ever been to Mexico? If you have you will understand what I am talking about. If you want to know the particulars, there’s no money anymore, local government collapses, nothing works and there’s no money to fix stuff, gangs take over very badly, and in particular, some heavy-duty Mexican style corruption rears its head.
When Mexicans come to the US, which is fine by me, they really need to leave Mexico behind. Bringing Mexico with them doesn’t work.

The Truth is Racist: John Kelly Attacked as a Racist for Telling the Truth

The SJW Culture (face it, SJW’s control our entire culture now) is ripping General John Kelley to pieces for telling the truth about immigrants in an interview with NPR. When asked about Jeff Sessions’ hard-line anti-immigrant policy by NPR, Kelly said:

“Many illegal immigrants are not bad people…but they’re also not people that would easily assimilate into the United States. They’re overwhelmingly rural people. In the countries they come from, fourth-, fifth-, sixth-grade educations are kind of the norm. They don’t speak English, obviously that’s a big thing. They don’t integrate well; they don’t have skills.”

Let’s take this apart one by one here:
“Illegal immigrants are not the type of people who would easily assimilate into the US.”
That is simply flat out true. At the very least, it is perfectly rational opinion. The other opinion, that they are the type of people who easily integrate into the US, is the one that needs to prove their point as there seems to be little evidence that this is true. I live with these people. They are all around me. They brought Mexico here with them. They never left home. Their children are a lot more Americanized, but the immigrants themselves are not assimilated at all and have no desire to assimilate. They live in communities where everyone speaks Spanish and follows a Mexican culture little different from Mexico’s, so there’s no need to assimilate anyway.

They’re overwhelmingly rural people. In the countries they come from, fourth-, fifth-, sixth-grade educations are kind of the norm.

100% fact. That’s a factual statement. How can a factual statement be racist?
We are importing vast numbers of essentially uneducated peasants from the 3rd World. Why anyone thinks this is a good idea or how these people will be a net benefit to our country to any way is simply beyond me. A 1st World country has no sensible reason to import vast numbers of rural 3rd World peasants with a 5th grade education into their country. Why the vast majority of the media culture in the US think this is a good idea is beyond me.
 

Mexicans, a Portrait of a Depoliticized People

Mexicans in their own country and in the US are profoundly depoliticized and do not know their ass from a hole in the ground politically, for which I blame that awful fake revolutionary party in power for decades. It is true that the party preserved many good progressive structures, but they didn’t go further from that.
It’s hard to call yourselves a revolutionary party in a land where many people complete only 2nd-5th grade education.
I meet Mexicans like this all the time aged 20-40. Some told me that their kids never went to school past 5th grade. It costs money to go to school down there, and many people cannot afford it, so their kids only get a few years’ schooling. This is happening to this very day. Many rural schools are defunded and have no money to pay teachers, so many students drop out in the 2nd grade or so to go work out in the fields.
Sound like a revolutionary party?
Yes, there is free medical care and it is decent enough. You might have to wait in line all day, but you will still get in, and they will treat you. As with everything else, it is horribly defunded.
Sound like a revolutionary party?
28% of Mexican sewage flows into rivers untreated.
Sound like a revolutionary party?
The ejido system brought by the Mexican Revolution is great and has prevented another revolution, but it was never properly funded. Most land in Mexico is owned by the state and divided into ejidos. Anyone who cannot make a living in the cities can always go to some ejido and join as a worker and work the land. At least you will end up with enough food to eat. However, some recent administrations have started to privatize the ejido system, which will be catastrophic for Mexicans.
The oil company remains nationalized, a source of pride for most Mexicans. I remember gas was damn cheap down there. There was only one type of gas station, but they sure sold gas cheap. However, there have been recent moves to privatize the oil company, which have run in to a lot of opposition. I believe it was privatized under Benito Juarez.
 
Because I am a provocateur, I like to mess around with the local Mexicans and tell them I am a radical. I flat out tell them that I am a Communist and a revolutionary. They often look a bit puzzled, but they are not angry. They often seem curious and seem to think that I am on their side. Then I make a fist and say “Revolution! Benito Juarez! Pancho Villa! Emilio Zapata!”
Everyone is very happy and cheers me on. These are the heroes of the Mexican Revolution and afterwards and frankly, all of them were out and out Leftists. So the heroes of the Mexican working class for almost a century have been full blown Leftists. I would say there is a lot of underground and unconscious support for Leftism among working class Mexicans and of course Salvadorans. Mexicans simply had their revolutionary spirit co-opted by that fake revolutionary party which started out with great motives but got very corrupted and bureaucratized over time

California: How Illegal Aliens Ruin Everything

TRASH writes:

ROBERT I’m lower-middle class myself and no genius (I did graduate from college but not a good one) but how can Inca primitives from the jungles of South America steal the job of any able-bodied American who can read and write in English?
This is not a rhetorical question.
What is an Inca with 2nd grade education and no ability to speak English able to do better than a person born in the United States that somebody might actually hire them for?

They can’t do anything better except pick crops and yes they are better at that. They’re not better at anything else and in fact, in general, they are inferior workers. Illegal roofers do poor work. Illegal construction workers do notoriously poor work. A lot of the contracting work done here in California in recent decades is shoddy and has to be redone pretty quickly whereas before it lasted a long time. It’s not lasting long and falling apart because it’s done by illegals.
Low wage labor – you pay the illegals way less than you would pay the Whites.
Illegals do not complain. They put up with any shit and abuse you dole out to them.
Illegals are working in a lot of good-paying jobs now like roofing, painting, construction, carpentry, welding, drywalling. Who cares if a Mexican could take it over? These jobs paid working class Whites very good money.
The contractors who hire Whites all go out of business because they cannot compete with all the contractors hiring illegals. Most of the people who hire illegals are rich. Landlords hire illegals. My landlord hired illegals to do the roofing on my apartment complex. He was rich. The people who own contracting jobs as painters, construction or landscaping make damn good money. Many live in nice two story houses.
The dirty little secret here in California is that if you want to get rich, go into contracting and hire all illegals. That’s the way to get rich. I had friends who businesses like painting and they could not compete with the guys who hired illegals. My friend paid his painters $25/hour. The competition was all hiring illegals at $7/hour. This whole scam is just a way for White men to get rich hiring low wage labor and getting rid of all the high paid Whites. That’s all it is.
Most jobs do not require a whole lot of brains or skill and sure they could be replaced by some wetback.
I worked in a White town where Whites were janitors, trash collectors, landscapers, construction workers, painters, drywallers, roofers, dishwashers, waiters, maids, on and on. There is no job that was too lousy for a White person.
Now when the illegals come in somehow they tend to fill up all of those jobs that were formerly filled by White Americans. Whether this is because they work under the table or are more docile I have no idea. I know they do not work any harder than Whites.
It doesn’t really matter if a Mexican took your job. That’s one less job for a White person. A lot of White people work at low-paying, low-skilled jobs but that is just fine. Mexicans come in and wipe out all of those jobs and now all those Whites are out of work. Mexicans do way more than work in the fields. They have taken over a lot of fields, especially construction.
Construction used to be all White and all union and you made very good money in a union. The illegals came in and all of the unions were wiped out and all of the Whites were replaced by illegals. I know drywallers who would be making $45/hour in constant dollars today. Now that same job is done by an illegal for $10/hour with no benefits, no union and you can abuse him as much as you like.
There is a lot of unemployment around here. Just think if we got rid of all these illegal alien scums in my town. Just think how many jobs that would open up for Americans of all colors – Whites, Hispanic Americans, Asians, Blacks. All of those real Americans could move in and take all of those jobs that the illegals had. Think how many jobs would open up! Wouldn’t it be great?

About Those "Jobs Americans Won't Do"

William writes:

Robert- the point was, and I believe you said this, that the notion of “There are no Jobs White men won’t do”, is not universal.
It’s a job, nonetheless. It verifies the “Mainstream Left” notion that illegals are doing the jobs the Whites won’t do TO AN EXTENT. It’s not universally true, of course, rather, it’s probably more often false than not true.

We don’t need these illegals for anything at all in my opinion. And if you cannot find Americans to do the job, I suppose you can always import some guest workers.
I am curious about that chicken plant story though. If they upped the wage to $17-18/hour, do you think some Whites or even legal Hispanics might have bitten the bait? They were probably offering $8 an hour to work in the chicken plant.
A lot of these places who “cannot find Americans” are just lying, as TJF points out. Silicon Valley screams that there are massive openings for programmers, and they demand more and more Hindu 1-B’s every year, but as TJF and many others have pointed out, the only reason they have a labor shortage is because they refuse to hire Americans.
Where I lived in the mountains, there were no jobs that White people would not do because all there were White people. No other races. There were some Indians, but they don’t work anyway. However, some of the older Indians worked at jobs like logger.
Whites were trashmen, dishwashers, roofers, painters, landscapers, construction workers, janitors, domestics (maids), you name it. My understanding is that these are all supposedly “jobs Whites won’t do.” But that’s a lie.
I now live in the Valley, and we do not need illegals for one damn thing out here.
Field work. Mostly done by legal immigrants and native born Hispanics. Yes, native-born Mexicans will work out in the fields. Actually I know some former bad boy gang associates/jailbirds/felons formerly headed in the wrong direction big time who are now working in the fields. It’s not uncommon for former Hispanic gang members to work in the fields. The work is a bit tiring, but it’s not really a bad job. It is just a hard physical job like construction or anything else.
The farmers are always screaming for more and more illegals and crying labor shortage, but it’s pretty much a lie. The UFW has pointed out that there is no labor shortage in the fields except that a lot of farmers refuse to hire workers who are members of the UFW union. The farmers are instead are looking for nonunion illegal aliens they can exploit the Hell out of.
There are illegals out there in the fields too, but they work right alongside native born Hispanics and Hispanic legal immigrants. A lot of the Mexican-Americans work in the fields because this is what they have always done.
Illegals have now taken over many of the jobs here, but they also work alongside native born Hispanics. They are doing the same jobs that the Whites were doing up in the mountains. I can’t think of any of those jobs that we would need illegals for because the native born Hispanics will gladly do all that work.
There are some packing plants in other areas around here. That might be sort of a nasty job, but I am sure that native born Hispanics would gladly work there. They will work just about anywhere. Mexicans and Mexican-Americans are not that particular when it comes to work.

White -> Non-White = Decline

William Playfair Web writes: But…aren’t non-Whites the victims of it? Is it really effecting Whites?
With Blacks they are very aggressive and it is stereotyped they fuck it up for everyone, but from my observations, not with Hispanics.

Aren’t non-Whites the victims of what? When a city goes from White to Hispanic, there is a very noticeable decline. it’s nothing like if the city went Black, but it’s there. For one thing, the crime rate goes through the roof. Mostly property crimes, break-ins of businesses, thefts of car stereos, etc.
I lived in a White town that started to get a lot more Hispanic in the mid 2000’s, and all of a sudden we started hearing about a lot of car stereos being stolen. That’s usually the first sign your city is going Hispanic because Mexicans steal car stereos. It’s like…what they do. That is a stereotypical half-assed Mexican type crime. You also see a big increase in petty thievery, especially hubcap theft. Because that’s another thing Mexicans do – steal hubcaps.
This city here was majority White in 1970. A local businessman told me that the illegals really started flooding in the 1990’s, and then the whole city went Mexican. This coincided with a huge increase in break-ins in local businesses. I believe the two were related.

If You're Mostly White, You're White

Steve Gutierrez writes:

Just confirmed. My DNA test came back indicating I’m 20% Indian. That makes me truly of Mexican heritage and Mestizo which is that vast majority of Mexico. Embrace this completely.

Ok fine, but 20% Indian means you are 80% White. To me, this commenter is just a White man. If you’re mostly White, you’re White! But if he wants to think of himself as mestizo, that is ok too.

Machismo in a Working Class Mexican City in the US

Jason Y writes:

Not all Mexican guys are macho, and not all Mexican women are knockouts, these will go out with each other. I’ve seen no evidence these Latin nations are full of macho guys. Just as anywhere else, the majority are average, not gay but average.

I am wondering if the commenter lives with Mexicans. I live with Mexicans. All Mexican men are machos, 100%. Pretty much. I believe it is a cultural mandate, and if you don’t go along with it, you are probably in for a rough ride. I am talking about the ones in my city who are born in Mexico. I saw this soft young 2nd generation Chicano at the bank, and his young wife was just pummeling him verbally.
As far as the Chicanos, around here, the men are 100% machos because this area is poor and working class. There may be a few exceptions such as a few young Chicano married men in the 20’s with a couple of kids.
With the White guys, not so much, but still a lot of them are pretty hard.
We also have some Blacks around here, and they are all machos too, regular tough sort of ghetto or Blacks deep into “Black culture.” I think in ghetto or traditional Black culture, all the men have to be pretty macho. It seems like there’s no other way to be. Once you get outside the ghetto or traditional Black culture, Black men can start to vary more.
There are some Arabs who run the local store and they are all badass, hard, macho guys too. The Arabs accept me, the Chicanos not so much, but some of them do.
The Mexicans maybe, but you can’t really talk to them, as they don’t speak English, and they keep to themselves.
Some of the Blacks accept me, but the ones around here are mostly lousy people who you don’t want to know anyway.
With the rest of the Chicanos, I would say that most of them are machos but not all. Once you get to the 3rd generation, you do start seeing some variability that way, but you are never really sure if those men are full Chicanos or only part. Once you get to 3rd generation, you start to see a lot more assimilation, as the Chicanos also started getting mixed in with Whites, especially Med Whites like Italians. You also start seeing Filipino-Chicano mixes and other more exotic types.
This area is poor, and the only way for a man to act around here is to be a macho. In poor and working class neighborhoods, all the men are rather tough and hard. There’s really no other way to be. I assume that most all the men around here have conformed to this behavior pattern because this is how you are supposed to act here. There are probably some unpleasant consequences around here if you do not act that way.
I assume there are gay men who get raised in those environments, but I believe the gay men get out of here as soon as possible and move to some big cities. The gay men I know who came from this town seem like they all split to Fresno or even Frisco once they hit ~18. There are definitely some real faggoty guys in this town, but they all work at more upscale places like the ATT store, Starbucks, places like that. And few if any of them live here. They all live in Fresno instead. This is probably not a pleasant town to be gay in.

Hanging Out in a Tough Working Class Mexican Bar

I used to hang out in the local bar which is full of working class and lower class Mexicans Chicanos, including some gang or street types, illegal aliens, ghetto type Blacks and a very few working class Whites. They had strippers once or twice a week and I used to go on stripper nights. Some of the illegals and other Mexicans (green card holders or citizens) actually accepted me for some reason.
It was a rather tough bar. There were some pretty tough gang types who would come in often late at night. You could tell they were gang types because they wear clothing with insignia on it. For instance, Nortenos might have clothing that has an “N” or the word “north” in it somewhere. Those types were best avoided, as they seemed to be sort of looking for trouble.
Sometimes guys would come in very late at night looking to fight. You can tell because as soon as they walk in the door, they look very mean and angry like they are going to hit someone or kill someone. Sometimes a fight broke out, often very late at night like 1 AM. I like Mexicans because Mexican men actually love fights. They never call the cops like White people do, which I think is often very pussy. They just let men fight it out.
If it looked like a fight was breaking out, the owner would run over there and clear all the chairs and tables out of the way so the fighters had a big circle to fight in. Then a crowd would gather round the fighters, and the owner would be in the crowd. The owner would give a motion to the men meaning, “It’s ok to go for it now,” and they would start fighting. The fights don’t last long. To Mexican men, barfights are some sort of entertainment.
I never had any problems in the bar, but I go into “badass” mode in places like that. Then you just avoid trouble, be careful who you talk to, and you should be ok. I can hold my own pretty well in hardass lower class bars like that.

Mexican Lowrider and Gang Culture in the 1970's

Jm8 writes:

I’m curious, how was low rider culture different from the modern East LA Chicano culture (I know vert little about the former)? Was it mainly just less violent and criminal?

They were a lot nicer and easier to get along with. I actually used to hang around with them a bit in high school. I was one of the few White guys who would associate with them. They kept to themselves. They had this certain outfit that they would wear, the women wore way too much makeup and there were a lot of teardrop tattoos. I am not sure what those meant, but I always thought it meant that they felt that life is sad. They had this general sadness about them, both the boys and the girls. But it was a rather appealing sort of fatalistic and resigned sadness.
The boys supposedly had some sort of a gang, but the gang really didn’t do anything. I think maybe they would fight with another gang, but it would just be fistfights and not deadly weapons like it is nowadays. The difference between now and then was that the  lowriders  were approachable and more or less friendly even though they only wanted to hang with themselves.
Nowadays the Chicano are a lot more hostile and standoffish, and they also have a lot higher self-esteem. The lowriders were this low self-esteem, beautiful loser type crowd. The new ones are much more criminal and dangerous and also a lot more machista. The lowrider boys were not that machista. A number of them were skinny as rails, and no one cared. I think the culture was based on souped up old cars lowered to the ground and cruising.
One of my very first girlfriends was actually a Mexican gang girl. She used to get in fistfights with other girls! They didn’t use deadly weapons like nowadays. Whatever gang she was in (apparently some sort of a Chicana girl gang), it was rather harmless as all they did was get into fistfights with other girls sometimes. She was mostly into smoking pot and getting laid (she was a notorious slut).
I was 17 and she was 15.
Chicana gang girls were very different back then. They were far more assimilated, and they were a lot less dangerous and criminal. She was so assimilated she was just about White. And they were not so demanding of a machisimo boy. But this was also the hippie 1970’s, and you really didn’t have to be macho to get girls. You just had to be the cool guy. If you were Joe Cool, goodlooking and had good game, you could get girls. It was not necessary to be a tattooed caveman.
This is proven by the fact that she went for me, but it was supposedly because I was cute. Actually she and her friend both more or less picked me up at a weekend sex education retreat we were on with the Church. They said I was the cutest guy at the retreat, so they were going to grab me and hog me for themselves and keep all the other girls away from me. I later had sex with both of them, one after the other, in a church at 3 AM! Screwing two 15 year old girls in a church in the middle of the night! Yay!

Mexican and South American Women and Machismo (Hypermasculinity)

Jorge writes:

It’s curious because it is said that many Paraguayan women seek  Argentine men because Paraguayan men are too masculine and male chauvinist (I don’t know if there is an English word for “machista“).
At least this happens with Paraguayan women that live in Argentina, especially in big cities. They have the image of middle-class/upper-class Argentine men as more “sensitive”. Working-class and underclass Argentine men are not so different from Paraguayan men, but they are still less masculine except maybe in northeast of the country where I live where Argentine lower class men are very similar to Paraguayan men. Paraguayan women know this, and that’s why they prefer men from other regions, especially from Buenos Aires.

I am wondering if machista is an Argentine slang word? In Mexico anyway, the word is macho, machismo or machisimo, and it is used more as an adjective. Macho means “macho,” machismo means the same thing, and machisimo means a highly exaggerated machismo typical of Mexican men. I don’t think it is used as a noun much, but you can do that. Once I greeted my Spanish teacher (from Mexico) with, Que tal, macho? and he really liked that. I suppose a good translation would be “What’s up, stud?” It’s acceptable to call a Mexican man macho. It means something like “dude” but with more masculine implications. It’s not used much by Spanish second language speakers because it is very slangy.
The first time I heard the word machista was when I had an Argentine gf. She told me that she was disappointed that I was not machista. It’s true, I am not machista. It was clear that she wanted a machista man. I am wondering if all Argentine women like that? Do they all demand a machista man? The relationship still worked ok.
I am convinced that Hispanic women or at least the less assimilated ones pretty much demand a machista for a man. I live in a town full of Mexicans, and that seems to be the only type of man that they will go for. I can’t get anywhere at all with these women. I think maybe they think I am gay. I cannot imagine what it is like for a Mexican or “East LA” culture Chicano who is not machisimo or a machista. I don’t see how they ever get a date, much less get laid at all, and I surely can’t see how they get married. If they women all demand machistas, a guy who is not a machista is SOL, right?
As they assimilate, Hispanic women seem to become less demanding for a machisimo man, and they start getting more like White women, who are not so demanding of a hypermasculine man. But it seems like the more they stay attached to Mexican culture (here even third generation Chicanos are still deeply into Mexican culture because there are few pressures to assimilate), the more they demand a machista man.
And around here, if they do assimilate, they often assimilate to “East LA” type Chicano culture, which in my opinion is a completely crap culture. This is the culture of gangs, tattoos, drugs, rap music and even crime, often petty crime. This same culture used to be “lowrider” culture in the 1970’s, which I could actually tolerate, but lowrider culture seems to have been replaced by gang culture, and that’s definitely a downgrade.
Not all Chicano culture is this crap gang-type culture, but far too much of it is. Chicano women deep into this gang culture still want a macho guy. Not as much as the Mexican women do, but still more than a White woman.
I had a date recently with a Chicana. She was a lousy person, but she also made it clear that I was not acceptable for her because I was not a “tough guy,” and she only liked tough guys. She was part of this lousy gang type culture, and she was also sort of a petty criminal.

What Is It Like for a White Person to Live in a Latino Town?

A friend of mine recently wrote me asking me what it is like to live in a Latino city. These were my responses to him.
You live in a Latino town don’t you?
Yes, 67%.
What’s it like?
I speak Spanish, and the Mexicans are an integral part of California and always have been. But there were never this many of them, and the ones I grew up with were assimilated.
This town is ok, except you sort of feel like you are living in an Upgraded Mexico. Mexicans are very friendly people, and they are overjoyed if you can speak even two words of their language, so they are ecstatic when I speak Spanish to them. Plus I often ask them to help me with my Spanish.
A lot of the middle class young people of all races are dicks, but that is true anywhere. The less assimilated Mexicans are way friendlier than the more assimilated ones. Apparently assimilating to American culture involves turning into an asshole.
The town has a bit of a run-down feel to it, but I am used to barrios. It is nothing like a ghetto. Most people are working class, and the Mexicans are quite Left. The Whites are all very rightwing.
One thing I will say though is that Mexicans are just not very smart. They are definitely smarter than Blacks, but that’s not saying much. They are interesting people especially if they are from Mexico recently, but intellectuals they are not. They are not hostile to intellectualism. They are intrigued by it but also sort of indifferent.
Mexican women are pretty much untouchable as far as I can tell. I have had very bad luck with them. Most of them don’t really put out that much anyway as they have this good girl/bad girl, Madonna/whore, virgin/whore thing going on.
A lot of the people around here are working class, and many are simply not very attractive. I am not sure why that is, but often poor people are not very good-looking. A lot of people around here are fat, and the Mexicans have a bad diet. Everyone lives off junk food. The true Mexican food is better for you. There is a lot of great Mexican food to be had, and I buy it all the time.
You feel safe walking around?
Generally, yes. But I stopped going for midnight and 3 AM walks. People told me to stop. A friend of mine had a couple of people try to rob him on his door to door job. Most people do not mess with me though because supposedly I look scary. Walking around in the daytime is nothing. I do it all the time.
There much risk from gangs or kids in the street?
No, none whatsoever. The only problem is when you make the mistake of making friends with these idiots and having them over to your house and whatnot, which is what I did. Simply do not associate with them, and you will be fine. Some of the younger kids age 12-15 are real shits, but they do not bother me too much anymore.
The people friendly?
Extremely. See above.

Lobert Rindsay Comments on the Moors of Al-Andalus

Lobert Rindsay is a university professor from Mexico who set up his blog in a sort of a tribute to my blog in order to continue along the same lines in a sense. He specializes in racial makeup of various groups in the Mediterranean region and Hispanosphere.
Lobert Rindsay on Al-Andalus:

Hello Robert, thank you for supporting my blog. I admit that my older (2 year old) post on the race of Mexicans is more a creative work. While I admit that the Amerindian component may have been underestimated in my earlier work (in light of newer studies and more research), it suffices to say that the white component of Mexico is often underestimated as well.
More importantly though, we need to end these silly cliche ideas.
First off, the Afrocentrist claim that pre-Islamic North Africans (including Egyptians) were black is plainly wrong as can be seen by Roman and Greek mosaics of Berbers and Egyptians, as well as ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs where the Egyptians clearly distinguish themselves from Berbers, Semites, and blacks.
Second of all, the subsequent claim that the Islamic invaders of Iberia were black doesn’t hold up, unless the Muslim army was composed of Tuareg or sub-Saharan Africans.
Finally, the more common claim that the Muslims of al-Andalus/Iberia were a minority and/or that they were of non-European origin is also (mostly) a falsity (since a minority of Muslims were of foreign origin). Of course, the first Muslims of Iberia were Arabs & Berbers, just like the first Muslims of Somalia, Iran, and Indonesia were Arabs, but we know that the grand majority of Muslims in those countries today are indigenous.
It is not a Eurocentric claim that the Muslims of Spain were mostly indigenous whites. Perhaps watching videos or Googling images of the descendants of the Moriscos/”Moors” (the expelled Andalusi Muslims) living in North Africa should open some eyes.
In fact, I think it is an insult to call the Andalusi Muslims “Moors”, because it implies they are a foreign element; it is like saying that Persians are Arabs. So do not say that Averroes or Boabdil are Moorish or black or Berber or even Arab. They are Iberians, or, if you will, Spaniards. You could call them Andalusians or Andalusies, but no Anglophone calls Egyptians as “Masri” (from al-Misr, the Arabic name for Egypt).
I hate to break it to some people, but the hands that crafted al-Hamra (Alhambra) and the emirs that resided there were not black, nor even Berber/Arab, they were Spanish. I don’t wish to be some sort of chauvinist nor some sort of Eurocentrist, it is merely the historical image of al-Andalus that is most supported by legitimate evidence. If the pale skin, or blue eyes, or overall Iberian/European appearance of the descendants of the Iberian Muslims living in North Africa doesn’t convince you, then I don’t know what will.
I refer sometimes to the Iberian Muslims as Andalusi, but I would rather call them what they really are on a genetic level, Iberians or Spaniards, also considering that in my opinion, “Spain” should rightly refer to the whole peninsula and that Portugal is a medieval remnant of a crusader state that refused to integrate into the larger Iberian Christian nation. Well, I tend to make large comments (unfortunately!) but I hope that clears things up.

It took me a bit to understand what he was getting at here, but I think I figured it out. What he is saying is that the original Moors from Morocco and Tunisia were probably not all that Black to start with (more likely that they were the more White Berbers). Not only that, but they were always few in number, as per the Arab style of conquest which involved a small number of Arabs ruling over a large group of non-Arabs who progressively become Arabized and Islamicized.
This is how it went down in Spain also. Over time, the vast majority of Andalusian Muslims were simply native Iberian Whites who converted to Islam for this or that reason. So over time, the Moors were not even North Africans; instead they were just Spaniards like everyone else in Spain.
You can go to Google and look up photos of the descendants of the Moors who were expelled in Spain who now live in Morocco and Tunisia. They are very White-looking even by Berber standards. Clearly they are mostly of Iberian stock.
The Berbers themselves are a very ancient Caucasian or White group, with links going back to the oldest Caucasians in Europe, the Lapps or Saami. There were also infusions of North European blood going back 2-3,000 YBP. In the northern part of North Africa, the people are often quite White (especially in Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria) while as you go towards the South, the people tend to get Blacker. The Berbers themselves are now mixed with White and Black Berbers. The Tuaregs in particular are a very Black group of Berbers, but even they are 14% White.
The racial makeup of Mexico is quite confused. Lobert Rindsay states that Mexican genes are 55% White, but that may be in error. More recent studies put the White genes at 30-42% and the Amerindian genes at 55-67%. Mexicans are ~4% Black across the board.
But the Mexicans in the US have traditionally been the Whiter ones from the north of Mexico. The usual racial makeup was 68% White, 30% Indian and 2% Black, but the most recent study puts Mexicans in the US at 47% Indian, 45% White and 8% Black. Why they are so much Blacker than Mexicans as a whole, I have no idea. So US Mexicans have become quite a bit more Indian and Black and quite a bit less White over the last 30 years or so. This is because more immigrants are now coming from the more Indian and even Black parts of Mexico towards the center and especially the south.

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.

     
     

"Illegals Turning Our Towns into Cesspools"

From here.
This is an article from a rightwing blog. All of the commenters are also rightwingers. But you don’t need to be a rightwinger to figure out that illegal aliens and their offspring ruin towns and cities. That is obvious to any Californian.
The problem with attacking illegals is that the Hispanics and the rest of the liberals always say, “You are not attacking illegals! You are really attacking Hispanics!”
This is a most interesting question that needs to be addressed head-on. Is it true that the illegals are only a problem in that they are Hispanics, and when we say illegals are no good, we are really saying that Hispanics are no good? It is quite an accusation, and I have to think deeply about whether or not it is true. The truth is that Hispanic legal immigrants have not caused a lot of problems in the US.
If you live in California, you can rapidly figure out that the problem is the illegals and not the legal Hispanics. Why is that? Because the illegals are particularly low quality immigrants. These are the peasants, the working class and the lumpen proletariat of Mexico. Say what you want about them, but they are basically pretty low quality people. Maybe they are just fine for Mexico; after all, folks like this form the backbone of Mexican society. Then again, Mexican society is pretty much of a mess, and it is these folks who have arguably created that mess. But it is not our responsibility to attack or fix Mexican society. That is an issue for the Mexicans themselves.
The problem is that the base of Mexican society simply does not provide high quality immigrants for the USA, a 1st World Country. The base of Mexico will simply tend to create Mexico in its dregs version, and that is exactly what they do.
Even if the 1st generation of illegals are pretty much hardworking folks, their children are another matter altogether. It is common knowledge here in California that the gangsters are the children of the illegals and not the illegals themselves. This is pretty much true, and I can attest to that firsthand as I got to know a number of gangbangers who live around me. In fact, for a while, a lot of them were hanging out over here.
Illegals and their descendants will tend to trash a town once they get to a majority. Going from a White town to a majority illegals + anchor babies town is, all other things aside, a downgrade. It is not as much of a downgrade as going from a White town to a ghetto Black town, but it is still a noticeable downgrade. I live in such a city now, and while it is relatively safe, there is a certain amount of petty theft, and I have had some items ripped off. The grand total over 5 years comes to ~$360. That is about $70/year. It’s pretty much nickel and dime stuff, but it is still annoying. This is not a ruined of unlivable city so much as a downgraded one.
Another lie is that the illegals come from all over and not just Mexico. Actually, ~85% of illegals come from Mexico and many of the rest come from Central America. The illegal alien problem is a problem of illegal, low quality Mesoamerican immigrants. There are some other nationalities that contribute some illegals, but they don’t add up to a large number and in general they are not causing significant problems, so they are not important.
A very large number of Mexicans and Mexican Americans here in California support the illegal aliens. So the illegal issue is really all about Mexican nationalism. It’s all about the La Raza, the race, the people. White people can’t be ethnocentric, but when Mexicans do it, it’s the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel. Mexican ethnocentrism is no less atavistic or reactionary than any other kind of ethnocentrism.
We really need to get clear on what the Mexicans and Mexican Americans want. What they want is an open border with Mexico for Mexicans to cross in as large of numbers as they wish. That’s what this whole illegal alien argument is all about. Mexicans don’t care about immigrants from any other country; they only care about La Raza.
The current outrage of an amnesty bill in Congress will legalize 11 million illegal aliens. However, with family reunification, it will eventually bring in 30 million more Mexicans very quickly. The vast majority of those 30 million will be low quality immigrants, the lower classes of Mexico. They will come up here and degrade and debase our communities the same as the ones before.
The argument is that we will legalize these 11 million (or 30 million) and then we will seal the border and not let any new ones in. But that’s not how it works here. We have done amnesties before. After each amnesty, they say they are going to seal the border. They never do it. It’s probably not even sealable anyway. Illegals will pour across the border into the foreseeable future. But we won’t let any new ones in! This won’t work either. The demands of the Mexican Lobby in the US are that once an illegal makes it across the border, he’s home free and we have no right to detain him and repatriate him.
The Mexican Lobby has the following demands:

  1. Legalize all illegals and let them bring relatives in.
  2. Do not seal the border, in fact, don’t even police it at all.
  3. Do not repatriate any new illegals who come across.

The problem is that after we legalize the 11 million, since we won’t seal the border (can’t be done) and we won’t detain or return many new illegals because the Mexicans throw a screaming fit whenever we do, very quickly, a huge new pool of millions of new illegals will build up in the US. Soon this pool will swell and there will be demands for another amnesty. This will keep going on into the foreseeable future in sort of an endless repetition.
The troubling issue is that both parties are now apparently captive to the Mexican Lobby in the US (the so-called Hispanic vote). Once you are a prisoner of the Mexican Lobby, you are committed to the three steps above. Eventually we will end up being a northern version of Mexico, with all of its attendant problems.
The following headline and news extract for the Selma (California) Enterprise appeared on this week’s edition of my old hometown paper. Note all of the little neighboring cities are also suffering from the explosive crime rate.

Selma’s Crime Rate Highest in County

By Doug Hoagland
dhoagland@selmaenterprise.com

Of all the cities in Fresno County, Selma ranked first in crime during 2010. At least that’s what one measuring stick used by the FBI shows. Citizens, city council members and police in Selma have been talking for months about a rise in crime. Some might see the FBI statistics as confirmation of an alarming trend in the city. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report — which comes out every year — shows that Selma had the highest crime rate per 100,000 population in 2010. Fresno was second, Kerman was third, Sanger was fourth and Parlier was fifth — rounding out the Top Five.
The list then goes: Mendota, Kingsburg, Clovis, Coalinga, Firebaugh, Reedley, Fowler and Huron. Figures were not available for Orange Cove and San Joaquin.
———————————————————————————————————————————–
When one reads the rest of the crime report article, the Selma Chief of Police is asked to cite the cause for the crime rate. He responds: “I really don’t know”.
“I really don’t know”…..that response says so much about how California has capitulated to a degree of political correctness, derived from the realization that illegal immigrant invaders have saturated the entire state of California…..to the extent that is now impossible for a public official to utter the truth about the causative factors for soaring crime rates throughout the state. This state of denial is compounded by the need for public officials to continue coddling Hispanics “legalized through past amnesties” who support the illegal invasion as some misguided effort to boost Hispanic political power.
This, despite the fact that they are all fowling the cesspool in which they live. Most of the white and black contingent of “legal” residents are now cowards; too fearful to speak out less they offend a Hispanic acquaintance. Fair enough: let them dwell in the squalor of illegal infestation. They have earned it. They have become so blinded to it that they don’t realize that a high quality of life exists elsewhere. Being cowards, they have adopted the practice of looking the other way at the graffiti, the gang activity, the soaring crime, the degradation of their children’s schools.
Three decades ago, before past amnesties opened the flood gates to illegal criminals, all of the farming communities mentioned in this report were thriving small towns with low crime rates and an extremely pleasing quality of life. Now, every single one of these once fine little towns are cesspools of crime, infested with drug smugglers, anchor baby welfare trolls, where decent people can no longer walk the streets at night. According to the latest census report Selma is, like most of California’s invaded cities, 78 percent Hispanic….and likely half of them illegal.
Also cited in this same report is the tragic fact that the local jails are so full these criminals must be turned out early to make way for the next fresh batch of arrestees. The Chief of Police lamented the fact that the “criminal early out” program allows the newly released criminals to go out and commit more crime.
During my entire 22-year Air Force career I always dreamed of retiring to my sedate and peaceful little town where I grew up. Then I came home, took a look around, saw the gangsters and the prolific graffiti that graces every street in town and decided to dwell elsewhere.
California is now a lost cause. It’s citizens have neither the will nor the backbone to drive the illegals out. For those of you who feel your town is immune from the ravages of illegal immigration, think again.
Illegals are spreading across the U.S. in unprecedented numbers now. You have a chance to stop it before you are infested.
The choice is yours. Write your Senators and Congressman and the President and tell them you oppose illegal immigration in any form. Stand strong against it…or be prepared to live in a cesspool.

I See Race-Denying Idiots

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

Communist Shame

Repost from the old site.
As the White comedian Gallagher says, “Sometimes White People embarrass me!” I agree. Also, as a Commie, I must say, sometimes Communists embarrass me!
Communists are supposedly pro-working class.
This is a video of a rally in Los Angeles that was due to be held by Ted Hayes of Choose Black America. Hayes is a radical Black man in many ways, maybe even a pan-Africanist (see the ANC style knit cap).
Unfortunately, like so many anti-illegal immigrant activists, he is also a Republican. Voting Republican will never do a damn thing for the vast majority of Black Americans. There is a rational reason why Blacks vote Democratic – the party is more responsive to their needs than the Republicans. Hayes was a lifelong Leftist who just turned Republican the other day.
He is a tireless advocate for the homeless and for US Blacks. He supports Malcolm X (but then in some ways so do I) and he also supports reparations for US Blacks (but then I might too, depending on the proposal).
Yet he is dead set against illegal immigration, as are many Blacks. There was a counter-rally there against the Choose Black America rally of Communists and Anarchists and Raza types.
Notice the disgusting Communists in this video screaming at anti-illegal alien activists (50% of whom were African-Americans), “Racist! Racist! Racist! Nazi!” Jesus Christ! It’s only the goddamned norm in almost every nation on Earth to disallow illegal entry to the land. Nearly any country that catches you sneaking onto its land without permission will boot your ass right out, no questions asked.
Apparently these Communist morons think that 95% of the nations on Earth are racists for making it illegal to enter the country without permission? That’s nuts!
The poor sods being abused by these Leftist idiots are simply asking that the US act like almost every other normal country on Earth – that we penalize those who sneak onto our lands and boot them back where they came from. For this simple and strikingly rational request, they are being called RACIST by a bunch of fools.
Someone ask these Communist boneheads exactly how the US working class benefits from this illegal alien invasion. The invasion of America by illegal aliens has positively nuked the working class of America, especially in the West and Southwest. Look, I am not so stupid as to think that illegals have been the sole decline of the US working class.
A number of factors have been involved, many of them deliberate conspiracies on the part of the US elite and business sector. But to leave illegals out of the equation, as almost all liberal and Left analyses of the decline of the American worker do, is just crazy, like just about everything about this insane issue.
It’s not solely a problem of illegal immigration either. Unlimited legal immigration via H-1B visas has devastated the high-paying professional workers in the high tech industry. Why hire an American when you can hire an Indian for 1/2 as much? A US company now imports Indians on H-1B visas to drive big-rigs for 50% of what Americans do.
Every year, all of the the Democrats and liberals in the US Congress march off and vote for the wage- and job-wrecking H-1B visa program, amidst Bill Gates lunatic screeds that computer programming is a job that Americans just won’t do. WTF!
Illegal aliens have driven up the cost of housing via overcrowding and excessive demand on the housing market at the same time they have sent working class wages into the gutter, a deadly combo. Since the poverty and especially the illegal status of illegal aliens means they use far more in social services than they pay in taxes, they have overcrowded and degraded many public services such as hospitals, schools, etc.
Go into any school or hospital overrun by illegal immigrants and notice the falling-apart look everything has. There’s no money, no money, everyone says. A flood of users and a dearth of income equals a collapsing infrastructure.
Hence, illegal aliens have not only created a low-wage, high cost (housing) economy, but they have devastated social services such as schools and hospitals for working class and poor American citizens of all colors.
I’m not saying illegals should be denied medical care or their kids should be thrown out of the K-12 schools. I’m just saying that importing 12 million largely impoverished, uneducated and unskilled 3rd World peasants, is not a particularly rational move for many reasons, economic, cultural, and others.
It’s not even a progressive move either. The Communist USSR, China and Cuba worked in overdrive to bring their nations out of underdevelopment and Third-Worldization and towards at least the health and development figures of the First World. Tell me how turning a First World country into a Third World country should be part of any progressive, not to mention Communist, project anywhere on Earth?
In particular, the immigrants from Mexico are not a particularly selective class of immigrants.
Racial stuff aside, bear me out.
40% of Indian immigrants to the US have advanced degrees. 1% (!!!) of Mexican immigrants have advanced degrees. 20% of immigrants to the US from Africa, of all places (surely the most messed-up place on Earth) are working in high-paying jobs in medicine, engineering and science. 1% (!!!) of Mexican immigrants are working in these types of jobs.
Does this mean that Africans and Indians are smarter or even better educated than Mexicans? Surely they are not smarter. As far as education goes, I can’t answer that, but as a group, Indians and Africans are very poorly educated.
Let the Leftist mush-brains rant and call me racist. But hear me out.
It has nothing to do with race or IQ or even culture. We are simply being very selective about the Indians and Africans we are bringing in, and extremely unselective about the Mexicans we are bringing in. What are the Mexicans with advanced degrees doing? Staying put in Mexico and making lots of money.
I usually do not deal with IQ differences between nations, not to mention races on here, but let’s go to that forbidden land for a moment. Looking at IQ, Mexico probably has a higher IQ nationwide than India (about 92 to 81).
Although I have a hard time believing such figures, the quoted figures for Africa are around 70 IQ. So IQ-wise, Mexico is superior to both India and Africa. Yet the quality of Mexico’s immigrants, as we see above, is far lower, simply because we are not being selective at all about them.
Even culturally, Mexico may have it up on India, where there are almost 3 million excess deaths per year due only to infant mortality and another million excess deaths compared to China (considering that China and India were in the same place in 1949, Indian capitalism causes 4 million excess deaths per year as compared to “communist” China). This was India’s penalty for not following a Chinese economic model.

14 million children starve to death (or die of malnutrition) every year
on Earth – most of them in South Asia – in capitalist Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Africa is a slow-motion train wreck, with some of the lowest life expectancies on Earth.
We can make the case that Mexico has a higher collective IQ and is more developed culturally than India or Africa. Yet the quality of Indian and African immigrants to the US has been much higher, and neither race nor culture has anything to do with their higher quality.
If the vast majority of Mexican immigrants were legal, if 40% of them had advanced degrees and 20% of them were working in high-paying positions, does anyone think we would be having the nearly problems with them that we are?
The difference is in large part due to selective legal immigration, which is somewhat rational, and utterly unselective illegal immigration, which lacks any rational basis at all.

Mexicans Belong in Mexico

The illegal ones, anyway.
The legal resident alien green card holders can stay. The Mexican-Americans obviously can stay. Is that radical, arrogant or racist? Fine, call me names. Scream and yell.
Let’s look at some other arguments:
Argentinians belong in Argentina. Haitians belong in Haiti. Russians belong in Russia. Chinese belong in China. Indians belong in India. The illegal ones, anyway. If they want to jump through the hoops and become resident aliens and from there citizens, all the power to them. It may take 15 years.
Presidente Jorge Boosh wants to give illegals one day to automagically turn into some kind of Z-card legal citizens. What a slap in the face to all the green card holders, legal immigrants and others who spent so much money, filled out so many forms, and waited so long to secure their dream.
Why would anyone do it the legal way ever again when they can just go illegal and do it on the easy and cheap?
Suppose we had 12 million Argentines, or Chileans, or Indonesians, or Costa Ricans, or Uruguayans, or Dominicans, or Albanians, or Egyptians, or Angolans, or Bangladeshis, or Nepalis, or Laotians, or New Guineans, all illegals, invading our shores? Would it make any difference? Regardless of their plights, they belong in their own countries.
If their reactionary, nightmare, third world rat holes suck, well, then, they need to make revolution there, hopefully peaceful revolution. In some cases, maybe with the gun. That’s the Leftist in me talking.
Name one Communist country that insanely opened its borders to anyone who wanted to invade in order to crush the working class of their own land. There never was one. Marxist rulers were not stupid. They defended their borders and their workers.
Why do their lunatic acolytes believe in the insanity of “open borders”, with its massive security risks and attendant ruination of the American working class?
“But people are so desperate in Mexico”…Wa wa wa. Yes! People are desperate, starving and living in horrible conditions the world over. Why single out Mexicans? If desperate Mexicans get a free get out of jail pass to invade America, why not open up our borders to the miserable of the entire Third World, many of whom are far worse off than the average Mexican?
“But the Mexicans have children!” Hell, everyone has children. All over the world, people have kids. No kidding! So everyone who has kids, and I guess is desperate too, gets to invade America and drive our wages into the gutter forever. Surveys show that about 1/2 to 1/3 of the population would come to the US if they had the chance. That is 2-3 billion human beings.
This is what the lunatic Left and cheap labor Right in the open borders Lobby wants. Can you imagine? After that 2 billion man march on America occurs, America will be Calcutta writ large. And we can sign the death warrant on our republic, too.
The vast majority of nations in the world do not allow visiting or residing Americans, or anyone else I guess, to work, as long as you are living in or visiting the country. Why? They are leaving those positions open for their own people. The Open Borders loons would say that virtually every country on Earth, then, is racist, for not letting foreigners work in the land.
Even if that is racist (let is play games for a moment) is that really such a bad thing? And if the vast majority of nations are viciously racist, does the word mean anything anymore?
Many nations make it quite hard to become a citizen. The Arab World is notorious for this. The Koreans and Japanese have decided that the future residents of their land should be overwhelmingly Koreans and Japanese. And they are not the only ones. This is very common the world over.
Where is the Open Borders crowd? Why are they not screaming at the Arabs, Koreans and Japanese for being horrible racists? How dare these nations exercise sovereignty over the question of citizenship in their lands!
After all, the only way to be nonracist is to open your borders to any army of invaders that wants to invade, to grant the invaders citizenship on demand when they arrogantly demand it, and to let them steal every job they can from your citizens. Now that we know hat it takes to be a “racist” and a “nonracist”, “racism” is starting to look like sanity, eh? (Being sarcastic here).

Tulio on Black Crime and Feminism and What to Do About Them

Tulio, a Black man in his 30’s, is a regular commenter on the site. It was nice to see him move out defensive mode on the subject and write a deep and heartfelt post about these matters which are so painfully dear to his heart. He said that he thinks about this stuff constantly, as he is a young Black man. That’s sad, but if you care, it’s understandable.
Tulio notes that the problem is now so entrenched that it seems to be intractable. He also notes the corrosive effect of a lot of the new Black music.
Even White prison gang members have remarked on how detrimental they feel this music has been to White youth in recent years. They say young White man come to prison after listening to hip hop for years and think they are tough badass gangsters going to live it up in paradise in a maximum security prison. And boy do they have another thing coming!
I would like to thank Tulio for this post. Even if these problems seem intractable, we should at least be discussing them, as the human and societal damage is of epic proportions.

Black Crime

As for Black crime, it’s a confluence of a lot of different things and not an easy problem to solve.
Single motherhood. You have a lot of fatherless homes and single mothers. While not all single mothers raise bad sons (I personally know great guys raised by single moms), most guys in prison never had a strong father in their life. Women’s role is nurture; men’s role is discipline. Boys aren’t afraid of their moms. They’re afraid of their dads. Boys need fathers first and foremost.
I don’t know what the high cause of single motherhood is in the Black underclass. I truly have no idea, and I think about this stuff all the time since I’m a Black man. It wasn’t always like this. There was a time that Blacks were known for having strong families. The explosion seems to have happened in the 60s.
I don’t think there’s anything genetic about it. This doesn’t seem to be the case in Africa, especially traditional African society. It seems to be something unique to Black Americans. I don’t know what it looks like amongst Black Latins or Caribbeans. But family in Africa seems pretty strong, so I know it’s not genetic.
Dead zones. Secondly you have a large cultural vacuum in certain parts of the country.
Do you ever read about how there are dead zones in the ocean? Certain areas where there is not enough oxygen and that part of the ocean is devoid of life?
The inner cities of America are dead zones. They are islands of misery, hopelessness, broken schools, high unemployment, drugs, urban decay. There’s very little there to give people inspiration and hope. The church is often the only thing. The people living there have just enough so as not to revolt, yet not enough for them to be functional players in the economy.
The origin of such ghettos can be traced back to segregation. Some of these communities thrived at a time and were fairly self-sufficient. The Black middle class fled these places. And all that was left behind were the poor and a crumbling society. The middle class Blacks might have served as role models to those less fortunate. The Whites didn’t care about them either. Everyone that could afford to get out, got out.
So what can be done about it? I don’t know. The problem seems almost intractable. So I guess the only real solution here would be some sort of gentrification. Concentrated poverty is a very dangerous thing. As I’ve shown before, it can turn White people violent as well like it did in NYC tenements or as it currently does in Glasgow.
Spreading the poor out a bit should help. And it should also make their behavior better through cultural osmosis.
I can imagine no worse situation than being a Black kid raised by a poor single mother where the only male role models are thuggish rappers and drug dealers. They need to see other things and get out of that box. They need something positive to aspire to.
High unemployment. When unemployment is high, it makes working in the dark side of the economy more seductive. I’m sure many of these kids coming up would like to be able to make a decent living and not have to worry about ending up in jail or getting gunned down. But the fewer jobs there are, the more it makes the risk of selling drugs seem worth it. Even fairly decent people will start acting shady if that’s the only way they have to survive.
Well one major problem is that many blue collar jobs that Blacks used to do for a living wage either went to China or went to illegal aliens. It wasn’t uncommon to see Black carpenters, drywallers, construction workers, meatpackers, etc.
Now these jobs are almost all entirely done by Mexicans illegally in the country. This was a huge issue in the rebuilding of New Orleans after Katrina. There were a lot of Blacks out of work that wanted those construction jobs, and they were livid that they were going to Mexicans who aren’t even citizens and don’t even have any roots in the city. How can anyone not feel their pain?
The gutting of solid blue collar work has had a huge effect on Rust Belt White America but it has been an utter disaster for Black America. I see no easy solution here either.
Music. I also thing the music is a problem. Now maybe it’s an issue of art imitating life, or it’s the other way around, I don’t know. But I do think it has something of a feedback loop effect. A lot or rap music, even if not explicitly advocating violence, tends to reinforce a lot of selfish attitudes, hyper-materialism, fast money, fast women, party hard, a lot of Machiavellianism. It’s pervasive, even in the more lukewarm hiphop music.
Sometimes it’s just the attitude. The anger. One rarely sees rappers smiling or seeming happy unless surrounded by money, bling and sexy women. This stuff has to stop, and if I had a kid, I’d be very careful about what they listen to.
That said, not all rap music is like that, a lot of it is positive and life affirming. Some of it is great to dance too or just enjoy in the background if you have the smarts to not get caught up in the Machiavellian stuff.
It should also be noted that not all “Black music” is like this. The majority of Black music is not rap and does not contain violent lyrics. Unfortunately though, most of the music young Black males of the inner city listen to will be rap and often with terrible messages. What can anyone do about this? Not much, as long as there’s a first amendment, rappers can pretty much talk about whatever they want sell their music to whomever they want, most of which is bought by Whites anyway.
Sorry I don’t have any easy solutions, but these are just a few things that contribute to the issue.

Feminism

As for feminism, and I assume we’re talking about feminism of the more militant variety, the Pandora’s Box is open on that one. I wish things had stayed with equity feminism, and we could’ve left it there. But it then evolved into an assault on gender roles and gender as some sort of social construct rather than biological reality. That’s what happens when people with PhD’s take over the movement.
I know it’s not realistic for every American man to find a foreign woman, but for those that can, I think that’s the best solution. Foreign women are much more enjoyable to be around.

A Brief Treatise on the Chicana Intellect

There’s not much in the subject of the title to start with, so we will keep this short and sweet, just like their physiques and dispositions.

A Chicana, a Mexican-American female, stopped by the blog and posted something really smart. I know, that doesn’t make sense. It’s not possible. Saying a Chicana said something smart is like saying a dog flew up into that tree over there and laid a few eggs in its nest. I mean, it would be so cool if it happened, but when does it?

No way is this an Hispanic female. A Chicana, sharp as a tack, not a lesbian? Forget it. Unless you are born in Latin America or from Latin America. If you’re born in the US, no way. They all got the norteamericano stupid from the EEUU.

I dated a really smart Chicana once, but she was a waste of time. Dominating, man-hating bitch. Not a lesbian, but might as well have been. A feminist. Some thing, without the dueling dildos.

Chicanas are hostile to feminism. With good reason, because feminism kills everything great about the Chicana. It kills most good things about women period, but it really KO’s the Chicana. Her strength is her upright refusal of feminism. She’s happy the way she is, in her place, and boy does it feel warm and nice and good.

I don’t know what it is about Mexican American and female. I mean, I love em to death, but brains? They do not have. Which is neither good nor bad, really. It just is, and all their other qualities make up for it. Even really smart Chicanas don’t have very interesting minds. Chicanos too. There’s something about Chicano culture that just grows moss and mold in the brain. It’s beautiful, like a lot of fungi, but there’s nothing to do with it but cook up some good food, pop open some beers and turn on the tube.

The Chicana intellectual? An oxymoron. The smart Chicana? They exist all right, but usually not impressive. Very conventional intellects, when they got em. A mind of 70 or 140 is subject to the same prison walls and leashes. Breach them, shrug them off!

Latin America? Whole other world altogether. For a lot of those South American women, we are back in Europe again, and the Conquista never happened. Even 1/2 Indian blood can’t kill the wandering and soaring Continental mind. The most suicidal and cringing social nightmares cannot lock it in. Instead, the worse the conditions, the greater the spark to light mental fervor.

White Pride Latin America

Interesting comments from the comments section. First a fellow named Robert posts a comment, then a White Mexican named Rafa responds. I very much enjoyed their interchange, and I will comment at the end:

Robert: As a White Latin American, I think a lot of the information you put was wrong. At least the part about White Latin Americans disappearing. The CIA World Factbook puts Mexico White population at 9%, but I heard its really 15% to 18%. And Mexico’s White population wasn’t 40% during the colonial period it was more like close to 20%. I’ve heard that there are migrants heading to northern Mexico, but the majority of Northeast Mexico is still White.

You can talk to a lot of Latin Americans about that. They’ll tell you the same thing. My friend who goes to Mexico says the same thing. And as for Brazil, Sao Paulo is 70% non white? SAY WHAT!!!! I’m sorry, I haven’t been there yet, but that is just purely wrong. I’ve read in the census that its 70% White.

Personally I AM GLAD there are a lot of white people in Latin America. But then again, I personally think that if a person looks White, then they are obviously white. Even if they are 20% black or whatever. I may have been born and grown up in the U.S., but in the end, I guess I haven’t assimilated I guess.

I don’t mean to come off as if I am insulting you but I think at least half the information you got was wrong. At least when it came to the decline of White population. However, remember, all mestizos do not look the same. The phenotype can range from more European to more Indian. The White upper class of Mexico and Brazil may be mixed, but the non-white ancestry may not be enough to show and vice-versa.

Basically its a color continuum.

Rafa: I find it interesting that you said that if a person is 20% Black but looks White, then they are obviously White. By that standard, I would have to say that Mexico is between 33-40% White. The reason is simple. Amerindian features are more easily diluted than are Black African features.

There are even White Americans who are known to have claimed some sort of native indigenous ancestry such as Chuck Norris, the late Patrick Swayze, and Johnny Depp (this last one actually looks like a lot Mexicans I grew up with). The term Euro-Mestizo has even entered the lexicon of American English terms used to describe people according to their race, specifically light-skinned Mexicans who are predominantly White in appearance.

I don’t know about you, but I think that ever since the world got smaller through the invention of broadcast television and the internet, Latin Americans have gotten into a tendency of competing with each other to see whose country is whiter or has a larger population of Whites. What do you think?

By the way, as far as Northeastern Mexico being majority White, I would have to say that I agree with that statement. As you might have already guessed, I am in fact Mexican and from the Northeastern border city of Nuevo Laredo,Tamaulipas.

I grew up across the border in Laredo, Texas and it is basically an explicit fact that my native region is not as White as it used to be. Many people from Southern Mexico, and even some from Central America have established themselves in Nuevo Laredo, Reynosa, Matamoros, and Monterrey in neighboring Nuevo Leon state.

Most Mexican nationals who reside in Laredo, Texas are in fact White (as are most of their Mexican-American brethren in the region), and this often shocks non-Mexican Hispanics coming from the East Coast and California.

This is a sort of Latin American White Pride that I do not have a whole lot of issues with. To me, it resembles Black Pride in the US, which is generally healthy because it avoids some extremes and pitfalls. Some of the benefits vis a vis nasty US White Pride:

No emphasis on purity: If anything, in Black Pride there is an emphasis on less purity due to Black America’s obsession with light skin. That is, the less Black you have in you, the more proud you are, paradoxically. Now, that is not necessarily a good thing, but at least it gets us away from the purity poison.

Your average Black person in the US is 15% White. Most sane Blacks have not issues with this figure at all, and sane Black society does not regard US Blacks as impure or demand any kind of racial purity from them. You don’t have to be 100% Black to be Black in the US! Three cheers for that!

In contrast, US White Pride is utterly toxic in terms of racial “contamination.” If you have the tiniest bit of non-White in you, you’re automatically non-White. Even a lot of White ethnics are ruled out as Whites and described as non-Whites. Examples include Jews, Armenians, Turks, Eastern Aryans, Iranians, White Berbers, White Arabs, Georgians, the Caucasus, Albanians and Southern Europeans in general.

It’s absurd. Another thing to note is that in general, among races, the more emphasis there is on purity, the more violent, fascist and even genocidal the group is. It’s no accident that the Germans and Japanese were both genocidal and strongly emphasized purity of race. The two things go together quite well. As you get away from the purity trap, you become more loving and inclusive and less likely to engage in race-based violence, much less genocide. This is because, as a “contaminated” person yourself, you can’t much demand purity from others.

Increased love for others: Most White Latin Americans don’t hate the small amount of Indian or Black in themselves. It’s not the end of the world. They have a more relaxed attitude towards race, and they often love the non-White in themselves. If you love the Other in yourself, you are more likely to love the Other in others.

No demands for segregation. Latin American Whites don’t demand segregation. There was some segregation in Latin America, especially in Cuba and Ecuador, but it’s long gone. In Cuba, it lasted as long as the Revolution.

Let’s get real here for a second. What’s behind the demands for segregation? They are about fears of racial annihilation. This is what the fears of race-mixing and miscegenation were all about. But White Latin Americans are already somewhat mixed, so in a sense, they are already an annihilated race. There’s nothing to fear from dilution if you’re already diluted yourself, so there’s no need for segregation. Let the mixing begin!

A more relaxed attitude about race. White nationalists go on and on about colorism in Latin America, but at the end of the day, it’s not as big a deal as racism is here in the US. Colorism is simply not as virulent and nasty as White racism here in the US. It’s all a continuum, a sliding scale.

Thinking in a grey or continuum type manner is healthier than thinking in a black and white Manichean manner. Grey thinking is more relaxed and adaptive and leads to more tolerance and flexibility.

What problems there are in Latin America regarding race are ll tied up with class. Many Latin American so-called Whites don’t even look all that White. Indians are disliked due to class hatred, not necessarily racial hatred. The most hardened attitudes are found in South America, especially in the Andes.

It’s not that Latin America has overcome the race issue, but more that they have more or less transmuted it into a class issue. In a region where you can trade in your Indian clothes, stop speaking Indian, move to the city and then start wearing mestizo clothing and speaking Spanish and thereby automagically transform yourself from an Indian into a mestizo is a place were biological race is not so important anymore. It has been replaced by social race.

Less fear of miscegenation. I am not aware that Latin American Whites are zealously guarding their bloodlines anymore. If they are, let me know. You can hardly demand that others marry White if you are not pure White yourself. There are some Latin American Whites who would like it to be this way, but they are going against nature. In particular, Latin American White males are increasingly marrying and breeding with relatively light-skinned mestizas. The purists lament this, but what can you do? A man will be a man.

In addition, there  is another operative trend, and that is the widespread tendency among Latin American mestizas to try to “marry White” in an effort to move up in the world themselves and to create a better future for their offspring. This is highly adaptive female thinking, and it leads to a paradoxical “Whitening” effect among mestizos that occurs concurrently with whatever “darkening” effect is going on among Latin American Whites.

It’s the wave of the future. As the world’s population gets more mixed, the sort of White Pride seen in Latin America will become more the norm for all groups. True, pure races will slowly die out and become more rare, but that’s neither good nor bad, it just is. If US Blacks, a mixed group, can be proud, then anyone can be proud of their racial elements. The progeny of a racial stew can feel proud of all of the elements that went into that stew. The result is an ethnic pride that is more tolerant, loving and unconditional.

Very Nice New Piece on Race in Mexico

Here.

The site is actually named after me, which has me shaking my head in amazement.

The piece, and the site itself, was inspired by my site, in particular my pieces on race in Mexico and on the major and minor races of man.

Most Mexicans are mestizos, but there are large minorities of more or less pure Europeans and Indians. He describes most of the significant White groups in Mexico and puts Whites at ~17% of the population, higher than some other recent estimates.

Although most Whites have Spanish roots, there are also significant French, Portuguese, German, Italians and Irish minorities. I met a young woman who is Mexican-American, but she is mostly Portuguese. The village she was born in in Mexico is made up of primarily Portuguese people! There are also quite a few Jews in Mexico.

More or less pure Indians make up ~12% of the population. This seems a bit lower than some other estimates. They are very different and speak up to ~90 different languages. In Yucutan, many Indians are actually mestizos, but they still speak Indian languages and identify as Indian.

Mestizos make up ~67% of the population, and are divided between Euro-mestizos, Indo-mestizos and pure mestizos. He has a nice map towards the end dividing Mexico by state on the basis of which of these 3 groups predominates in the state.

There are what he calls 3 occult roots in Mexico: Blacks, Asians and Arabs.

The first root, the Blacks, has its basis in African slaves who were brought to the east coast of Mexico. This affair did not last long as a slave who married a free Mexican had children who were free. So, slavery quickly went out and the Blacks disappeared via mixed breeding as slaves quickly took free, non-Black Mexicans as spouses.

The result was that pure Blacks nearly disappeared and the remainder are mostly mulattos, zambos (Indian-Black) and triracials. In addition, your average Mexican mestizo now is ~4-5% Black, although in general, it does not show up on phenotype. The author has a photo of some Mexican Blacks that shows that they are heavily mulattoized. They also look quite attractive, I must say.

The next root is Asians. In the early days, quite a few Filipinos came to Mexico when it was part of Spain via the colony of the Philippines. By this time, they are heavily mixed with other races in Mexico. In the early 20th Century, many Chinese came to Mexico. Unfortunately, most were tossed out in the 1930’s in a wave of nativism, but in Mexico city and Mexicali, there are still quite a few Chinese and part-Chinese, as the Chinese also married heavily into the mix.

The last root is Arabs. Most of these Arabs are Christians from Mesopotamia, the Levant and Egypt. They came in response to anti-Christian attacks waged by the Ottoman Empire at the end of WW1. Since they came from the Ottoman Empire, many Mexicans referred to them as “Turks.” Carlos Slim, Mexico’s richest man, is Lebanese, as is Salma Hayek.

All three of these occult roots each make up ~1% of Mexico’s population.

There have been various studies of Mexico’s admixture, but they tend to come up with quite different results. I agree with the the author that the best studies show Mexico’s genome to be 52% White, 44% Indian and 4% Black. So Mexico is probably just barely a majority-White country, but it is best describes ad a White-Indian mixed race country.

Most self-identified Mexican Indians have some White in them, in addition to a bit of Black. Percentages range from 1% White, 1% Black among Guerrero Zapotecs to 37% White and Black among Huastecs.

The author notes that Mexican-Americans have traditionally been a lot Whiter than Mexicans, because they tend to come from the Whiter regions of Northern Mexico. Southwest Mexicans have usually tested out at 66% White and 34% Indian. California Mexicans have gone from 68% White, 30% Indian and 2% Black in 1984 to 47% White, 41% Indian and 12% Black in 2000. The reason for the high Black % is not known, but it should be clear to any Californian that the Mexicans in the state have gotten a lot darker recently. In recent years, many more Mexicans have come from further south, whereas in the past, they tended to come from the Whiter states near the border.

A photo on his site of Chicano gangbangers shows that they are mostly White, something we have always known here.

Towards the end he makes up a list of racial categories of Mexicans, following my lead in this piece, even adopting my formulae and marking scheme.

He lists five major races in Mexico – Whites, Indians, Mestizos, Blacks and Asians.

No major disagreement there.

I have been regarded as a mad splitter in my piece above. One critic said that if Lindsay doesn’t stop soon, he’s going to have as many races as there are languages. This criticism, in addition to endless bashing by race deniers, hurt my feelings, as a result, I have made few new updates to my races of man post.

However, the author is much worse of a splitter than I have ever been, splitting off all sorts of groups that I probably would not have split off. Hence, his scheme is better seen as a view towards Mexican ethnies or ethnic groups than races per se. For instance, he divides Mexican mestizos and Mexican Whites into quite a few different races, on what basis I am not sure. Are they ethnies? Quite possibly. Races? Dunno about that.

In my scheme, I actually adopted a conservative scheme in which I tried not to split off new races unless I couldn’t help it. I wanted some significant genetic distance between a group or ethny before I would split them off. Hence, I lumped most Europeans into a single race because there isn’t much genetic distance between them. I am wondering if the author has any genetic data to back up splitting many of these groups into different races, because I only split based on hard genetic data.

At the end, I think we have two different schemes here. One is dividing races based on hard genetics and the other is splitting racers and also ethnies on the basis of partly genetics but also subjective factors. On the other hand, there probably is not much genetic data on the various different Mexican mestizos and Whites.

All in all, a very commendable piece, the fruit of long research. By the way, the photos are excellent. Make sure to check them out.

1825: When the US South Was Not Yet White

Repost from the old site.
Most people take it as a given that the USA as a nation and society is and always has been basically White, even mostly British or Northern European White. We have only to look at the authors of the Constitution and signers of the Declaration of Independence to see that all of them where White. And as the Christian fundamentalists love to remind us, they were all “Christians” too. Too bad most of them were actually Deists.
It’s true since 1830 or so (see 1830 census figures Excel, pdf ), this has been a majority-White land, and that is the picture most people’s memory and cultural knowledge of this country gives them.
But Whites have only been here a short while, and we were immigrants, or actually invaders at first, ourselves. Previously, this land was inhabited 100% by Amerindians, a race close to Northeast Asians. Before this was even a nation, huge numbers of Black slaves were imported to this land, such that most Black lineages in the US go back farther than most White lineages.
In California and the Southwest, we have even had Hispanics (almost all Mexicans) living here before those states were even a part of the US. A Filipino was part of the party that founded Los Angeles before California was even a state. He got sick in Baja and ended up staying there, but he was still present on the voyage. See below where many more Filipinos were already in this country even before 1781.
On the eve of the Gold Rush, there were a mere 1,000 Chinese in the US. Only seven of them were in California. But within a year of becoming a state, California was full of East Indians (Hindoos), Samoans/Hawaiians, Mexicans and other Pacific Islanders (Kanakas) and Chinese, all come for the Gold Rush.
By 1852, there were 25,000 Chinese alone in California. All of these groups stayed on through the whole decades-long Gold Rush and afterwards remained here as residents in the US.
So are West Africans, as this is where many of the American slaves came from. There was a Filipino settlement in St. Malo, Louisiana, in 1763, before the US was even formed. The first Chinese immigrants came to the US in 1820, but before the Gold Rush, only 1,000 or so had arrived.
Japanese and Filipinos have been present in Hawaii in large numbers since 1890, and Koreans have been present in much smaller numbers there from 1896. Hawaii was only made into a state in 1959. Cubans have also been here a very long time. Hundreds of Cubans came to St. Augustine, Florida in 1565, over 200 years before there was a USA.
Similarly, the first Jamaicans (a party of 20) in America were already in Jamestown, the first White British colony in the US, by 1619. Further, many Jamaicans were included in slave shipments to the US since Jamaica was a way station along the way between Africa and the US.
Significant numbers – two large ships full of Chilean and Peruvian miners were in California for the Gold Rush as early as 1848. A couple of thousand Brazilian and Caribbean Blacks also came for the Gold Rush. Note that California did not become a state until 1850.
Pakistanis (people from what later became Pakistan) were in the US since the 1700’s and continuing into the 1800’s in Oregon and Washington, working in agriculture, logging and mining in California. The first known East Indian Hindu came to the US in 1790, soon after the Declaration of Independence, as a maritime worker.
Mexicans, Samoans, Blacks, Cubans, East Indians, Pakistanis, Chileans, Peruvians, Filipinos, American Indians, Canadians, Japanese, West Africans, Hawaiians, Japanese, Koreans and Chinese have been here in significant, not trivial, numbers, from the very start.
They are not, as groups, wholly immigrants or foreigners to this land. They are not foreign to American culture – they are part of the very building blocks of it. Perhaps Germany, Russia, Sweden, France and most of Europe can lay claim to being predominantly White countries for centuries or millenia, but the US cannot.
On the inside back cover of a recent issue of American Heritage Magazine was a painting of the Antediluvian American South with some text below. The text took me aback. I shook my head and read it again and again and it’s stuck in my head ever since.
It said that in 1825, the US South1 was estimated to be 37% Black (almost all slaves), 25% American Indian2, and only 38% was White3. Neither the Blacks nor the Indians could vote and none were citizens until the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, but so what.
Both the US South, and the nation as a whole, were already White-minority as early as 35 years after signing of the Constitution. Take that, “White America” fools!
The White America of movies, TV, magazines, books and memories was just a temporary mirage, a ship passing in the night.
Now, as the USA moves back to becoming a White-minority land, we are not changing the basic nature, culture and essence of this nation. We just reverting to our roots.
I am not arguing for unlimited immigration to this land (In fact, I want to seriously limit it) and I am a staunch opponent of illegal immigration. Nevertheless, it angers me when White Nationalists act like this is some kind of a “White country”.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
1I misremembered the text in the issue – it referred to the US South only, not the US as a whole. A look at the US Census Bureau information (Excel file here, pdf here) clears up the mystery. A 37% Black figure is apparent for Blacks in the US South.
The 25% Indian figure quoted was obviously for Amerindians in the South. Therefore, the article claimed that Whites were 38%, Blacks 37%, and Indians 25% in the US South in 1825.
Figures for the whole of the US reveal a White majority, however, if we include the Amerindians living in the Louisiana Purchase at that time (recently part of the US in 1825), we can still make a case for a non-White majority in the US. See note 3 below for more on that.
2There were numerically small numbers of Filipinos, Chinese, Mexicans, pre-Pakistanis (people from the land that would later become Pakistan), East Indians and Cubans here in 1825, but they probably added up to less than 1% of the population.
3The American Heritage figures quoted have now been called into question (see comments at the end of this post and the comments at the end of the frankly White racist American Renaissance article that linked this piece); the suggestion is that Blacks made up 19% of the US at the time, and Whites made up the rest.
The mystery is cleared up in note 1, where the magazine text referred to only the US South, not the US as a whole.
Indians were not counted in either the 1820 or 1830 censuses, and may have numbered 8 million in the US at the time (recall that the Louisiana Purchase had just been added to the nation).
Figure 12 million Indians in the US and Canada pre-contact, with 90% of those in the US (compare US and Canadian populations now for a 9-1 disparity in US versus Canadian population – a similar distribution was probably extant pre-contact). Assume 2 million Indians gone from the original population by 1825, mostly East of the Mississippi, and 2 million living in New Spain and the Oregon Territory.
This leaves us with 7 million Indians in the US in 1825. Further, runaway slaves were clearly not counted, probably 10% of the Black population. Figuring 7 million Indians, 9.2 million Whites and 2.5 million Blacks in 1825 still leaves us with a bare minority-White population in the US. The US was probably non-White majority from 1803-1825. By 1830, Whites were the majority entire nation, and have remained so ever since.

Who Were the First Residents of Los Angeles?

Repost from the old site.
In our never-ending attempt to fight ignorance and stupidity everywhere it shows its ugly head, we will examine the question of the racial makeup of the Californios, the original Mexican settlers in California. Later on, we will look at the racial makeup of the first settlers of LA, along the same lines.
First of all, let us demolish a particularly obnoxious form of Chicano nationalist crap: the Aztlan lie, perpetuated by radical racist Chicano nationalist idiots like this, this and this. According to this mountain of leftwing ultranationalist racist manure, Mexicans, otherwise known as Aztecs, are the true owners of a place called Aztlan, encompassing much of the southwestern United States.
These folks are upset because we fought a nasty war in which we invaded Mexico and stole part of their country. However, most of the Mexicans in California at the time (the 7,000 Californios) hated Mexico so much that they welcomed the Americans who started this immoral war. After all, the Californios had waged their own unsuccessful secessionist war not long before, a war savagely put down by the Mexican government.
However, the Aztlan BS lies on a steaming heap of lies of its own. For the Mexicans themselves stole “Aztlan” from the very Native Americans who they claim to represent! Holy hypocrisies, Batman! Yes, the Native Americans, not the Native Mexicans, were the original owners of this land.
I have worked extensively with Native Californians and their opinion of Mexicans and Mexico is not extremely high. I am sure they would be furious with the notion that this land really belongs to Mexico. They are still smarting over being taken over by the Americans.
So let us see now. Spain conquered Anahuac (the stupid name Chicano nationalists give to their fake country) in the 1500’s. Spain also conquered “Aztlan” right around this time, though they pretty much left “Aztlan” alone. In 1821, Mexico won its independence from Spain in an anti-colonial war.
Mexico then assumed imperialist domination over the Native Californians, herding them into missions which frankly resulted in the genocide (in terms of destruction of a people) of many Native California tribes, especially those on the coast.
The Indians were captured by force by these “charming Mexicans”, herded into missions against their will (a process that had really reached its peak under Colonized Mexico), where they were worked very hard and mixed in with so many other tribes that their languages and cultures were wiped out in the attempt at Catholic conversion. Running away from the mission was punished by whippings, beatings and imprisonments.
The death rate was high in the missions, mostly due to diseases. There were repeated Indian uprisings at these missions against their wonderful Mexican overlords. These usually ended unsuccessfully, but in a few cases, some priests were killed. Leaders of uprisings were typically executed by priests.
The Indians on the coast of California were particularly devastated by missionization. In many cases, we have few or no records of some of these languages since they disappeared as early as the early 1800’s.
So in all their endless bitching about White invaders coming from Europe and genociding the Indians (largely true to some extent) Mexicans themselves, both colonized and independent, invaded “Aztlan”, stole the land from Native Americans, and committed a variety of crimes against the natives.
So, Aztlan doesn’t really belong to Mexico – it belongs to Native Americans. But since they have been integrated into the US peacefully, it goes by default to the US.
As if the notion of Aztlan were not lunatic enough, not to mention the BS called Anahuac . Anahuac is the name given to the Valley of Mexico, where Mexico City is now located, by the arriving Aztecs.
The conflation of the Aztec Mexico City place-name of Anahuac by Chicano nationalists into the name for the whole continent of the Americas is extremely ethnocentric and is likely to fly well with few, if any, other (non-Aztec) Native Americans. Further, it is a frankly racist notion in and of itself. Chicano nationalists, being partly of Mexican Indian blood, claim Aztlan in the US for (partly) Mexican Indians, of all people!
Outrageous or what? And on what do they base this claim of sovereignty of (part) Mexican Indians over Native Americans?
Because, supposedly, according to some crazy Aztec myths, the Aztecs came from a land far to the north before they settled down by Mexico City. However, this is actually a misreading or deliberate propagandistic distortion of those myths, which actually refer to Aztlan as a land to East of Mexico, across a great sea, an island, to be precise.
Clearly, this story is just that, a crazy myth with no basis in reality. Yet Raza propagandists have either ignorantly or malevolently twisted this myth of an island across a sea into a myth of a “homeland to the north”.
This silliness rests on still more nonsense, mostly that all (part) Mexican Indians are actually Aztecs! In fact, the Aztecs were simply one large tribe (at this point a large collection of tribes who can no longer be considered one people) who had conquered, in Genghis Khan viciousness, many of the surrounding tribes.
They were hated by almost all tribes that were familiar with them as basically a Mexican version of Nazis, they were savage, vicious, cruel and brutal, they practiced horrible human sacrifices, and they either tried to Final-Solution or actually Final-Solutioned many other tribes. In short, they were a bunch of bastards, and their principal pastime was Final-Solutioning surrounding “Mexicas”.
Somehow, radical Chicano nationalists have decided that all Chicanos are really Aztecs! How the Hell do they know? Check out this page: there are 289 living Indian languages in Mexico. Granted, 28 of those languages are varieties of Aztec. But that makes 28 different tribes of Aztecs.
That’s 261 separate non-Aztec tribes if you will. Add in another (at least) five non-Aztec tongues that have gone extinct since Cortes landed in 1519 to get 265.
Out of 289 separate tribes, how do these idiots assume that all Mexicans are really members of the 28 Aztec groupings amongst the 289? Based on what evidence?! It’s as stupid as saying that all Native Americans are really Navajos.
Now, maybe the Aztecs really did have a homeland to the north and maybe they did not. Linguists and historians are unsure about this, and this “highly advanced tribe” called Aztecs, had not yet figured out, by the late date of 1519, a coherent way of writing stuff down, when Europeans, Middle Easterners and Asians had been doing so for centuries.
This same tribe of super-people had also not figured out bronze age metallurgy, which many cultures around the world had accomplished centuries or millenia before.
According to legend, Aztecs came from somewhere to the north around the year 830. Various suggestions for this Aztec homeland have been put forward, all the way from Wisconsin to the middle of Mexico.
The idiot Chicano nationalist claim to Aztlan is based on a misreading of the homeland of all of the Uto-Aztecan people (the Aztec tongues are all part of a large language family called Uto-Aztecan, which contains many non-Aztec tongues). But Uto-Aztecan is a huge language family that may be 5,000 years old . The homeland of the Uto-Aztecans was probably in southern Arizona.
But that does not mean that that is where the homeland of the Aztecs was, anymore than saying the homeland of the Germans (Germany) is the same as the homeland of the Indo-Europeans (Southern Ukraine). Somewhere around southern Arizona about 5,000 years ago, the proto-Uto-Aztecan split into Northern and Southern groupings.
But after that, there were a variety of splits inside of Southern Uto-Aztecan. As you can see, this theory just gets dumber and dumber. Proto-Aztecan itself did not even come into being until 600 AD, before which where was no such thing as the Aztecs.
Furthermore, the builders of Tenochtitlan built the city between 2100 and 1400 years ago. In 600 AD, it was destroyed. It appears that the builders of Tenochtitlan, then, were not even Aztecs, but instead were some other group.
Since the beginnings of the Aztec languages coincide with the appearance of a new group, described as Aztecan, and the destruction of the Tenochtitlan civilization, it appears that the Aztecs were not the builders of those pyramids but the destroyers of them!
And so what if Aztecs used to live in Arizona or wherever centuries before 1519?
We now accept that virtually no Indian tribe in the US was always in the spot where they were contacted, from the time of settlement from Asia to contact. We have been able to plot many migrations of Indian tribes pre-contact. It’s clear that they moved around, conquered, enslaved and genocided each other, practiced cannibalism on their enemies, (and were victims of all the above) and did all the things that tribes normally do.
Point is, giving “Aztecs” a bunch of Native American land in the Southwest because they “used to live there centuries ago but left” makes about as much sense as the Zionism that these La Raza morons despise so much, often to outrageously anti-Semitic degrees (see here for a sample, or, really, most anything on La Voz de Aztlan).
Now that we have demolished a few of these La Raza ethnic nationalist dung piles, let us move on to one of another of their cherished myths – that the original Californios were Mexican Indians.
Shall we start with a fascinating tidbit about the very first residents of Los Angeles ? Los Angeles was founded by a group of settlers from a place called New Spain on September 4, 1781, soon after the US Declaration of Independence. Here is a map of New Spain. Does New Spain (its jarring yet powerful flag is here ) mean the same thing as “Mexico”, not to mention “Aztec”? Of course not.
It included the entire Western US, a good part of the Midwest, all of Florida, Louisiana, the Gulf Coast, (yes) Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Trinidad, Cayman Islands, the Mariana Islands and even the Philippines.
The best evidence is that the original settlers to LA came overland from Mexico. For a long time the Spanish government had been trying to get Spaniards to go to California, but hardly any of them wanted to go.
The first settlers were regarded by a local priest as “the dregs”, similar to the first settlers of Australia. It seems they were escaping something. Quite a few were criminals or fugitives. 2/3 of them were Mestizo or Mulatto. So much for “Aztlan”! Some even came from the Philippines (via Mexico). Do Blacks, Mulattos and Filipinos all get to carve out a chunk of “Aztlan” for themselves?
Here is the actual rundown, incredibly, from a Chicano nationalist website:
Jose de Lara, 50, a Spaniard from Spain (evil White man), with an Indian wife and three (1/2 White, 1/2 Indian) mestizo children
Basilio Rosas, 68, an Indian from Durango, Mexico, with a mulattress wife and six (1/2 Indian, 1/4 Black, 1/4 White) children
Antonio Mesa, 38, a Negro from Sinaloa, Mexico, with a mulattress wife and five mulatto (3/4 Black, 1/4 White) children
Antonio F. Felix Villavicencio, 30, a Spaniard (evil White man) from Chihuahua, Mexico, born in Mexico with an Indian wife and one (1/2 White, 1/2 Indian) mestizo child
Jose Vanegas, 28, an Indian from Jalisco, Mexico, [Los Angeles’ first ‘alcalde’ or mayor], with an Indian wife and one pure Indian child
Alejandro Rosas, 25, an Indian from Sinaloa, Mexico, with an Indian wife
Pablo Rodriguez, 25, an Indian from Sinaloa, Mexico,, with an Indian wife and a pure Indian child
Manuel Camero, 30, a mulatto from Nayarit, Mexico, with a mulattress wife
Luis Quintero, 55, a Negro from Jalisco, Mexico, with a mulattress wife and five (3/4 Black, 1/4 White) mulatto children
Jose Moreno, 22, a mulatto from Sinaloa, Mexico, with a mulattress wife
Jose Rosas , 67, an Indian from Durango, Mexico and his mulattress wife and six (1/2 Indian, 1/4 White, 1/4 Black) or Coyota children
*A Filipino, Antonio Rodriguez, from Manila, Philippines, and his 11 yr old daughter were among the original group that set out to settle Los Angeles. They got sick in Baja California of smallpox and stayed there until they got better. When he got to Alta California, it was discovered that he was a good gunsmith and he was ordered to Santa Barbara Presidio to be an armorer.
There were:
14 mulattoes
12 Indians
9 Spanish-Negro-Indians
8 Negro-Indian Zambos
5 Spanish-Indian mestizos
2 Whites
2 Blacks
34 were at least partly Indian
33 were at least partly Black
29 were at least partly White
The Indians were clearly Mexican Indians; many early settlers to Los Angeles came from poverty-stricken Sinaloa in Mexico. Sinaloans, pre-contact, were not Aztecs.
Look at the above – one could hardly find a more mixed group of people. It’s Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition 200 years in the past. Does that look like a bunch of Aztecs from “Anahuac” to you? Of course not.
Idiots.
Let’s look at something else. Exactly what percentage of Mexicans were living in Alta California, which Mexican invaders, recall, stole from Native Californians? A whopping .1% of the Mexican population was living in “Alta California” in 1846 – only a pitiful 7,000 of the entire Mexican population were Californios, mostly members of 800 families.
White Americans made up 1,300 of the population and Europeans (both evil Whiteys, who La Raza claims has no right to be in Aztlan) were 500. Going by adult males, the Whites and Europeans, who were concentrated from about Monterey to Sacramento, were about equal in population to the Californios.
Here is a photo of a famous Mexican officer who led a war against local California Indians in 1828-1829. He looks about as “Indian” as I do. So much for the “Aztecs” of “Aztlan”.
Also, if the evil White European conquerors were so diabolical and all, why does the Raza not only speak the language of these evil White conquerors, but why also have they adopted much of the culture and religion of these hated genocidal folks? Not only do they speak this “evil language”, they champion it to the point of demanding that it be an official language alongside English.
Along the same lines, see here for an excellent demolition of an apparent radical La Raza professor, Manuel Servin’s, allegation that the Californios,

as the study of California’s settlement shows, were not Spanish, but overwhelmingly mixed-bloods from Indian, Spanish, and also Negro stock.

Attacking the notion that “Hispanic” or “Chicano” (whatever those words mean) culture or people were largely or even partly “Spaniard” is one of the favorite pastimes of the La Raza ethnic nationalists. Why the obsession?
Probably because they hate Whitey and European culture so much, while glorifying Mexican Indian (But only Aztec!) culture so much, that the notion that “Spaniard” forms a large part of “Hispanic”, “Latino” and “Chicano” culture and/or DNA really ticks them off. It’s self-hatred plus denial, pure and simple.
Ralph Vigil does a good job of demolishing this nonsense. First of all, “Spaniard” itself is not any kind of pure White race; instead, for 700 years or so before 1519, Spain had undergone an incredible amount of race mixture.
In the New World, a mestizo born in wedlock was “criollo”, or Spaniard; one born out of wedlock was “Creole”. There was a lack of White women at first, so 1/8 Indian and 1/16 Black still qualified one as “White” or “Spaniard”.
So much for race!
So much for race indeed, even to the present day. A Mexican Indian leaves behind Indian ways and magically transforms into “mestizo”. A Guatemalan Indian drops Indian ways and starts dressing like a mestizo and automagically becomes “Ladino”. Neither without a drop of White Blood.
Back to Vigil:

In order to arrive at a better knowledge of the Hispanic heritage of the borderlands, one should perhaps always keep in mind that this heritage consists of a Spanish, Mexican, and regional Southwestern past, and that an extreme emphasis on any part of the Hispanic heritage, whether it be the “Spanish cult” or the “Mexican-Indian” past, makes for a distortion of borderlands history.

So neither “they were Spaniards” nor the La Raza fetishization of Mexican Indians explains the matter well.
Vigil concludes that the matter, like so many things, is complicated. It does not lend itself to simple explanations or La Raza propaganda soundbites:

In conclusion, the student of the history of the Spanish-speaking people of the Southwest encounters a civilization that in varying proportions has elements of Spanish, Indian, Mexican, and Anglo origin today.
Although these background influences are important for the analysis and evaluation of the formation of the people variously called Mexican, Mexican-American, Spanish, Spanish-American, Chicano, and other names, the difference between that which was Spanish, Mexican, and Southwestern or New Mexican in the colonial period can only be a matter of regional distinction within a similar general culture.
To claim, as Servín does, that Hispanos in New Mexico are not of Spanish stock or language or culture because of some race mixture over the centuries is to miss the importance of miscegenation completely. Vertical mobility existed socially and by the early nineteenth century, all those colonists in New Mexico not obviously Indian were Spaniards.
To claim otherwise is almost the same as stating that Spain ceased to be Spanish because of the Berber invasions, or that “Anglo-Americans” today are Indians because they eat corn, potatoes, and use tobacco.

I See Race-Denying Idiots

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