The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenters to FollowHide Excerpts
By Authors Filter?
Andrei Martyanov Andrew J. Bacevich Andrew Joyce Andrew Napolitano Boyd D. Cathey Brad Griffin C.J. Hopkins Chanda Chisala Eamonn Fingleton Eric Margolis Fred Reed Godfree Roberts Gustavo Arellano Ilana Mercer Israel Shamir James Kirkpatrick James Petras James Thompson Jared Taylor JayMan John Derbyshire John Pilger Jonathan Revusky Kevin MacDonald Linh Dinh Michael Hoffman Michael Hudson Mike Whitney Nathan Cofnas Norman Finkelstein Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Paul Gottfried Paul Kersey Peter Frost Peter Lee Philip Giraldi Philip Weiss Robert Weissberg Ron Paul Ron Unz Stephen J. Sniegoski The Saker Tom Engelhardt A. Graham Adam Hochschild Aedon Cassiel Ahmet Öncü Alexander Cockburn Alexander Hart Alfred McCoy Alison Rose Levy Alison Weir Anand Gopal Andre Damon Andrew Cockburn Andrew Fraser Andy Kroll Ann Jones Anonymous Anthony DiMaggio Ariel Dorfman Arlie Russell Hochschild Arno Develay Arnold Isaacs Artem Zagorodnov Astra Taylor Austen Layard Aviva Chomsky Ayman Fadel Barbara Ehrenreich Barbara Garson Barbara Myers Barry Lando Belle Chesler Beverly Gologorsky Bill Black Bill Moyers Bob Dreyfuss Bonnie Faulkner Brenton Sanderson Brett Redmayne-Titley Brian Dew Carl Horowitz Catherine Crump Charles Bausman Charles Goodhart Charles Wood Charlotteville Survivor Chase Madar Chris Hedges Chris Roberts Christian Appy Christopher DeGroot Chuck Spinney Coleen Rowley Cooper Sterling Craig Murray Dahr Jamail Dan E. Phillips Dan Sanchez Daniel McAdams Danny Sjursen Dave Kranzler Dave Lindorff David Barsamian David Bromwich David Chibo David Gordon David North David Vine David Walsh David William Pear Dean Baker Dennis Saffran Diana Johnstone Dilip Hiro Dirk Bezemer Ed Warner Edmund Connelly Eduardo Galeano Ellen Cantarow Ellen Packer Ellison Lodge Eric Draitser Eric Zuesse Erik Edstrom Erika Eichelberger Erin L. Thompson Eugene Girin F. Roger Devlin Franklin Lamb Frida Berrigan Friedrich Zauner Gabriel Black Gary Corseri Gary North Gary Younge Gene Tuttle George Albert George Bogdanich George Szamuely Georgianne Nienaber Glenn Greenwald Greg Grandin Greg Johnson Gregoire Chamayou Gregory Foster Gregory Hood Gregory Wilpert Guest Admin Hannah Appel Hans-Hermann Hoppe Harri Honkanen Henry Cockburn Hina Shamsi Howard Zinn Hubert Collins Hugh McInnish Ira Chernus Jack Kerwick Jack Rasmus Jack Ravenwood Jack Sen James Bovard James Carroll James Fulford Jane Lazarre Jared S. Baumeister Jason C. Ditz Jason Kessler Jay Stanley Jeff J. Brown Jeffrey Blankfort Jeffrey St. Clair Jen Marlowe Jeremiah Goulka Jeremy Cooper Jesse Mossman Jim Daniel Jim Kavanagh JoAnn Wypijewski Joe Lauria Johannes Wahlstrom John W. Dower John Feffer John Fund John Harrison Sims John Reid John Stauber John Taylor John V. Walsh John Williams Jon Else Jonathan Alan King Jonathan Anomaly Jonathan Rooper Jonathan Schell Joseph Kishore Juan Cole Judith Coburn K.R. Bolton Karel Van Wolferen Karen Greenberg Kelley Vlahos Kersasp D. Shekhdar Kevin Barrett Kevin Zeese Kshama Sawant Lance Welton Laura Gottesdiener Laura Poitras Laurent Guyénot Lawrence G. Proulx Leo Hohmann Linda Preston Logical Meme Lorraine Barlett M.G. Miles Mac Deford Maidhc O Cathail Malcolm Unwell Marcus Alethia Marcus Cicero Margaret Flowers Mark Danner Mark Engler Mark Perry Matt Parrott Mattea Kramer Matthew Harwood Matthew Richer Matthew Stevenson Max Blumenthal Max Denken Max North Maya Schenwar Michael Gould-Wartofsky Michael Schwartz Michael T. Klare Murray Polner Nan Levinson Naomi Oreskes Nate Terani Ned Stark Nelson Rosit Nicholas Stix Nick Kollerstrom Nick Turse Noam Chomsky Nomi Prins Patrick Cleburne Patrick Cloutier Paul Cochrane Paul Engler Paul Nachman Paul Nehlen Pepe Escobar Peter Brimelow Peter Gemma Peter Van Buren Pierre M. Sprey Pratap Chatterjee Publius Decius Mus Rajan Menon Ralph Nader Ramin Mazaheri Ramziya Zaripova Randy Shields Ray McGovern Razib Khan Rebecca Gordon Rebecca Solnit Richard Krushnic Richard Silverstein Rick Shenkman Rita Rozhkova Robert Baxter Robert Bonomo Robert Fisk Robert Lipsyte Robert Parry Robert Roth Robert S. Griffin Robert Scheer Robert Trivers Robin Eastman Abaya Roger Dooghy Ronald N. Neff Rory Fanning Sam Francis Sam Husseini Sayed Hasan Sharmini Peries Sheldon Richman Spencer Davenport Spencer Quinn Stefan Karganovic Steffen A. Woll Stephanie Savell Stephen J. Rossi Steve Fraser Steven Yates Sydney Schanberg Tanya Golash-Boza Ted Rall Theodore A. Postol Thierry Meyssan Thomas Frank Thomas O. Meehan Tim Shorrock Tim Weiner Tobias Langdon Todd E. Pierce Todd Gitlin Todd Miller Tom Piatak Tom Suarez Tom Sunic Tracy Rosenberg Virginia Dare Vladimir Brovkin Vox Day W. Patrick Lang Walter Block William Binney William DeBuys William Hartung William J. Astore Winslow T. Wheeler Ximena Ortiz Yan Shen
Nothing found
By Topics/Categories Filter?
2016 Election 9/11 Academia AIPAC Alt Right American Media American Military American Pravda Anti-Semitism Benjamin Netanyahu Blacks Britain China Conservative Movement Conspiracy Theories Deep State Donald Trump Economics Foreign Policy Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration IQ Iran ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jews Middle East Neocons Political Correctness Race/IQ Race/Ethnicity Republicans Russia Science Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin World War II 1971 War 2008 Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 23andMe 70th Anniversary Parade 75-0-25 Or Something A Farewell To Alms A. J. West A Troublesome Inheritance Aarab Barghouti Abc News Abdelhamid Abaaoud Abe Abe Foxman Abigail Marsh Abortion Abraham Lincoln Abu Ghraib Abu Zubaydah Academy Awards Acheivement Gap Acid Attacks Adam Schiff Addiction Adoptees Adoption Adoption Twins ADRA2b AEI Affective Empathy Affirmative Action Affordable Family Formation Afghanistan Africa African Americans African Genetics Africans Afrikaner Afrocentricism Agriculture Aha AIDS Ain't Nobody Got Time For That. Ainu Aircraft Carriers AirSea Battle Al Jazeera Al-Qaeda Alan Dershowitz Alan Macfarlane Albania Alberto Del Rosario Albion's Seed Alcohol Alcoholism Alexander Hamilton Alexandre Skirda Alexis De Tocqueville Algeria All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable All Traits Are Heritable Alpha Centauri Alpha Males Alt Left Altruism Amazon.com America The Beautiful American Atheists American Debt American Exceptionalism American Flag American Jews American Left American Legion American Nations American Nations American Prisons American Renaissance Americana Amerindians Amish Amish Quotient Amnesty Amnesty International Amoral Familialism Amy Chua Amygdala An Hbd Liberal Anaconda Anatoly Karlin Ancestry Ancient DNA Ancient Genetics Ancient Jews Ancient Near East Anders Breivik Andrei Nekrasov Andrew Jackson Androids Angela Stent Angelina Jolie Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anne Buchanan Anne Heche Annual Country Reports On Terrorism Anthropology Antibiotics Antifa Antiquity Antiracism Antisocial Behavior Antiwar Movement Antonin Scalia Antonio Trillanes IV Anywhere But Here Apartheid Appalachia Appalachians Arab Christianity Arab Spring Arabs Archaic DNA Archaic Humans Arctic Humans Arctic Resources Argentina Argentina Default Armenians Army-McCarthy Hearings Arnon Milchan Art Arthur Jensen Artificial Intelligence As-Safir Ash Carter Ashkenazi Intelligence Ashkenazi Jews Ashraf Ghani Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians ASPM Assassinations Assimilation Assortative Mating Atheism Atlantic Council Attractiveness Attractiveness Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Austro-Hungarian Empire Austronesians Autism Automation Avi Tuschman Avigdor Lieberman Ayodhhya Babri Masjid Baby Boom Baby Gap Baby Girl Jay Backlash Bacterial Vaginosis Bad Science Bahrain Balanced Polymorphism Balkans Baltimore Riots Bangladesh Banking Banking Industry Banking System Banks Barack H. Obama Barack Obama Barbara Comstock Bariatric Surgery Baseball Bashar Al-Assad Baumeister BDA BDS Movement Beauty Beauty Standards Behavior Genetics Behavioral Genetics Behaviorism Beijing Belgrade Embassy Bombing Believeing In Observational Studies Is Nuts Ben Cardin Ben Carson Benghazi Benjamin Cardin Berlin Wall Bernard Henri-Levy Bernard Lewis Bernie Madoff Bernie Sanders Bernies Sanders Beta Males BICOM Big Five Bilingual Education Bill 59 Bill Clinton Bill Kristol Bill Maher Billionaires Billy Graham Birds Of A Feather Birth Order Birth Rate Bisexuality Bisexuals BJP Black Americans Black Crime Black History Black Lives Matter Black Metal Black Muslims Black Panthers Black Women Attractiveness Blackface Blade Runner Blogging Blond Hair Blue Eyes Bmi Boasian Anthropology Boderlanders Boeing Boers Boiling Off Boko Haram Bolshevik Revolution Books Border Reivers Borderlander Borderlanders Boris Johnson Bosnia Boston Bomb Boston Marathon Bombing Bowe Bergdahl Boycott Divest And Sanction Boycott Divestment And Sanctions Brain Brain Scans Brain Size Brain Structure Brazil Breaking Down The Bullshit Breeder's Equation Bret Stephens Brexit Brian Boutwell Brian Resnick BRICs Brighter Brains Brighton Broken Hill Brown Eyes Bruce Jenner Bruce Lahn brussels Bryan Caplan BS Bundy Family Burakumin Burma Bush Administration C-section Cagots Caitlyn Jenner California Cambodia Cameron Russell Campaign Finance Campaign For Liberty Campus Rape Canada Canada Day Canadian Flag Canadians Cancer Candida Albicans Cannabis Capital Punishment Capitalism Captain Chicken Cardiovascular Disease Care Package Carl Sagan Carly Fiorina Caroline Glick Carroll Quigley Carry Me Back To Ole Virginny Carter Page Castes Catalonia Catholic Church Catholicism Catholics Causation Cavaliers CCTV Censorship Central Asia Chanda Chisala Charles Darwin Charles Krauthammer Charles Murray Charles Schumer Charleston Shooting Charlie Hebdo Charlie Rose Charlottesville Chechens Chechnya Cherlie Hebdo Child Abuse Child Labor Children Chimerism China/America China Stock Market Meltdown China Vietnam Chinese Chinese Communist Party Chinese Evolution Chinese Exclusion Act Chlamydia Chris Gown Chris Rock Chris Stringer Christian Fundamentalism Christianity Christmas Christopher Steele Chuck Chuck Hagel Chuck Schumer CIA Cinema Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Civilian Deaths CJIA Clannishness Clans Clark-unz Selection Classical Economics Classical History Claude-Lévi-Strauss Climate Climate Change Clinton Global Initiative Cliodynamics Cloudburst Flight Clovis Cochran And Harpending Coefficient Of Relationship Cognitive Empathy Cognitive Psychology Cohorts Cold War Colin Kaepernick Colin Woodard Colombia Colonialism Colonists Coming Apart Comments Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conflict Of Interest Congress Consanguinity Conscientiousness Consequences Conservatism Conservatives Constitution Constitutional Theory Consumer Debt Cornel West Corporal Punishment Correlation Is Still Not Causation Corruption Corruption Perception Index Costa Concordia Cousin Marriage Cover Story CPEC Craniometry CRIF Crime Crimea Criminality Crowded Crowding Cruise Missiles Cuba Cuban Missile Crisis Cuckold Envy Cuckservative Cultural Evolution Cultural Marxism Cut The Sh*t Guys DACA Dads Vs Cads Daily Mail Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Dalliard Dalton Trumbo Damascus Bombing Dan Freedman Dana Milbank Daniel Callahan Danish Daren Acemoglu Dark Ages Dark Tetrad Dark Triad Darwinism Data Posts David Brooks David Friedman David Frum David Goldenberg David Hackett Fischer David Ignatius David Katz David Kramer David Lane David Petraeus Davide Piffer Davos Death Death Penalty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Debt Declaration Of Universal Human Rights Deep Sleep Deep South Democracy Democratic Party Democrats Demographic Transition Demographics Demography Denisovans Denmark Dennis Ross Depression Deprivation Deregulation Derek Harvey Desired Family Size Detroit Development Developmental Noise Developmental Stability Diabetes Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders Dialects Dick Cheney Die Nibelungen Dienekes Diet Different Peoples Is Different Dinesh D'Souza Dirty Bomb Discrimination Discrimination Paradigm Disney Dissent Diversity Dixie Django Unchained Do You Really Want To Know? Doing My Part Doll Tests Dollar Domestic Terrorism Dominique Strauss-Kahn Dopamine Douglas MacArthur Dr James Thompson Drd4 Dreams From My Father Dresden Drew Barrymore Dreyfus Affair Drinking Drone War Drones Drug Cartels Drugs Dry Counties DSM Dunning-kruger Effect Dusk In Autumn Dustin Hoffman Duterte Dylan Roof Dylann Roof Dysgenic E.O. 9066 E. O. Wilson Eagleman East Asia East Asians Eastern Europe Eastern Europeans Ebola Economic Development Economic Sanctions Economy Ed Miller Education Edward Price Edward Snowden EEA Egypt Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Electric Cars Elie Wiesel Eliot Cohen Eliot Engel Elites Ellen Walker Elliot Abrams Elliot Rodger Elliott Abrams Elon Musk Emigration Emil Kirkegaard Emmanuel Macron Emmanuel Todd Empathy England English Civil War Enhanced Interrogations Enoch Powell Entrepreneurship Environment Environmental Estrogens Environmentalism Erdogan Eric Cantor Espionage Estrogen Ethiopia Ethnic Genetic Interests Ethnic Nepotism Ethnicity EU Eugenic Eugenics Eurasia Europe European Right European Union Europeans Eurozone Everything Evil Evolution Evolutionary Biology Evolutionary Psychology Exercise Extraversion Extreterrestrials Eye Color Eyes Ezra Cohen-Watnick Face Recognition Face Shape Faces Facts Fake News fallout Family Studies Far West Farmers Farming Fascism Fat Head Fat Shaming Father Absence FBI Federal Reserve Female Deference Female Homosexuality Female Sexual Response Feminism Feminists Ferguson Shooting Fertility Fertility Fertility Rates Fethullah Gulen Fetish Feuds Fields Medals FIFA Fifty Shades Of Grey Film Finance Financial Bailout Financial Bubbles Financial Debt Financial Sector Financial Times Finland First Amendment First Law First World War FISA Fitness Flags Flight From White Fluctuating Asymmetry Flynn Effect Food Football For Profit Schools Foreign Service Fourth Of July Fracking Fragrances France Francesco Schettino Frank Salter Frankfurt School Frantz Fanon Franz Boas Fred Hiatt Fred Reed Freddie Gray Frederic Hof Free Speech Free Trade Free Will Freedom Of Navigation Freedom Of Speech French Canadians French National Front French Paradox Friendly & Conventional Front National Frost-harpending Selection Fulford Funny G G Spot Gaddafi Gallipoli Game Gardnerella Vaginalis Gary Taubes Gay Germ Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Gaza Flotilla Gcta Gender Gender Gender And Sexuality Gender Confusion Gender Equality Gender Identity Disorder Gender Reassignment Gene-Culture Coevolution Gene-environment Correlation General Intelligence General Social Survey General Theory Of The West Genes Genes: They Matter Bitches Genetic Diversity Genetic Divides Genetic Engineering Genetic Load Genetic Pacification Genetics Genetics Of Height Genocide Genomics Geography Geopolitics George Bush George Clooney George Patton George Romero George Soros George Tenet George W. Bush George Wallace Germ Theory German Catholics Germans Germany Get It Right Get Real Ghouta Gilgit Baltistan Gina Haspel Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Global Terrorism Index Global Warming Globalism Globalization God Delusion Goetsu Going Too Far Gold Gold Warriors Goldman Sachs Good Advice Google Gordon Gallup Goths Government Debt Government Incompetence Government Spending Government Surveillance Great Depression Great Leap Forward Great Recession Greater Appalachia Greece Greeks Greg Clark Greg Cochran Gregory B Christainsen Gregory Clark Gregory Cochran Gregory House GRF Grooming Group Intelligence Group Selection Grumpy Cat GSS Guangzhou Guantanamo Guardian Guilt Culture Gun Control Guns Gynephilia Gypsies H-1B H Bomb H.R. McMaster H1-B Visas Haim Saban Hair Color Hair Lengthening Haiti Hajnal Line Hamas Hamilton: An American Musical Hamilton's Rule Happiness Happy Turkey Day ... Unless You're The Turkey Harriet Tubman Harry Jaffa Harvard Harvey Weinstein Hasbara Hassidim Hate Crimes Hate Speech Hatemi Havelock Ellis Haymarket Affair Hbd Hbd Chick HBD Denial Hbd Fallout Hbd Readers Head Size Health And Medicine Health Care Healthcare Heart Disease Heart Health Heart Of Asia Conference Heartiste Heather Norton Height Helmuth Nyborg Hemoglobin Henri De Man Henry Harpending Henry Kissinger Herbert John Fleure Heredity Heritability Hexaco Hezbollah High Iq Fertility Hip Hop Hiroshima Hispanic Crime Hispanic Paradox Hispanics Historical Genetics Hitler HKND Hollywood Holocaust Homicide Homicide Rate Homo Altaiensis Homophobia Homosexuality Honesty-humility House Intelligence Committee House M.d. House Md House Of Cards Housing Huey Long Huey Newton Hugo Chavez Human Biodiversity Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genomics Human Nature Human Rights Human Varieties Humor Hungary Hunter-Gatherers Hunting Hurricane Hurricane Harvey I.F. Stone I Kissed A Girl And I Liked It I Love Italians I.Q. Genomics Ian Deary Ibd Ibo Ice T Iceland I'd Like To Think It's Obvious I Know What I'm Talking About Ideology And Worldview Idiocracy Igbo Ignorance Ilana Mercer Illegal Immigration IMF immigrants Immigration Imperial Presidency Imperialism Imran Awan In The Electric Mist Inbreeding Income Independence Day India Indians Individualism Inequality Infection Theory Infidelity Intelligence Internet Internet Research Agency Interracial Marriage Inuit Ioannidis Ioannis Metaxas Iosif Lazaridis Iq Iq And Wealth Iran Nuclear Agreement Iran Nuclear Program Iran Sanctions Iranian Nuclear Program Iraq Iraq War Ireland Irish ISIS. Terrorism Islamic Jihad Islamophobia Isolationism Israel Defense Force Israeli Occupation Israeli Settlements Israeli Spying Italianthro Italy It's Determinism - Genetics Is Just A Part It's Not Nature And Nurture Ivanka Ivy League Iwo Eleru J. Edgar Hoover Jack Keane Jake Tapper JAM-GC Jamaica James Clapper James Comey James Fanell James Mattis James Wooley Jamie Foxx Jane Harman Jane Mayer Janet Yellen Japan Japanese Jared Diamond Jared Kushner Jared Taylor Jason Malloy JASTA Jayman Jr. Jayman's Wife Jeff Bezos Jennifer Rubin Jensen Jeremy Corbyn Jerrold Nadler Jerry Seinfeld Jesse Bering Jesuits Jewish History JFK Assassination Jill Stein Jim Crow Joe Cirincione Joe Lieberman John Allen John B. Watson John Boehner John Bolton John Brennan John Derbyshire John Durant John F. Kennedy John Hawks John Hoffecker John Kasich John Kerry John Ladue John McCain John McLaughlin John McWhorter John Mearsheimer John Tooby Joke Posts Jonathan Freedland Jonathan Pollard Joseph Lieberman Joseph McCarthy Judaism Judicial System Judith Harris Julian Assange Jute K.d. Lang Kagans Kanazawa Kashmir Katibat Al-Battar Al-Libi Katy Perry Kay Hymowitz Keith Ellison Ken Livingstone Kenneth Marcus Kennewick Man Kevin MacDonald Kevin McCarthy Kevin Mitchell Kevin Williamson KGL-9268 Khazars Kim Jong Un Kimberly Noble Kin Altruism Kin Selection Kink Kinship Kissing Kiwis Kkk Knesset Know-nothings Korea Korean War Kosovo Ku Klux Klan Kurds Kurt Campbell Labor Day Lactose Lady Gaga Language Larkana Conspiracy Larry Summers Larung Gar Las Vegas Massacre Latin America Latinos Latitude Latvia Law Law Of War Manual Laws Of Behavioral Genetics Lead Poisoning Lebanon Leda Cosmides Lee Kuan Yew Left Coast Left/Right Lenin Leo Strauss Lesbians LGBT Liberal Creationism Liberalism Liberals Libertarianism Libertarians Libya life-expectancy Life In Space Life Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happyness Lifestyle Light Skin Preference Lindsay Graham Lindsey Graham Literacy Litvinenko Lloyd Blankfein Locus Of Control Logan's Run Lombok Strait Long Ass Posts Longevity Look AHEAD Looting Lorde Love Love Dolls Lover Boys Low-carb Low-fat Low Wages LRSO Lutherans Lyndon Johnson M Factor M.g. MacArthur Awards Machiavellianism Madeleine Albright Mahmoud Abbas Maine Malacca Strait Malaysian Airlines MH17 Male Homosexuality Mamasapano Mangan Manor Manorialism Manosphere Manufacturing Mao-a Mao Zedong Maoism Maori Map Posts maps Marc Faber Marco Rubio Marijuana Marine Le Pen Mark Carney Mark Steyn Mark Warner Market Economy Marriage Martin Luther King Marwan Marwan Barghouti Marxism Mary White Ovington Masha Gessen Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Mate Choice Mate Value Math Mathematics Maulana Bhashani Max Blumenthal Max Boot Max Brooks Mayans McCain/POW Mearsheimer-Walt Measurement Error Mega-Aggressions Mega-anlysis Megan Fox Megyn Kelly Melanin Memorial Day Mental Health Mental Illness Mental Traits Meritocracy Merkel Mesolithic Meta-analysis Meth Mexican-American War Mexico Michael Anton Michael Bloomberg Michael Flynn Michael Hudson Michael Jackson Michael Lewis Michael Morell Michael Pompeo Michael Weiss Michael Woodley Michele Bachmann Michelle Bachmann Michelle Obama Microaggressions Microcephalin Microsoft Middle Ages Mideastwire Migration Mike Huckabee Mike Pence Mike Pompeo Mike Signer Mikhail Khodorkovsky Militarized Police Military Military Pay Military Spending Milner Group Mindanao Minimum Wage Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Minorities Minstrels Mirror Neurons Miscellaneous Misdreavus Missile Defense Mitt Romney Mixed-Race Modern Humans Mohammed Bin Salman Moldova Monogamy Moral Absolutism Moral Universalism Morality Mormons Moro Mortality Mossad Mountains Movies Moxie Mrs. Jayman MTDNA Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Multiregional Model Music Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Mutual Assured Destruction My Lai My Old Kentucky Home Myanmar Mysticism Nagasaki Nancy Segal Narendra Modi Nascar National Debt National Differences National Review National Security State National Security Strategy National Wealth Nationalism Native Americans NATO Natural Selection Nature Vs. Nurture Navy Yard Shooting Naz Shah Nazi Nazis Nazism Nbc News Nbc Nightly News Neanderthals NED Neo-Nazis Neoconservatism Neoconservatives Neoliberalism Neolithic Netherlands Neuropolitics Neuroticism Never Forget The Genetic Confound New Addition New Atheists New Cold War New England Patriots New France New French New Netherland New Qing History New Rules New Silk Road New World Order New York City New York Times Newfoundland Newt Gingrich NFL Nicaragua Canal Nicholas Sarkozy Nicholas Wade Nigeria Nightly News Nikki Haley No Free Will Nobel Prize Nobel Prized Nobosuke Kishi Nordics North Africa North Korea Northern Ireland Northwest Europe Norway NSA NSA Surveillance Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Null Result Nurture Nurture Assumption Nutrition Nuts NYPD O Mio Babbino Caro Obama Obamacare Obesity Obscured American Occam's Razor Occupy Occupy Wall Street Oceania Oil Oil Industry Old Folks At Home Olfaction Oliver Stone Olympics Omega Males Ominous Signs Once You Go Black Open To Experience Openness To Experience Operational Sex Ratio Opiates Opioids Orban Organ Transplants Orlando Shooting Orthodoxy Osama Bin Laden Ottoman Empire Our Political Nature Out Of Africa Model Outbreeding Oxtr Oxytocin Paekchong Pakistan Pakistani Palatability Paleoamerindians Paleocons Paleolibertarianism Palestine Palestinians Pamela Geller Panama Canal Panama Papers Parasite Parasite Burden Parasite Manipulation Parent-child Interactions Parenting Parenting Parenting Behavioral Genetics Paris Attacks Paris Spring Parsi Paternal Investment Pathogens Patriot Act Patriotism Paul Ewald Paul Krugman Paul Lepage Paul Manafort Paul Ryan Paul Singer Paul Wolfowitz Pavel Grudinin Peace Index Peak Jobs Pearl Harbor Pedophilia Peers Peggy Seagrave Pennsylvania Pentagon Perception Management Personality Peru Peter Frost Peter Thiel Peter Turchin Phil Onderdonk Phil Rushton Philip Breedlove Philippines Physical Anthropology Pierre Van Den Berghe Pieter Van Ostaeyen Piigs Pioneer Hypothesis Pioneers PISA Pizzagate Planets Planned Parenthood Pledge Of Allegiance Pleiotropy Pol Pot Poland Police State Police Training Politics Poll Results Polls Polygenic Score Polygyny Pope Francis Population Growth Population Replacement Populism Pornography Portugal Post 199 Post 201 Post 99 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Post-Nationalism Pot Poverty PRC Prenatal Hormones Prescription Drugs Press Censorship Pretty Graphs Prince Bandar Priti Patel Privatization Progressives Project Plowshares Propaganda Prostitution Protestantism Proud To Be Black Psychology Psychometrics Psychopaths Psychopathy Pubertal Timing Public Schools Puerto Rico Punishment Puritans Putin Pwc Qatar Quakers Quantitative Genetics Quebec Quebecois Race Race And Crime Race And Genomics Race And Iq Race And Religion Race/Crime Race Denialism Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Rachel Maddow Racial Intelligence Racial Reality Racism Radical Islam Ralph And Coop Ralph Nader Rand Paul Randy Fine Rap Music Raqqa Rating People Rationality Raul Pedrozo Razib Khan Reaction Time Reading Real Estate Real Women Really Stop The Armchair Psychoanalysis Recep Tayyip Erdogan Reciprocal Altruism Reconstruction Red Hair Red State Blue State Red States Blue States Refugee Crisis Regional Differences Regional Populations Regression To The Mean Religion Religion Religion And Philosophy Rena Wing Renewable Energy Rentier Reprint Reproductive Strategy Republican Jesus Republican Party Responsibility Reuel Gerecht Reverend Moon Revolution Of 1905 Revolutions Rex Tillerson Richard Dawkins Richard Dyer Richard Lewontin Richard Lynn Richard Nixon Richard Pryor Richard Pryor Live On The Sunset Strip Richard Russell Rick Perry Rickets Rikishi Robert Ford Robert Kraft Robert Lindsay Robert McNamara Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Robert Plomin Robert Putnam Robert Reich Robert Spencer Robocop Robots Roe Vs. Wade Roger Ailes Rohingya Roman Empire Rome Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Rooshv Rosemary Hopcroft Ross Douthat Ross Perot Rotherham Roy Moore RT International Rupert Murdoch Rural Liberals Rushton Russell Kirk Russia-Georgia War Russiagate Russian Elections 2018 Russian Hack Russian History Russian Military Russian Orthodox Church Ruth Benedict Saakashvili Sam Harris Same Sex Attraction Same-sex Marriage Same-sex Parents Samoans Samuel George Morton San Bernadino Massacre Sandra Beleza Sandusky Sandy Hook Sarah Palin Sarin Gas Satoshi Kanazawa saudi Saudi Arabia Saying What You Have To Say Scandinavia Scandinavians Scarborough Shoal Schizophrenia Science: It Works Bitches Scientism Scotch-irish Scotland Scots Irish Scott Ritter Scrabble Secession Seduced By Food Semai Senate Separating The Truth From The Nonsense Serbia Serenity Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Skripal Sex Sex Ratio Sex Ratio At Birth Sex Recognition Sex Tape Sex Work Sexism Sexual Antagonistic Selection Sexual Dimorphism Sexual Division Of Labor Sexual Fluidity Sexual Identity Sexual Maturation Sexual Orientation Sexual Selection Sexually Transmitted Diseases Seymour Hersh Shai Masot Shame Culture Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Shanghai Stock Exchange Shared Environment Shekhovstov Sheldon Adelson Shias And Sunnis Shimon Arad Shimon Peres Shinzo Abe Shmuley Boteach Shorts And Funnies Shoshana Bryen Shurat HaDin Shyness Siamak Namazi Sibel Edmonds Siberia Silicon Valley Simon Baron Cohen Singapore Single Men Single Motherhood Single Mothers Single Women Sisyphean Six Day War SJWs Skin Bleaching Skin Color Skin Tone Slate Slave Trade Slavery Slavoj Zizek Slavs SLC24A5 Sleep Slobodan Milosevic Smart Fraction Smell Smoking Snow Snyderman Social Constructs Social Justice Warriors Socialism Sociopathy Sociosexuality Solar Energy Solutions Somalia Sometimes You Don't Like The Answer South Africa South Asia South China Sea South Korea South Sudan Southern Italians Southern Poverty Law Center Soviet Union Space Space Space Program Space Race Spain Spanish Paradox Speech SPLC Sports Sputnik News Squid Ink Srebrenica Stabby Somali Staffan Stalinism Stanislas Dehaene Star Trek State Department State Formation States Rights Statins Steny Hoyer Stephan Guyenet Stephen Cohen Stephen Colbert Stephen Hadley Stephen Jay Gould Sterling Seagrave Steve Bannon Steve Sailer Steven Mnuchin Steven Pinker Still Not Free Buddy Stolen Generations Strategic Affairs Ministry Stroke Belt Student Loans Stuxnet SU-57 Sub-replacement Fertility Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africans Subprime Mortgage Crisis Subsistence Living Suffrage Sugar Suicide Summing It All Up Supernatural Support Me Support The Jayman Supreme Court Supression Surveillance Susan Glasser Susan Rice Sweden Swiss Switzerland Syed Farook Syrian Refugees Syriza Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Tale Of Two Maps Taliban Tamerlan Tsarnaev TAS2R16 Tashfeen Malik Taste Tastiness Tatars Tatu Vanhanen Tawang Tax Cuts Tax Evasion Taxes Tea Party Team Performance Technology Ted Cruz Tell Me About You Tell The Truth Terman Terman's Termites Terroris Terrorists Tesla Testosterone Thailand The 10000 Year Explosion The Bible The Breeder's Equation The Confederacy The Dark Knight The Dark Triad The Death Penalty The Deep South The Devil Is In The Details The Dustbowl The Economist The Far West The Future The Great Plains The Great Wall The Left The Left Coast The New York Times The Pursuit Of Happyness The Rock The Saker The Son Also Rises The South The Walking Dead The Washington Post The Wide Environment The World Theodore Roosevelt Theresa May Things Going Sour Third World Thomas Aquinas Thomas Friedman Thomas Perez Thomas Sowell Thomas Talhelm Thorstein Veblen Thurgood Marshall Tibet Tidewater Tiger Mom Time Preference Timmons Title IX Tobin Tax Tom Cotton Tom Naughton Tone It Down Guys Seriously Tony Blair Torture Toxoplasma Gondii TPP Traffic Traffic Fatalities Tragedy Trans-Species Polymorphism Transgender Transgenderism Transsexuals Treasury Tropical Humans Trump Trust TTIP Tuition Tulsi Gabbard Turkheimer TWA 800 Twin Study Twins Twins Raised Apart Twintuition Twitter Two Party System UKIP Ukrainian Crisis UN Security Council Unemployment Unions United Kingdom United Nations United States Universalism University Admissions Upper Paleolithic Urban Riots Ursula Gauthier Uruguay US Blacks USS Liberty Utopian Uttar Pradesh UV Uyghurs Vaginal Yeast Valerie Plame Vassopressin Vdare Veep Venezuela Veterans Administration Victor Canfield Victor Davis Hanson Victoria Nuland Victorian England Victorianism Video Games Vietnam Vietnam War Vietnamese Vikings Violence Vioxx Virginia Visa Waivers Visual Word Form Area Vitamin D Voronezh Vote Fraud Vouchers Vwfa W.E.I.R.D. W.E.I.R.D.O. Wahhabis Wall Street Walter Bodmer Wang Jing War On Christmas War On Terror Washington Post WasPage Watergate Watsoning We Are What We Are We Don't Know All The Environmental Causes Weight Loss WEIRDO Welfare Western Europe Western European Marriage Pattern Western Media Western Religion Westerns What Can You Do What's The Cause Where They're At Where's The Fallout White America White Americans White Conservative Males White Death White Helmets White Nationalist Nuttiness White Nationalists White Privilege White Slavery White Supremacy White Wife Why We Believe Hbd Wikileaks Wild Life Wilhelm Furtwangler William Browder William Buckley William D. Hamilton William Graham Sumner William McGougall WINEP Winston Churchill Women In The Workplace Woodley Effect Woodrow Wilson WORDSUM Workers Working Class Working Memory World Values Survey World War I World War Z Writing WTO X Little Miss JayLady Xhosa Xi Jinping Xinjiang Yankeedom Yankees Yazidis Yemen Yes I Am A Brother Yes I Am Liberal - But That Kind Of Liberal Yochi Dreazen You Can't Handle The Truth You Don't Know Shit Youtube Ban Yugoslavia Zbigniew Brzezinski Zhang Yimou Zika Zika Virus Zimbabwe Zionism Zombies Zones Of Thought Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Nothing found
All Commenters • My
Comments
• Followed
Commenters
All Comments / On "Antiquity"
 All Comments / On "Antiquity"
    Mention the term ‘skin color’ and people usually think of race or ethnicity. Yet this way of thinking became dominant only when Europeans began moving out and colonizing the rest of the world, beginning in the 16th century. Previously, physical features were less useful as ethnic markers. We knew about and quarrelled with those groups...
  • @politically motivated BS from religious jews.

    It is Philo who utters the “politically motivated BS”. It is all too likely that Philo exaggerates. But in fact, the status of the Jews was that of “foreigners and aliens”, privileged, but not citizens of Alexandria. Some of the Jews acquired citizenship in the city, but not in mass. It is the same problem that affects Jews all along History: dual citizenship.

    Look how this situation is presented even today, or rather how the spin is put on the historical records:
    “The position of the Jews deteriorated at the beginning of the Roman era. Rome sought to distinguish between the Greeks, the citizens of the city to whom all rights were granted, and the Egyptians, upon whom a poll tax was imposed and who were considered a subject people. The Jews energetically began to seek citizenship rights, for only thus could they attain the status of the privileged Greeks. Meanwhile, however, antisemitism had taken deep root. The Alexandrians vehemently opposed the entry of Jews into the ranks of the citizens…(riots , Flaccus) and all the Jews were confined to one quarter of the city” (it is that Philo says the mobs “drove the Jews entirely out of four quarters, and crammed them all into a very small portion of one). But the Jews were ascribed just one portion of the city from the very beginning of the city, in order to practice their religion uncontaminated by the Goim. Their presence outside was an abuse. In other words they were asking for the rights of the Greeks but asking by the same token to be exempt of the obligations of the Greeks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Bliss

    Darker male tones were initially prestigious in Greco-Roman society and, to a lesser extent, in medieval Europe as well. In Greek poetry, a man’s “black” skin symbolized his courage and ability to fight well. To have a “black rump” meant to be brave and strong; to have a “white rump” meant to be cowardly. A “black heart” denoted strong emotions, a “white heart” indifference or a refusal to act. Cowardice resulted from having a “white liver. (The term “lily-livered” survives in modern English). Even today, a fair complexion in a man can be viewed as effeminate.
     
    Yet in this same post you claim that it was the internal wiring of the early christians, not the lies of the jews, that led them to believe that Noah's curse meant that Egypt was the House of Slaves because of the black color of its denizens . How the heck do you manage to contradict yourself in the same post? Did their internal wiring suddenly mutate when those pagan greeks and romans converted to christianity?

    The greeks and romans were big fans of Egypt, and contemptuous of Israel. The rise of christianity changed all that. As the link in my previous post says:

    http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7641.html

    when Christianity and Islam accepted the Jewish Bible as part of their heritage, they inherited as well some of Judaism’s interpretations of its sacred text.....Sometimes these church fathers quote a contemporary, usually anonymous, Jewish source (e.g., “the Hebrew”). Many times they transmit a Jewish interpretation without attribution.

    not the lies of the jews

    Hmmm, that doesn’t sound right at all. It’s stormfrontish. Painting with a broad, hateful brush. Sorry, I take that back and replace it with: politically motivated BS from religious jews.

    Perhaps the diaspora jews in Egypt, whose leader was Philo, were reacting to nazi-like barbarity from the natives?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo

    Philo says Flaccus, the Roman governor over Alexandria, permitted a mob to erect statues of the Emperor Caius Caligula in Jewish synagogues of Alexandria, an unprecedented provocation. This invasion of the synagogues was perhaps resisted by force, since Philo then says that Flaccus “was destroying the synagogues, and not leaving even their name.” In response, Philo says that Flaccus then “issued a notice in which he called us all foreigners and aliens… allowing any one who was inclined to proceed to exterminate the Jews as prisoners of war.” Philo says that in response, the mobs “drove the Jews entirely out of four quarters, and crammed them all into a very small portion of one ... while the populace, overrunning their desolate houses, turned to plunder, and divided the booty among themselves as if they had obtained it in war.” In addition, Philo says their enemies, “slew them and thousands of others with all kinds of agony and tortures, and newly invented cruelties, for wherever they met with or caught sight of a Jew, they stoned him, or beat him with sticks”. Philo even says, “the most merciless of all their persecutors in some instances burnt whole families, husbands with their wives, and infant children with their parents, in the middle of the city, sparing neither age nor youth, nor the innocent helplessness of infants.” Some men, he says, were dragged to death, while “those who did these things, mimicked the sufferers, like people employed in the representation of theatrical farces”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • On the subject of Noah – I watched an interesting documentary last night about Irving Finkel recreating an ark from a Babylonian script that was found on a tablet*. Long story short – the conclusion was that ‘the ark’ is a myth that represents the repeated need of peoples living all around the Tigris-Euphrates region to build large spherical boats to put their families and animals into when the rivers flooded, which they did ever 10 years or so. The myth originated in Babylon and was taken back to Judaea when the Judaeans went back to Judaea.

    Also of interest was the conclusion that Judaeans were allowed to till land in Babylon and to paraphrase one archaeologist – the tablet* is left by a man who had a duel identity, he clearly signals his Judaean heritage but he is also showing that he was a Babylonian businessman.

    *nb. different tablets

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    "We find similar sentiments in early Christian writings, such as those by Origen." What is the source of their sentiments if not the talmudic jews? It is certainly not the Bible.

    The early Christian theologian Origen (184-253 A.D.) wrote his unkind remarks about the Egyptians well before similar remarks appeared in the Talmud. Would you like to see what other early Christians had to say on this subject?

    At one time we were Ethiopians in our vices and sins. How so? Because our sins had blackened us. But afterwards we heard the words: "Wash yourselves clean!" And we said: "Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow." We are Ethiopians, therefore, who have been transformed from blackness to whiteness. St. Jerome (347-420 A.D.)
     

    Chus, in Hebrew means Ethiopian, that is, black and dark, one who has a soul as black as his body, of whom Jeremiah says: "Can the Ethiopian change his skin? The Leopard his spots?" In the psalm, then, Chusi signifies Saul as David's black and dark enemy. ... because it is our concern to interpret Scripture, not according to history, but with spiritual understanding, we are interpreting Chusi, this Ethiopian, to be no other than the devil. The question now is, how is this Chusi the son of Jemini; how is this Ethiopian devil the son of the right hand? He is Ethiopian by reason of his vice; he is the son of the right hand because he was created by God. St. Jerome (347-420 A.D.)
     

    And he looked, and behold, the work of fornication came and drew night unto him, and it stood up before him in the form of an Ethiopian woman whose smell was exceedingly foul, but he was unable to endure her smell, and he drove her away from his presence. Apophthegmata Patrum (fifth century onward)
     

    Do not let the body of a black girl soil yours, nor lie with her for her Hell-black face. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia (473-521 A.D.)
     
    I could cite many other early Christians, but you get the drift. During Late Antiquity, there was a racialization of attitudes toward skin color, and we see this in Christian, Jewish, and Muslim writings. It wasn't a specifically Talmudic thing.

    You are reading it wrong. Who was brought out of Egypt, the land of their slavery?

    In Hebrew, the word is avadim. Literally, it means "a house of slaves." In the past, a "house" meant not only a physical structure but also the people who lived in it, i.e., the household. More broadly, it meant the lineage of people associated with the house. We see this in terms like "the House of Tudor", "the House of Windsor" etc. "House of slaves" means "nation of slaves" and refers to the Egyptian people as a whole and not simply to the Jews.

    For what it's worth, that is how ancient Jewish and Christian scholars understood Exodus 20:2. The term "their slavery" appears nowhere in the original text.

    It’s still the case that eliminating welfare and reducing or eliminating taxes would benefit whites relative to non-whites.

    You're seeing "whites" and "non-whites" as homogeneous entities. They aren't. This may come as a surprise to you, but the richest 10% of whites feel little sense of solidarity with the other 90%. As for "non-whites" you're talking largely about African Americans and to a lesser extent Hispanic Americans. Asians, who are the fastest-growing group among "non-whites", have their own welfare system and would do well in a post-welfare America. This is especially true for many Muslim groups, but I've also seen it with other groups, like the Sikhs. Their welfare system will survive the end of ours.

    Eliminating things like Social Security would hurt old and middle aged people who depend on or have planned to depend on them. But most plans to eliminate them don’t call for eliminating them for such people, but for the future.

    The future will come sooner than you think.

    @” We are Ethiopians, therefore, who have been transformed from blackness to whiteness. St. Jerome (347-420 A.D.)

    Clearly St. Jerome refers to the episode of the baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch by the Apostle Philip, in the Acts of the Apostles, 8, 26-40.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    Is it correct if I infer that the disadvantages Africa had were a) the high pathogen load (Malaria etc.) and b) unavailability of a method of meat preservation? Or is there a third factor: wildlife preventing an expansion of agriculture and mostly being perceived as a danger to one’s crop rather than a source of food?

    1. I don't see pathogen load as a major constraint on social development. Many of the early civilizations developed in regions with a high incidence of malaria.

    2. Among hunter-gatherers, meat is less important in the tropical zone. This is because plant foods are available year-round. Since women specialize in food gathering (which mostly involves plant foods of one sort or another), they are much more able to feed themselves and their children with little male assistance.

    As a result, when tropical hunter-gatherers made the transition to farming, this gender imbalance was carried over. Only one wild animal has ever been domesticated in Africa for food production (the guinea fowl), and it was apparently domesticated by women. All other forms of livestock, such as cattle, have been domesticated elsewhere.

    3. Most of the wildlife we associate with Africa used to exist where some of the early civilizations developed (Fertile Crescent, Indus valley). Lions used to be common in the Middle East. Elephants are still present in South and Southeast Asia. In those regions, humans either eliminated those animals or domesticated them.

    isn’t it curious that darker male tones were not the more prestigious?

    Darker male tones were initially prestigious in Greco-Roman society and, to a lesser extent, in medieval Europe as well. In Greek poetry, a man's "black" skin symbolized his courage and ability to fight well. To have a "black rump" meant to be brave and strong; to have a "white rump" meant to be cowardly. A "black heart" denoted strong emotions, a "white heart" indifference or a refusal to act. Cowardice resulted from having a "white liver. (The term "lily-livered" survives in modern English). Even today, a fair complexion in a man can be viewed as effeminate.

    See: Irwin, E. 1974. Colour Terms in Greek Poetry. Toronto: Hakkert

    Could you expand on this a little? Are you claiming that during the period of American slavery, popular wisdom had it that blacks were on the upward path to moral and social improvement and that the state of slavery would wither away?

    This is detailed in Eric P. Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America (pp. 64-66). In the 19th century, most American thinkers were Lamarckians. They were not politically correct in the sense of denying that different groups differ in mental capacity. Nor did they believe that these differences could be wholly corrected within the lifetime of any one individual. But they believed that incremental improvements would be passed on from one generation to the next.

    Even in the South, most people did not challenge that view. Their counter-argument to abolitionists was that the majority of blacks were not yet ready for the rights of full citizenship.

    I mean middle class whites. I’m not talking about wealthy whites

    The middle class is shrinking in the U.S., as is the case elsewhere, through globalization. I'm not American, so maybe I should defer to your opinion. Still, when I travel to the States, I'm struck by the number of formerly middle-class people who depend on social welfare of one sort or another, e.g., disability benefits, food stamps, etc.

    I'm not saying that social welfare programs are the answer. They aren't. But a post-welfare America will likely also be a globalized America, where everyone will be competing with workers in the poorest countries of the world.

    The Asian welfare system you’re talking about is completely dependent on state socialism

    No, I was talking about welfare run by the local mosque or temple. "Religious welfare," as with the Mormons.

    It’s completely preposterous to suggest that Soros and the Kochs have the same motivations and desires and have and would have the same impact.

    That's exactly what I'm arguing. It has nothing to do with some plutocrats being Jewish and others not. The Koch brothers are no less globalist than Soros. And no better.

    So again, where did some christians (and later some muslims) get this idiotic idea from if not from the jews?

    They got it on their own, ultimately from their internal wiring. There is a strong cross-cultural tendency to identify lighter skin with femininity and female beauty, apparently because of the sex difference in pigmentation, i.e., from puberty onward, women are paler than men because they have less melanin and blood in their skin.

    This sex difference seems to have given rise to inborn algorithms in the human mind. Skin color is a visual cue for gender recognition, being even more important than face shape. People can tell whether a face is male or female even when the image has been blurred and one can see only its hue and luminosity.

    Do you really think the jews were the slaves of slaves? That their egyptian slave masters were themselves slaves? Who the hell were they slaves of?

    Of their own passions. That's how the ancient Jews saw it. They felt that the Egyptians were not made for freedom and had to be controlled. Even the Pharaoh was seen as being just another cog in the wheel.

    Isn’t ‘well’ simply how Europeans ‘like’ to live?

    A post-welfare America will be libertarianism on steroids. You will literally be competing for survival with everyone else on this planet. And that competition will be taking place on your home turf.

    “black heart” … “white heart” …
    The term “lily-livered” survives in modern English

    Lily-livered

    … the liver … It was thought to be the organ that created blood and that a poorly functioning liver was the cause of mental or physical weakness.

    By contrast, a robust liver supplying ample blood was thought to create rosy cheeks glowing with ruddy good health. References to ‘ruddy’ meaning ‘healthy’ date from the 14th century.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    Is it correct if I infer that the disadvantages Africa had were a) the high pathogen load (Malaria etc.) and b) unavailability of a method of meat preservation? Or is there a third factor: wildlife preventing an expansion of agriculture and mostly being perceived as a danger to one’s crop rather than a source of food?

    1. I don't see pathogen load as a major constraint on social development. Many of the early civilizations developed in regions with a high incidence of malaria.

    2. Among hunter-gatherers, meat is less important in the tropical zone. This is because plant foods are available year-round. Since women specialize in food gathering (which mostly involves plant foods of one sort or another), they are much more able to feed themselves and their children with little male assistance.

    As a result, when tropical hunter-gatherers made the transition to farming, this gender imbalance was carried over. Only one wild animal has ever been domesticated in Africa for food production (the guinea fowl), and it was apparently domesticated by women. All other forms of livestock, such as cattle, have been domesticated elsewhere.

    3. Most of the wildlife we associate with Africa used to exist where some of the early civilizations developed (Fertile Crescent, Indus valley). Lions used to be common in the Middle East. Elephants are still present in South and Southeast Asia. In those regions, humans either eliminated those animals or domesticated them.

    isn’t it curious that darker male tones were not the more prestigious?

    Darker male tones were initially prestigious in Greco-Roman society and, to a lesser extent, in medieval Europe as well. In Greek poetry, a man's "black" skin symbolized his courage and ability to fight well. To have a "black rump" meant to be brave and strong; to have a "white rump" meant to be cowardly. A "black heart" denoted strong emotions, a "white heart" indifference or a refusal to act. Cowardice resulted from having a "white liver. (The term "lily-livered" survives in modern English). Even today, a fair complexion in a man can be viewed as effeminate.

    See: Irwin, E. 1974. Colour Terms in Greek Poetry. Toronto: Hakkert

    Could you expand on this a little? Are you claiming that during the period of American slavery, popular wisdom had it that blacks were on the upward path to moral and social improvement and that the state of slavery would wither away?

    This is detailed in Eric P. Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America (pp. 64-66). In the 19th century, most American thinkers were Lamarckians. They were not politically correct in the sense of denying that different groups differ in mental capacity. Nor did they believe that these differences could be wholly corrected within the lifetime of any one individual. But they believed that incremental improvements would be passed on from one generation to the next.

    Even in the South, most people did not challenge that view. Their counter-argument to abolitionists was that the majority of blacks were not yet ready for the rights of full citizenship.

    I mean middle class whites. I’m not talking about wealthy whites

    The middle class is shrinking in the U.S., as is the case elsewhere, through globalization. I'm not American, so maybe I should defer to your opinion. Still, when I travel to the States, I'm struck by the number of formerly middle-class people who depend on social welfare of one sort or another, e.g., disability benefits, food stamps, etc.

    I'm not saying that social welfare programs are the answer. They aren't. But a post-welfare America will likely also be a globalized America, where everyone will be competing with workers in the poorest countries of the world.

    The Asian welfare system you’re talking about is completely dependent on state socialism

    No, I was talking about welfare run by the local mosque or temple. "Religious welfare," as with the Mormons.

    It’s completely preposterous to suggest that Soros and the Kochs have the same motivations and desires and have and would have the same impact.

    That's exactly what I'm arguing. It has nothing to do with some plutocrats being Jewish and others not. The Koch brothers are no less globalist than Soros. And no better.

    So again, where did some christians (and later some muslims) get this idiotic idea from if not from the jews?

    They got it on their own, ultimately from their internal wiring. There is a strong cross-cultural tendency to identify lighter skin with femininity and female beauty, apparently because of the sex difference in pigmentation, i.e., from puberty onward, women are paler than men because they have less melanin and blood in their skin.

    This sex difference seems to have given rise to inborn algorithms in the human mind. Skin color is a visual cue for gender recognition, being even more important than face shape. People can tell whether a face is male or female even when the image has been blurred and one can see only its hue and luminosity.

    Do you really think the jews were the slaves of slaves? That their egyptian slave masters were themselves slaves? Who the hell were they slaves of?

    Of their own passions. That's how the ancient Jews saw it. They felt that the Egyptians were not made for freedom and had to be controlled. Even the Pharaoh was seen as being just another cog in the wheel.

    Isn’t ‘well’ simply how Europeans ‘like’ to live?

    A post-welfare America will be libertarianism on steroids. You will literally be competing for survival with everyone else on this planet. And that competition will be taking place on your home turf.

    Of their own passions. That’s how the ancient Jews saw it. They felt that the Egyptians were not made for freedom and had to be controlled. Even the Pharaoh was seen as being just another cog in the wheel.

    More irrational and ignorant nonsense. Who controlled the Egyptians, their jewish slaves? GTFO…

    The Egyptians founded the grandest, and longest lasting, of all the ancient civilizations. The ancient greeks acknowledged their civilizational debt to Egypt, which makes Egypt the grandmother of western civilization. Isn’t it utterly idiotic to call such an influential and impressive civilization a House of Slaves?

    Secondly, Noah did not curse the children of Ham to being slaves of passion (as if humans in general are free of passion). But to being slaves of the descendants of Noah’s other sons. As anyone who has read the Bible knows it was the jews who ended up as slaves of the egyptians for many centuries. Not vice versa. Noah’s prophecy failed to materialize. He was no prophet, by definition.

    Btw, egyptian must be the mother of the afro-asiatic languages which includes hebrew. Along with ethiopian, arabic, coptic, berber, somali, hausa etc. So the Old Testament itself is written in a language that could be seen as a dialect of ancient egypt. After all, the hebrew slaves must have spoken their egyptian master’s language.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    Is it correct if I infer that the disadvantages Africa had were a) the high pathogen load (Malaria etc.) and b) unavailability of a method of meat preservation? Or is there a third factor: wildlife preventing an expansion of agriculture and mostly being perceived as a danger to one’s crop rather than a source of food?

    1. I don't see pathogen load as a major constraint on social development. Many of the early civilizations developed in regions with a high incidence of malaria.

    2. Among hunter-gatherers, meat is less important in the tropical zone. This is because plant foods are available year-round. Since women specialize in food gathering (which mostly involves plant foods of one sort or another), they are much more able to feed themselves and their children with little male assistance.

    As a result, when tropical hunter-gatherers made the transition to farming, this gender imbalance was carried over. Only one wild animal has ever been domesticated in Africa for food production (the guinea fowl), and it was apparently domesticated by women. All other forms of livestock, such as cattle, have been domesticated elsewhere.

    3. Most of the wildlife we associate with Africa used to exist where some of the early civilizations developed (Fertile Crescent, Indus valley). Lions used to be common in the Middle East. Elephants are still present in South and Southeast Asia. In those regions, humans either eliminated those animals or domesticated them.

    isn’t it curious that darker male tones were not the more prestigious?

    Darker male tones were initially prestigious in Greco-Roman society and, to a lesser extent, in medieval Europe as well. In Greek poetry, a man's "black" skin symbolized his courage and ability to fight well. To have a "black rump" meant to be brave and strong; to have a "white rump" meant to be cowardly. A "black heart" denoted strong emotions, a "white heart" indifference or a refusal to act. Cowardice resulted from having a "white liver. (The term "lily-livered" survives in modern English). Even today, a fair complexion in a man can be viewed as effeminate.

    See: Irwin, E. 1974. Colour Terms in Greek Poetry. Toronto: Hakkert

    Could you expand on this a little? Are you claiming that during the period of American slavery, popular wisdom had it that blacks were on the upward path to moral and social improvement and that the state of slavery would wither away?

    This is detailed in Eric P. Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America (pp. 64-66). In the 19th century, most American thinkers were Lamarckians. They were not politically correct in the sense of denying that different groups differ in mental capacity. Nor did they believe that these differences could be wholly corrected within the lifetime of any one individual. But they believed that incremental improvements would be passed on from one generation to the next.

    Even in the South, most people did not challenge that view. Their counter-argument to abolitionists was that the majority of blacks were not yet ready for the rights of full citizenship.

    I mean middle class whites. I’m not talking about wealthy whites

    The middle class is shrinking in the U.S., as is the case elsewhere, through globalization. I'm not American, so maybe I should defer to your opinion. Still, when I travel to the States, I'm struck by the number of formerly middle-class people who depend on social welfare of one sort or another, e.g., disability benefits, food stamps, etc.

    I'm not saying that social welfare programs are the answer. They aren't. But a post-welfare America will likely also be a globalized America, where everyone will be competing with workers in the poorest countries of the world.

    The Asian welfare system you’re talking about is completely dependent on state socialism

    No, I was talking about welfare run by the local mosque or temple. "Religious welfare," as with the Mormons.

    It’s completely preposterous to suggest that Soros and the Kochs have the same motivations and desires and have and would have the same impact.

    That's exactly what I'm arguing. It has nothing to do with some plutocrats being Jewish and others not. The Koch brothers are no less globalist than Soros. And no better.

    So again, where did some christians (and later some muslims) get this idiotic idea from if not from the jews?

    They got it on their own, ultimately from their internal wiring. There is a strong cross-cultural tendency to identify lighter skin with femininity and female beauty, apparently because of the sex difference in pigmentation, i.e., from puberty onward, women are paler than men because they have less melanin and blood in their skin.

    This sex difference seems to have given rise to inborn algorithms in the human mind. Skin color is a visual cue for gender recognition, being even more important than face shape. People can tell whether a face is male or female even when the image has been blurred and one can see only its hue and luminosity.

    Do you really think the jews were the slaves of slaves? That their egyptian slave masters were themselves slaves? Who the hell were they slaves of?

    Of their own passions. That's how the ancient Jews saw it. They felt that the Egyptians were not made for freedom and had to be controlled. Even the Pharaoh was seen as being just another cog in the wheel.

    Isn’t ‘well’ simply how Europeans ‘like’ to live?

    A post-welfare America will be libertarianism on steroids. You will literally be competing for survival with everyone else on this planet. And that competition will be taking place on your home turf.

    To have a “black rump” meant to be brave and strong; to have a “white rump” meant to be cowardly.

    The color is caused by being flushed with blood and not from tanning or pigmentation. When a person exerts himself physically, blood will rush to the surface of the skin to cool the body and will make it flush red. We have the word “ruddy” that has the same meaning. When a person is frightened we say they turned “white as a sheet”. These metaphors require a people whose skin is pale enough to see the blood under the skin.

    In Macbeth, the word “black” is used as the opposite of a face turned pale when frightened. He is told to bruise his cheeks so that they will turn red with flushed blood.

    Macbeth

    May the devil turn you black, you white-faced fool! Why do you look like a frightened goose?

    SERVANT: There are ten thousand … Soldiers, sir.

    Go pinch your cheeks and bring some color back into your face, you cowardly boy.

    Santa has a healthy, ruddy complexion:

    A Visit from St. Nicholas

    His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry;

    Note red tiles on cheeks:
    sixth-century mosaic of Jesus at Basilica of Sant’ Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna, Italy

    Note cheeks:
    Byzantine Mosaic In Hagia Sophia

    Why does a frightened person’s face/skin turn pale?

    … because their body turns on the fight or flight response, … all the blood drains from their face and neck and starts circulating around the heart and lungs for increased energy, therefore the person looks pale.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    Is it correct if I infer that the disadvantages Africa had were a) the high pathogen load (Malaria etc.) and b) unavailability of a method of meat preservation? Or is there a third factor: wildlife preventing an expansion of agriculture and mostly being perceived as a danger to one’s crop rather than a source of food?

    1. I don't see pathogen load as a major constraint on social development. Many of the early civilizations developed in regions with a high incidence of malaria.

    2. Among hunter-gatherers, meat is less important in the tropical zone. This is because plant foods are available year-round. Since women specialize in food gathering (which mostly involves plant foods of one sort or another), they are much more able to feed themselves and their children with little male assistance.

    As a result, when tropical hunter-gatherers made the transition to farming, this gender imbalance was carried over. Only one wild animal has ever been domesticated in Africa for food production (the guinea fowl), and it was apparently domesticated by women. All other forms of livestock, such as cattle, have been domesticated elsewhere.

    3. Most of the wildlife we associate with Africa used to exist where some of the early civilizations developed (Fertile Crescent, Indus valley). Lions used to be common in the Middle East. Elephants are still present in South and Southeast Asia. In those regions, humans either eliminated those animals or domesticated them.

    isn’t it curious that darker male tones were not the more prestigious?

    Darker male tones were initially prestigious in Greco-Roman society and, to a lesser extent, in medieval Europe as well. In Greek poetry, a man's "black" skin symbolized his courage and ability to fight well. To have a "black rump" meant to be brave and strong; to have a "white rump" meant to be cowardly. A "black heart" denoted strong emotions, a "white heart" indifference or a refusal to act. Cowardice resulted from having a "white liver. (The term "lily-livered" survives in modern English). Even today, a fair complexion in a man can be viewed as effeminate.

    See: Irwin, E. 1974. Colour Terms in Greek Poetry. Toronto: Hakkert

    Could you expand on this a little? Are you claiming that during the period of American slavery, popular wisdom had it that blacks were on the upward path to moral and social improvement and that the state of slavery would wither away?

    This is detailed in Eric P. Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America (pp. 64-66). In the 19th century, most American thinkers were Lamarckians. They were not politically correct in the sense of denying that different groups differ in mental capacity. Nor did they believe that these differences could be wholly corrected within the lifetime of any one individual. But they believed that incremental improvements would be passed on from one generation to the next.

    Even in the South, most people did not challenge that view. Their counter-argument to abolitionists was that the majority of blacks were not yet ready for the rights of full citizenship.

    I mean middle class whites. I’m not talking about wealthy whites

    The middle class is shrinking in the U.S., as is the case elsewhere, through globalization. I'm not American, so maybe I should defer to your opinion. Still, when I travel to the States, I'm struck by the number of formerly middle-class people who depend on social welfare of one sort or another, e.g., disability benefits, food stamps, etc.

    I'm not saying that social welfare programs are the answer. They aren't. But a post-welfare America will likely also be a globalized America, where everyone will be competing with workers in the poorest countries of the world.

    The Asian welfare system you’re talking about is completely dependent on state socialism

    No, I was talking about welfare run by the local mosque or temple. "Religious welfare," as with the Mormons.

    It’s completely preposterous to suggest that Soros and the Kochs have the same motivations and desires and have and would have the same impact.

    That's exactly what I'm arguing. It has nothing to do with some plutocrats being Jewish and others not. The Koch brothers are no less globalist than Soros. And no better.

    So again, where did some christians (and later some muslims) get this idiotic idea from if not from the jews?

    They got it on their own, ultimately from their internal wiring. There is a strong cross-cultural tendency to identify lighter skin with femininity and female beauty, apparently because of the sex difference in pigmentation, i.e., from puberty onward, women are paler than men because they have less melanin and blood in their skin.

    This sex difference seems to have given rise to inborn algorithms in the human mind. Skin color is a visual cue for gender recognition, being even more important than face shape. People can tell whether a face is male or female even when the image has been blurred and one can see only its hue and luminosity.

    Do you really think the jews were the slaves of slaves? That their egyptian slave masters were themselves slaves? Who the hell were they slaves of?

    Of their own passions. That's how the ancient Jews saw it. They felt that the Egyptians were not made for freedom and had to be controlled. Even the Pharaoh was seen as being just another cog in the wheel.

    Isn’t ‘well’ simply how Europeans ‘like’ to live?

    A post-welfare America will be libertarianism on steroids. You will literally be competing for survival with everyone else on this planet. And that competition will be taking place on your home turf.

    Darker male tones were initially prestigious in Greco-Roman society and, to a lesser extent, in medieval Europe as well. In Greek poetry, a man’s “black” skin symbolized his courage and ability to fight well. To have a “black rump” meant to be brave and strong; to have a “white rump” meant to be cowardly. A “black heart” denoted strong emotions, a “white heart” indifference or a refusal to act. Cowardice resulted from having a “white liver. (The term “lily-livered” survives in modern English). Even today, a fair complexion in a man can be viewed as effeminate.

    Yet in this same post you claim that it was the internal wiring of the early christians, not the lies of the jews, that led them to believe that Noah’s curse meant that Egypt was the House of Slaves because of the black color of its denizens . How the heck do you manage to contradict yourself in the same post? Did their internal wiring suddenly mutate when those pagan greeks and romans converted to christianity?

    The greeks and romans were big fans of Egypt, and contemptuous of Israel. The rise of christianity changed all that. As the link in my previous post says:

    http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7641.html

    when Christianity and Islam accepted the Jewish Bible as part of their heritage, they inherited as well some of Judaism’s interpretations of its sacred text…..Sometimes these church fathers quote a contemporary, usually anonymous, Jewish source (e.g., “the Hebrew”). Many times they transmit a Jewish interpretation without attribution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bliss

    not the lies of the jews
     
    Hmmm, that doesn't sound right at all. It's stormfrontish. Painting with a broad, hateful brush. Sorry, I take that back and replace it with: politically motivated BS from religious jews.

    Perhaps the diaspora jews in Egypt, whose leader was Philo, were reacting to nazi-like barbarity from the natives?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo


    Philo says Flaccus, the Roman governor over Alexandria, permitted a mob to erect statues of the Emperor Caius Caligula in Jewish synagogues of Alexandria, an unprecedented provocation. This invasion of the synagogues was perhaps resisted by force, since Philo then says that Flaccus "was destroying the synagogues, and not leaving even their name." In response, Philo says that Flaccus then "issued a notice in which he called us all foreigners and aliens... allowing any one who was inclined to proceed to exterminate the Jews as prisoners of war." Philo says that in response, the mobs "drove the Jews entirely out of four quarters, and crammed them all into a very small portion of one ... while the populace, overrunning their desolate houses, turned to plunder, and divided the booty among themselves as if they had obtained it in war." In addition, Philo says their enemies, "slew them and thousands of others with all kinds of agony and tortures, and newly invented cruelties, for wherever they met with or caught sight of a Jew, they stoned him, or beat him with sticks". Philo even says, "the most merciless of all their persecutors in some instances burnt whole families, husbands with their wives, and infant children with their parents, in the middle of the city, sparing neither age nor youth, nor the innocent helplessness of infants." Some men, he says, were dragged to death, while "those who did these things, mimicked the sufferers, like people employed in the representation of theatrical farces"

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The Koch Brothers have recently supported attempts to end or reduce the forced integration and desegregation of schools. But yeah, keep pushing the lie that the Kochs are just like Soros and just as anti-white as Soros.

    http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/08/koch-brothers-school-segregation-americans-prosperity

    In reality, there are deep connections between the Kochs and Wake County, and it’s all about the money. The latest installment in the left-leaning Brave New Foundation’s “Koch Brothers Exposed” video series claims that a Koch-founded and funded outfit, Americans for Prosperity, fueled a campaign to “resegregate” the schools of Wake County, a prosperous area in central North Carolina that’s home to the cities of Raleigh and Cary, among others.

    The story starts back in 2009, when elections were held for four of Wake County’s nine school board seats—enough seats to dictate the public school district’s agenda if all four board members wanted the same reforms. That’s where Americans for Prosperity, a conservative political advocacy group, came into play. AFP funded a local grassroots group, WakeCARES, that organized on behalf of four candidates who sought to kill the district’s policy of busing to ensure diverse, desegregated public schools.* The four candidates ran against what they called “forced busing”—a phrase, the film points out, that dates back to George Wallace in the 1970s—and instead stressed that schools should educate only those who lived in the surrounding neighborhood.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost
    The American middle class has been shrinking because of socialism.

    The middle class has been declining in all Western countries, and the decline has actually been slower in the more socialist and protectionist ones.

    Mosque or temple welfare depends on tithing, which depends on income earning congregants, who depend on state socialism

    They are just as willing to pay their tithes in their home countries. It has nothing to do with state socialism. It has a lot to do with being willing to see oneself as part of a larger community.

    Again, it’s completely preposterous and intellectually dishonest to imply that Soros and the Kochs are equally anti-white.

    I'm not sure "anti-white" is necessarily the correct word. They're globalists. They believe that national identity has had its day and should be consigned to the dustbin of history. They're a bit like the Marxists in the sense they believe that they have a scientific view of reality and that anyone who disagrees with them is a stupid Neanderthal.

    I have no problem with people having strong opinions. I have a problem with people who want to try out their opinions on a large scale, and not cautiously on a small scale (as is supposed to be the case in true science).

    The Koch brothers don’t, and they have even funded anti-immigration legislation in the past

    You're confusing "immigration" with "illegal immigration." The Koch Brothers want to see more of the former and less of the latter.

    Don't believe me? The following comes from the Bloomberg Politics website:

    Just as surprisingly–and just as impactfully–Walker's dalliance with immigration limitation puts him at odds with the Koch networks, just a day after David Koch told reporters that he was inclined to back Walker. The Charles Koch Foundation has aggressively campaigned for immigration reform along the lines of what got through the Senate in 2013. The LIBRE Initiative, a Latino outreach wing of the Koch network, has advocated some of the same reforms, and rejected any talk of limiting legal immigration.
     

    "Congress must act to provide the legal avenues necessary to absorb the current undocumented population as well as accommodate future immigrants," said LIBRE's executive director Daniel Garza to Congress last month. "Immigration reform should address the children brought here through no fault of their own and allow for the undocumented population to ultimately become citizens after paying back taxes and any other appropriate penalties. But at a minimum, the U.S. should put in place a pragmatic, viable market-based worker visa program that legalizes voluntary employee-employer arrangements in a way that provides immigrant workers fixed, legal certainty, and allows our private sector to adequately respond to market forces."
     
    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-21/scott-walker-breaks-with-the-kochs-on-immigration

    I understood Peter’s point to be that while Soros is pro-immigrationist, he is not libertarian, whereas in the case of Koch it is just the other way around.

    Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man. Communism is the other way around. (old joke from the Soviet Union).

    Seriously, right-wing libertarianism and left-wing liberalism seem to be converging. I often hear people talk about it -- the new left-right "consensus."

    The middle class has been declining in all Western countries, all of which have been significantly socialistic in the postwar period.

    The fact that they’re able to tithe has everything to do with state socialism. Willing has nothing to do with it. Willing doesn’t matter if you’re unable to do something. They’re enabled by state socialism.

    I believe that you’re intellectually dishonest when you imply that Soros and the Kochs are equally anti-white. The Kochs participate in the political game and thus aren’t and can’t be perfect and end up supporting things like “Latino outreach”. Donald Trump is also a billionaire who has been pro-minority and immigrant “outreach” in the recent past. That doesn’t mean Trump is the same as Soros. The Kochs have also in the recent past supported anti-immigration and anti-immigrant legislation such as Arizona’s SB1070 and voter ID laws in states to suppress non-white voting. To suggest that the Kochs and Soros have the same motivations and desires and have and would have the same impact is willful intellectual dishonesty.

    The lef-right “consensus” is neo-liberalism. It’s not “right-wing libertarianism”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The American middle class has been shrinking because of socialism.

    The middle class has been declining in all Western countries, and the decline has actually been slower in the more socialist and protectionist ones.

    Mosque or temple welfare depends on tithing, which depends on income earning congregants, who depend on state socialism

    They are just as willing to pay their tithes in their home countries. It has nothing to do with state socialism. It has a lot to do with being willing to see oneself as part of a larger community.

    Again, it’s completely preposterous and intellectually dishonest to imply that Soros and the Kochs are equally anti-white.

    I’m not sure “anti-white” is necessarily the correct word. They’re globalists. They believe that national identity has had its day and should be consigned to the dustbin of history. They’re a bit like the Marxists in the sense they believe that they have a scientific view of reality and that anyone who disagrees with them is a stupid Neanderthal.

    I have no problem with people having strong opinions. I have a problem with people who want to try out their opinions on a large scale, and not cautiously on a small scale (as is supposed to be the case in true science).

    The Koch brothers don’t, and they have even funded anti-immigration legislation in the past

    You’re confusing “immigration” with “illegal immigration.” The Koch Brothers want to see more of the former and less of the latter.

    Don’t believe me? The following comes from the Bloomberg Politics website:

    Just as surprisingly–and just as impactfully–Walker’s dalliance with immigration limitation puts him at odds with the Koch networks, just a day after David Koch told reporters that he was inclined to back Walker. The Charles Koch Foundation has aggressively campaigned for immigration reform along the lines of what got through the Senate in 2013. The LIBRE Initiative, a Latino outreach wing of the Koch network, has advocated some of the same reforms, and rejected any talk of limiting legal immigration.

    “Congress must act to provide the legal avenues necessary to absorb the current undocumented population as well as accommodate future immigrants,” said LIBRE’s executive director Daniel Garza to Congress last month. “Immigration reform should address the children brought here through no fault of their own and allow for the undocumented population to ultimately become citizens after paying back taxes and any other appropriate penalties. But at a minimum, the U.S. should put in place a pragmatic, viable market-based worker visa program that legalizes voluntary employee-employer arrangements in a way that provides immigrant workers fixed, legal certainty, and allows our private sector to adequately respond to market forces.”

    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-21/scott-walker-breaks-with-the-kochs-on-immigration

    I understood Peter’s point to be that while Soros is pro-immigrationist, he is not libertarian, whereas in the case of Koch it is just the other way around.

    Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man. Communism is the other way around. (old joke from the Soviet Union).

    Seriously, right-wing libertarianism and left-wing liberalism seem to be converging. I often hear people talk about it — the new left-right “consensus.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The middle class has been declining in all Western countries, all of which have been significantly socialistic in the postwar period.

    The fact that they're able to tithe has everything to do with state socialism. Willing has nothing to do with it. Willing doesn't matter if you're unable to do something. They're enabled by state socialism.

    I believe that you're intellectually dishonest when you imply that Soros and the Kochs are equally anti-white. The Kochs participate in the political game and thus aren't and can't be perfect and end up supporting things like "Latino outreach". Donald Trump is also a billionaire who has been pro-minority and immigrant "outreach" in the recent past. That doesn't mean Trump is the same as Soros. The Kochs have also in the recent past supported anti-immigration and anti-immigrant legislation such as Arizona's SB1070 and voter ID laws in states to suppress non-white voting. To suggest that the Kochs and Soros have the same motivations and desires and have and would have the same impact is willful intellectual dishonesty.

    The lef-right "consensus" is neo-liberalism. It's not "right-wing libertarianism".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    The American middle class has been shrinking because of socialism. Costs have been socialized onto the middle class. And the state has become The Man for many women, providing benefits, employment, and favorable legislation that replaces husbands, leading to demographic decline of the middle class.

    Mosque or temple welfare depends on tithing, which depends on income earning congregants, who depend on state socialism – favorable family migration policies, government benefits, small business laws, non-discrimination and equality legislation, etc.

    Again, it's completely preposterous and intellectually dishonest to imply that Soros and the Kochs are equally anti-white. Soros aggressively promotes Cultural Marxism, socialism and political power for non-whites, and policies amenable to usurious, rent-seeking financiers like himself, and open borders, in the US, Europe, and throughout the world. The Koch brothers don’t, and they have even funded anti-immigration legislation in the past through the American Legislative Exchange Council and supported Arizona’s SB1070 anti-immigration legislation. Soros has never and will never promote any sort of anti-immigration or pro-discrimination policies and legislation. In fact, Soros promoted opposition to Arizona's SB1070.

    What you label "libertarianism on steroids" is neither libertarian nor what the Kochs support. It's Soros style neo-liberalism coupled with socialism for non-whites.

    I understood Peter’s point to be that while Soros is pro-immigrationist, he is not libertarian, whereas in the case of Koch it is just the other way around. Peter’s conclusion appears to be that this is just a nominal difference – the sum of the evils remains constant.
    You, OTOH, had previously expressed your belief in the most salient tenet of libertarianism.
    The fact that you just re-paste text shows how difficult it will be to have a discussion.
    Re Asian welfare: it is not at all clear why you believe that your laundry list shows what you claim it does. Are you saying that without “small-business laws” etc Asian business owners would not make redistributable profits? Seriously?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost
    Is it correct if I infer that the disadvantages Africa had were a) the high pathogen load (Malaria etc.) and b) unavailability of a method of meat preservation? Or is there a third factor: wildlife preventing an expansion of agriculture and mostly being perceived as a danger to one’s crop rather than a source of food?

    1. I don't see pathogen load as a major constraint on social development. Many of the early civilizations developed in regions with a high incidence of malaria.

    2. Among hunter-gatherers, meat is less important in the tropical zone. This is because plant foods are available year-round. Since women specialize in food gathering (which mostly involves plant foods of one sort or another), they are much more able to feed themselves and their children with little male assistance.

    As a result, when tropical hunter-gatherers made the transition to farming, this gender imbalance was carried over. Only one wild animal has ever been domesticated in Africa for food production (the guinea fowl), and it was apparently domesticated by women. All other forms of livestock, such as cattle, have been domesticated elsewhere.

    3. Most of the wildlife we associate with Africa used to exist where some of the early civilizations developed (Fertile Crescent, Indus valley). Lions used to be common in the Middle East. Elephants are still present in South and Southeast Asia. In those regions, humans either eliminated those animals or domesticated them.

    isn’t it curious that darker male tones were not the more prestigious?

    Darker male tones were initially prestigious in Greco-Roman society and, to a lesser extent, in medieval Europe as well. In Greek poetry, a man's "black" skin symbolized his courage and ability to fight well. To have a "black rump" meant to be brave and strong; to have a "white rump" meant to be cowardly. A "black heart" denoted strong emotions, a "white heart" indifference or a refusal to act. Cowardice resulted from having a "white liver. (The term "lily-livered" survives in modern English). Even today, a fair complexion in a man can be viewed as effeminate.

    See: Irwin, E. 1974. Colour Terms in Greek Poetry. Toronto: Hakkert

    Could you expand on this a little? Are you claiming that during the period of American slavery, popular wisdom had it that blacks were on the upward path to moral and social improvement and that the state of slavery would wither away?

    This is detailed in Eric P. Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America (pp. 64-66). In the 19th century, most American thinkers were Lamarckians. They were not politically correct in the sense of denying that different groups differ in mental capacity. Nor did they believe that these differences could be wholly corrected within the lifetime of any one individual. But they believed that incremental improvements would be passed on from one generation to the next.

    Even in the South, most people did not challenge that view. Their counter-argument to abolitionists was that the majority of blacks were not yet ready for the rights of full citizenship.

    I mean middle class whites. I’m not talking about wealthy whites

    The middle class is shrinking in the U.S., as is the case elsewhere, through globalization. I'm not American, so maybe I should defer to your opinion. Still, when I travel to the States, I'm struck by the number of formerly middle-class people who depend on social welfare of one sort or another, e.g., disability benefits, food stamps, etc.

    I'm not saying that social welfare programs are the answer. They aren't. But a post-welfare America will likely also be a globalized America, where everyone will be competing with workers in the poorest countries of the world.

    The Asian welfare system you’re talking about is completely dependent on state socialism

    No, I was talking about welfare run by the local mosque or temple. "Religious welfare," as with the Mormons.

    It’s completely preposterous to suggest that Soros and the Kochs have the same motivations and desires and have and would have the same impact.

    That's exactly what I'm arguing. It has nothing to do with some plutocrats being Jewish and others not. The Koch brothers are no less globalist than Soros. And no better.

    So again, where did some christians (and later some muslims) get this idiotic idea from if not from the jews?

    They got it on their own, ultimately from their internal wiring. There is a strong cross-cultural tendency to identify lighter skin with femininity and female beauty, apparently because of the sex difference in pigmentation, i.e., from puberty onward, women are paler than men because they have less melanin and blood in their skin.

    This sex difference seems to have given rise to inborn algorithms in the human mind. Skin color is a visual cue for gender recognition, being even more important than face shape. People can tell whether a face is male or female even when the image has been blurred and one can see only its hue and luminosity.

    Do you really think the jews were the slaves of slaves? That their egyptian slave masters were themselves slaves? Who the hell were they slaves of?

    Of their own passions. That's how the ancient Jews saw it. They felt that the Egyptians were not made for freedom and had to be controlled. Even the Pharaoh was seen as being just another cog in the wheel.

    Isn’t ‘well’ simply how Europeans ‘like’ to live?

    A post-welfare America will be libertarianism on steroids. You will literally be competing for survival with everyone else on this planet. And that competition will be taking place on your home turf.

    The American middle class has been shrinking because of socialism. Costs have been socialized onto the middle class. And the state has become The Man for many women, providing benefits, employment, and favorable legislation that replaces husbands, leading to demographic decline of the middle class.

    Mosque or temple welfare depends on tithing, which depends on income earning congregants, who depend on state socialism – favorable family migration policies, government benefits, small business laws, non-discrimination and equality legislation, etc.

    Again, it’s completely preposterous and intellectually dishonest to imply that Soros and the Kochs are equally anti-white. Soros aggressively promotes Cultural Marxism, socialism and political power for non-whites, and policies amenable to usurious, rent-seeking financiers like himself, and open borders, in the US, Europe, and throughout the world. The Koch brothers don’t, and they have even funded anti-immigration legislation in the past through the American Legislative Exchange Council and supported Arizona’s SB1070 anti-immigration legislation. Soros has never and will never promote any sort of anti-immigration or pro-discrimination policies and legislation. In fact, Soros promoted opposition to Arizona’s SB1070.

    What you label “libertarianism on steroids” is neither libertarian nor what the Kochs support. It’s Soros style neo-liberalism coupled with socialism for non-whites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JustAskingAnExpert
    I understood Peter's point to be that while Soros is pro-immigrationist, he is not libertarian, whereas in the case of Koch it is just the other way around. Peter's conclusion appears to be that this is just a nominal difference - the sum of the evils remains constant.
    You, OTOH, had previously expressed your belief in the most salient tenet of libertarianism.
    The fact that you just re-paste text shows how difficult it will be to have a discussion.
    Re Asian welfare: it is not at all clear why you believe that your laundry list shows what you claim it does. Are you saying that without "small-business laws" etc Asian business owners would not make redistributable profits? Seriously?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Bliss

    The early Christian theologian Origen (184-253 A.D.) wrote his unkind remarks about the Egyptians well before similar remarks appeared in the Talmud. ....I could cite many other early Christians, but you get the drift. During Late Antiquity, there was a racialization of attitudes toward skin color, and we see this in Christian, Jewish, and Muslim writings. It wasn’t a specifically Talmudic thing.
     
    The jewish Philo of Alexandria precedes Origen, also from Alexandria, Egypt, and expressed these sentiments a couple centuries earlier. So again, where did some christians (and later some muslims) get this idiotic idea from if not from the jews?

    http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7641.html

    Of course, when Christianity and Islam accepted the Jewish Bible as part of their heritage, they inherited as well some of Judaism's interpretations of its sacred text. It is often noted that the Qurhan and later Islamic stories about biblical personalities and events (israHi liyyat) reflect much of ancient Jewish biblical interpretation. As the ninth-century traditionist, al-Bukhari, wrote: "The Jews used to read the Torah in Hebrew and to interpret it to the people of Islam in Arabic."15 The same is true for Christianity in Asia Minor and the lands of the Near East. The Christian Syriac Bible translation, the Peshit3ta, has been shown to contain many Jewish interpretations embedded in its translation. The church fathers of the East, especially, but not only, Ephrem (d. 373), transmit Jewish midrashic explanations again and again. Origen (ca. 253), who wrote in Greek, not Syriac, lived in the Near East, first in Alexandria, then in Caesarea, and his works too contain many Jewish interpretations. So do the writings of Jerome, who lived in Bethlehem.16 Sometimes these church fathers quote a contemporary, usually anonymous, Jewish source (e.g., "the Hebrew"). Many times they transmit a Jewish interpretation without attribution.

    “House of slaves” means “nation of slaves” and refers to the Egyptian people as a whole and not simply to the Jews.
     
    Actually it is "house of slavery". It is stupidly illogical to insist that means "nation of slaves". Do you really think the jews were the slaves of slaves? That their egyptian slave masters were themselves slaves? Who the hell were they slaves of?

    This slavery thing: Can you really not imagine why the Egyptians might be called slaves by the Jews – for, well, non-literal reasons?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Is it correct if I infer that the disadvantages Africa had were a) the high pathogen load (Malaria etc.) and b) unavailability of a method of meat preservation? Or is there a third factor: wildlife preventing an expansion of agriculture and mostly being perceived as a danger to one’s crop rather than a source of food?

    1. I don’t see pathogen load as a major constraint on social development. Many of the early civilizations developed in regions with a high incidence of malaria.

    2. Among hunter-gatherers, meat is less important in the tropical zone. This is because plant foods are available year-round. Since women specialize in food gathering (which mostly involves plant foods of one sort or another), they are much more able to feed themselves and their children with little male assistance.

    As a result, when tropical hunter-gatherers made the transition to farming, this gender imbalance was carried over. Only one wild animal has ever been domesticated in Africa for food production (the guinea fowl), and it was apparently domesticated by women. All other forms of livestock, such as cattle, have been domesticated elsewhere.

    3. Most of the wildlife we associate with Africa used to exist where some of the early civilizations developed (Fertile Crescent, Indus valley). Lions used to be common in the Middle East. Elephants are still present in South and Southeast Asia. In those regions, humans either eliminated those animals or domesticated them.

    isn’t it curious that darker male tones were not the more prestigious?

    Darker male tones were initially prestigious in Greco-Roman society and, to a lesser extent, in medieval Europe as well. In Greek poetry, a man’s “black” skin symbolized his courage and ability to fight well. To have a “black rump” meant to be brave and strong; to have a “white rump” meant to be cowardly. A “black heart” denoted strong emotions, a “white heart” indifference or a refusal to act. Cowardice resulted from having a “white liver. (The term “lily-livered” survives in modern English). Even today, a fair complexion in a man can be viewed as effeminate.

    See: Irwin, E. 1974. Colour Terms in Greek Poetry. Toronto: Hakkert

    Could you expand on this a little? Are you claiming that during the period of American slavery, popular wisdom had it that blacks were on the upward path to moral and social improvement and that the state of slavery would wither away?

    This is detailed in Eric P. Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America (pp. 64-66). In the 19th century, most American thinkers were Lamarckians. They were not politically correct in the sense of denying that different groups differ in mental capacity. Nor did they believe that these differences could be wholly corrected within the lifetime of any one individual. But they believed that incremental improvements would be passed on from one generation to the next.

    Even in the South, most people did not challenge that view. Their counter-argument to abolitionists was that the majority of blacks were not yet ready for the rights of full citizenship.

    I mean middle class whites. I’m not talking about wealthy whites

    The middle class is shrinking in the U.S., as is the case elsewhere, through globalization. I’m not American, so maybe I should defer to your opinion. Still, when I travel to the States, I’m struck by the number of formerly middle-class people who depend on social welfare of one sort or another, e.g., disability benefits, food stamps, etc.

    I’m not saying that social welfare programs are the answer. They aren’t. But a post-welfare America will likely also be a globalized America, where everyone will be competing with workers in the poorest countries of the world.

    The Asian welfare system you’re talking about is completely dependent on state socialism

    No, I was talking about welfare run by the local mosque or temple. “Religious welfare,” as with the Mormons.

    It’s completely preposterous to suggest that Soros and the Kochs have the same motivations and desires and have and would have the same impact.

    That’s exactly what I’m arguing. It has nothing to do with some plutocrats being Jewish and others not. The Koch brothers are no less globalist than Soros. And no better.

    So again, where did some christians (and later some muslims) get this idiotic idea from if not from the jews?

    They got it on their own, ultimately from their internal wiring. There is a strong cross-cultural tendency to identify lighter skin with femininity and female beauty, apparently because of the sex difference in pigmentation, i.e., from puberty onward, women are paler than men because they have less melanin and blood in their skin.

    This sex difference seems to have given rise to inborn algorithms in the human mind. Skin color is a visual cue for gender recognition, being even more important than face shape. People can tell whether a face is male or female even when the image has been blurred and one can see only its hue and luminosity.

    Do you really think the jews were the slaves of slaves? That their egyptian slave masters were themselves slaves? Who the hell were they slaves of?

    Of their own passions. That’s how the ancient Jews saw it. They felt that the Egyptians were not made for freedom and had to be controlled. Even the Pharaoh was seen as being just another cog in the wheel.

    Isn’t ‘well’ simply how Europeans ‘like’ to live?

    A post-welfare America will be libertarianism on steroids. You will literally be competing for survival with everyone else on this planet. And that competition will be taking place on your home turf.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The American middle class has been shrinking because of socialism. Costs have been socialized onto the middle class. And the state has become The Man for many women, providing benefits, employment, and favorable legislation that replaces husbands, leading to demographic decline of the middle class.

    Mosque or temple welfare depends on tithing, which depends on income earning congregants, who depend on state socialism – favorable family migration policies, government benefits, small business laws, non-discrimination and equality legislation, etc.

    Again, it's completely preposterous and intellectually dishonest to imply that Soros and the Kochs are equally anti-white. Soros aggressively promotes Cultural Marxism, socialism and political power for non-whites, and policies amenable to usurious, rent-seeking financiers like himself, and open borders, in the US, Europe, and throughout the world. The Koch brothers don’t, and they have even funded anti-immigration legislation in the past through the American Legislative Exchange Council and supported Arizona’s SB1070 anti-immigration legislation. Soros has never and will never promote any sort of anti-immigration or pro-discrimination policies and legislation. In fact, Soros promoted opposition to Arizona's SB1070.

    What you label "libertarianism on steroids" is neither libertarian nor what the Kochs support. It's Soros style neo-liberalism coupled with socialism for non-whites.
    , @Bliss

    Darker male tones were initially prestigious in Greco-Roman society and, to a lesser extent, in medieval Europe as well. In Greek poetry, a man’s “black” skin symbolized his courage and ability to fight well. To have a “black rump” meant to be brave and strong; to have a “white rump” meant to be cowardly. A “black heart” denoted strong emotions, a “white heart” indifference or a refusal to act. Cowardice resulted from having a “white liver. (The term “lily-livered” survives in modern English). Even today, a fair complexion in a man can be viewed as effeminate.
     
    Yet in this same post you claim that it was the internal wiring of the early christians, not the lies of the jews, that led them to believe that Noah's curse meant that Egypt was the House of Slaves because of the black color of its denizens . How the heck do you manage to contradict yourself in the same post? Did their internal wiring suddenly mutate when those pagan greeks and romans converted to christianity?

    The greeks and romans were big fans of Egypt, and contemptuous of Israel. The rise of christianity changed all that. As the link in my previous post says:

    http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7641.html

    when Christianity and Islam accepted the Jewish Bible as part of their heritage, they inherited as well some of Judaism’s interpretations of its sacred text.....Sometimes these church fathers quote a contemporary, usually anonymous, Jewish source (e.g., “the Hebrew”). Many times they transmit a Jewish interpretation without attribution.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome

    To have a “black rump” meant to be brave and strong; to have a “white rump” meant to be cowardly.

     

    The color is caused by being flushed with blood and not from tanning or pigmentation. When a person exerts himself physically, blood will rush to the surface of the skin to cool the body and will make it flush red. We have the word "ruddy" that has the same meaning. When a person is frightened we say they turned "white as a sheet". These metaphors require a people whose skin is pale enough to see the blood under the skin.

    In Macbeth, the word "black" is used as the opposite of a face turned pale when frightened. He is told to bruise his cheeks so that they will turn red with flushed blood.

    Macbeth

    May the devil turn you black, you white-faced fool! Why do you look like a frightened goose?
    ...
    SERVANT: There are ten thousand ... Soldiers, sir.
    ...
    Go pinch your cheeks and bring some color back into your face, you cowardly boy.

     

    Santa has a healthy, ruddy complexion:

    A Visit from St. Nicholas

    His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry;

     

    Note red tiles on cheeks:
    sixth-century mosaic of Jesus at Basilica of Sant' Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna, Italy

    Note cheeks:
    Byzantine Mosaic In Hagia Sophia

    Why does a frightened person's face/skin turn pale?

    ... because their body turns on the fight or flight response, ... all the blood drains from their face and neck and starts circulating around the heart and lungs for increased energy, therefore the person looks pale.

     

    , @Bliss

    Of their own passions. That’s how the ancient Jews saw it. They felt that the Egyptians were not made for freedom and had to be controlled. Even the Pharaoh was seen as being just another cog in the wheel.
     
    More irrational and ignorant nonsense. Who controlled the Egyptians, their jewish slaves? GTFO...

    The Egyptians founded the grandest, and longest lasting, of all the ancient civilizations. The ancient greeks acknowledged their civilizational debt to Egypt, which makes Egypt the grandmother of western civilization. Isn't it utterly idiotic to call such an influential and impressive civilization a House of Slaves?

    Secondly, Noah did not curse the children of Ham to being slaves of passion (as if humans in general are free of passion). But to being slaves of the descendants of Noah's other sons. As anyone who has read the Bible knows it was the jews who ended up as slaves of the egyptians for many centuries. Not vice versa. Noah's prophecy failed to materialize. He was no prophet, by definition.

    Btw, egyptian must be the mother of the afro-asiatic languages which includes hebrew. Along with ethiopian, arabic, coptic, berber, somali, hausa etc. So the Old Testament itself is written in a language that could be seen as a dialect of ancient egypt. After all, the hebrew slaves must have spoken their egyptian master's language.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    “black heart” ... “white heart” ...
    The term “lily-livered” survives in modern English

     



    Lily-livered

    ... the liver ... It was thought to be the organ that created blood and that a poorly functioning liver was the cause of mental or physical weakness.
    ...
    By contrast, a robust liver supplying ample blood was thought to create rosy cheeks glowing with ruddy good health. References to 'ruddy' meaning 'healthy' date from the 14th century.

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    No, I don't see whites and non-whites as homogeneous. And when I say that eliminating welfare and reducing or eliminating taxes would benefit whites relative to non-whites, I mean middle class whites. I'm not talking about wealthy whites, for whom taxation and welfare are largely irrelevant.

    This isn't about "solidarity". This is about bringing public policy in line with actual costs, rather than socializing costs. The Asian welfare system you're talking about is completely dependent on state socialism - favorable family migration policies, government benefits, small business laws, non-discrimination and equality legislation, etc.

    And this zero tax, zero welfare thing is rather ambitious. I don’t recall any post-tribal culture that did not have some form of them. But maybe you can educate me. Or is it just that you want any solidarity to remain intra-racial?
    At any rate, since you have millions of hours of efforts at persuasion before you, why start in a place where it seems to be somewhat offtopic?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    The notion that all the "billionaires" like the Koch brothers and George Soros are homogeneous and equally pernicious and anti-white is completely disingenuous, misleading obscurantism. It's the same sort of deflection and obscurantism we saw with Occupy Wall Street and its opposition to the "1%" and goes back in leftist politics to Marx and his attack on "capitalists". Its purpose is to obscure any further distinctions and discriminations beyond the vague "the wealthy", "the rich", etc. category and deflect from other demographic considerations.

    Soros aggressively promotes Cultural Marxism, socialism and political power for non-whites, and policies amenable to usurious, rent-seeking financiers like himself, and open borders, in the US, Europe, and throughout the world. The Koch brothers don't, and they have even funded anti-immigration legislation in the past through the American Legislative Exchange Council and supported Arizona's SB1070 anti-immigration legislation. It's completely preposterous to suggest that Soros and the Kochs have the same motivations and desires and have and would have the same impact. It's intellectual dishonesty or cowardice at best, and deception and obscurantism at worst.

    Who exactly are you criticizing in this thread?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @David
    Not to disagree, but just to offer two minor counter examples that came to mind: Bernard Lewis quotes a Persian of the sixth century and an Iraqi of the tenth both of whom consider the mean tint of middle eastern skin and their middling hair texture to indicate a sort of ideal mean.

    Iran is the navel of the world because our land lies in the midst of other lands and our people are the most noble and illustrious of beings… And He made our appearance and our coloring and our hair according to a just mean…
    --Letter of Tansar
     

    The people of Iraq have sound minds… balanced natures… and a pale brown color, which is the most apt and proper color. They are the ones who are done to a turn in the womb. They do not come out with something between blond, buff, blanched, and leprous coloring such as the infants dropped from the wombs of the women of the Slaves and others of similar light complexion; nor are they overdone in the womb until they are burned so that the child comes out something between black, murky, malodorous, stinking, and crinkly-haired with uneven limbs, deficient minds, and depraved passions, such as… the Ethiopians. The Iraqis are neither half-baked dough nor burned crust...
    --Ibn al-Faqih
     

    The ancient Greeks thought something similar:

    The nations inhabiting the cold places and those of
    Europe are full of spirit but somewhat deficient in intelligence and skill…The peoples of Asia on the other hand are intelligent and skillful in temperament, but lack spirit….But the Greek race participates in both characters, just as it occupies the middle position geographically, for it is both spirited and intelligent.
    [Aristotle, in Politics]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    No, I don't see whites and non-whites as homogeneous. And when I say that eliminating welfare and reducing or eliminating taxes would benefit whites relative to non-whites, I mean middle class whites. I'm not talking about wealthy whites, for whom taxation and welfare are largely irrelevant.

    This isn't about "solidarity". This is about bringing public policy in line with actual costs, rather than socializing costs. The Asian welfare system you're talking about is completely dependent on state socialism - favorable family migration policies, government benefits, small business laws, non-discrimination and equality legislation, etc.

    “would do well in a post-welfare America”

    That’s an interesting ponderable. An extreme HBD perspective might be that the different groups would do differently and the difference would lead some to proliferate and others to flounder. But I’m not sure that ‘well’ is necessarily the same thing is it? Isn’t ‘well’ simply how Europeans ‘like’ to live?

    There is already one young man (at least) who has returned to a cabin in Appalachia to live as his forebears did.

    The point about western nations supporting tribal networks, albeit with their own intrinsic welfare (finance and legal too?) systems, is well made.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    "We find similar sentiments in early Christian writings, such as those by Origen." What is the source of their sentiments if not the talmudic jews? It is certainly not the Bible.

    The early Christian theologian Origen (184-253 A.D.) wrote his unkind remarks about the Egyptians well before similar remarks appeared in the Talmud. Would you like to see what other early Christians had to say on this subject?

    At one time we were Ethiopians in our vices and sins. How so? Because our sins had blackened us. But afterwards we heard the words: "Wash yourselves clean!" And we said: "Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow." We are Ethiopians, therefore, who have been transformed from blackness to whiteness. St. Jerome (347-420 A.D.)
     

    Chus, in Hebrew means Ethiopian, that is, black and dark, one who has a soul as black as his body, of whom Jeremiah says: "Can the Ethiopian change his skin? The Leopard his spots?" In the psalm, then, Chusi signifies Saul as David's black and dark enemy. ... because it is our concern to interpret Scripture, not according to history, but with spiritual understanding, we are interpreting Chusi, this Ethiopian, to be no other than the devil. The question now is, how is this Chusi the son of Jemini; how is this Ethiopian devil the son of the right hand? He is Ethiopian by reason of his vice; he is the son of the right hand because he was created by God. St. Jerome (347-420 A.D.)
     

    And he looked, and behold, the work of fornication came and drew night unto him, and it stood up before him in the form of an Ethiopian woman whose smell was exceedingly foul, but he was unable to endure her smell, and he drove her away from his presence. Apophthegmata Patrum (fifth century onward)
     

    Do not let the body of a black girl soil yours, nor lie with her for her Hell-black face. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia (473-521 A.D.)
     
    I could cite many other early Christians, but you get the drift. During Late Antiquity, there was a racialization of attitudes toward skin color, and we see this in Christian, Jewish, and Muslim writings. It wasn't a specifically Talmudic thing.

    You are reading it wrong. Who was brought out of Egypt, the land of their slavery?

    In Hebrew, the word is avadim. Literally, it means "a house of slaves." In the past, a "house" meant not only a physical structure but also the people who lived in it, i.e., the household. More broadly, it meant the lineage of people associated with the house. We see this in terms like "the House of Tudor", "the House of Windsor" etc. "House of slaves" means "nation of slaves" and refers to the Egyptian people as a whole and not simply to the Jews.

    For what it's worth, that is how ancient Jewish and Christian scholars understood Exodus 20:2. The term "their slavery" appears nowhere in the original text.

    It’s still the case that eliminating welfare and reducing or eliminating taxes would benefit whites relative to non-whites.

    You're seeing "whites" and "non-whites" as homogeneous entities. They aren't. This may come as a surprise to you, but the richest 10% of whites feel little sense of solidarity with the other 90%. As for "non-whites" you're talking largely about African Americans and to a lesser extent Hispanic Americans. Asians, who are the fastest-growing group among "non-whites", have their own welfare system and would do well in a post-welfare America. This is especially true for many Muslim groups, but I've also seen it with other groups, like the Sikhs. Their welfare system will survive the end of ours.

    Eliminating things like Social Security would hurt old and middle aged people who depend on or have planned to depend on them. But most plans to eliminate them don’t call for eliminating them for such people, but for the future.

    The future will come sooner than you think.

    The early Christian theologian Origen (184-253 A.D.) wrote his unkind remarks about the Egyptians well before similar remarks appeared in the Talmud. ….I could cite many other early Christians, but you get the drift. During Late Antiquity, there was a racialization of attitudes toward skin color, and we see this in Christian, Jewish, and Muslim writings. It wasn’t a specifically Talmudic thing.

    The jewish Philo of Alexandria precedes Origen, also from Alexandria, Egypt, and expressed these sentiments a couple centuries earlier. So again, where did some christians (and later some muslims) get this idiotic idea from if not from the jews?

    http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7641.html

    Of course, when Christianity and Islam accepted the Jewish Bible as part of their heritage, they inherited as well some of Judaism’s interpretations of its sacred text. It is often noted that the Qurhan and later Islamic stories about biblical personalities and events (israHi liyyat) reflect much of ancient Jewish biblical interpretation. As the ninth-century traditionist, al-Bukhari, wrote: “The Jews used to read the Torah in Hebrew and to interpret it to the people of Islam in Arabic.”15 The same is true for Christianity in Asia Minor and the lands of the Near East. The Christian Syriac Bible translation, the Peshit3ta, has been shown to contain many Jewish interpretations embedded in its translation. The church fathers of the East, especially, but not only, Ephrem (d. 373), transmit Jewish midrashic explanations again and again. Origen (ca. 253), who wrote in Greek, not Syriac, lived in the Near East, first in Alexandria, then in Caesarea, and his works too contain many Jewish interpretations. So do the writings of Jerome, who lived in Bethlehem.16 Sometimes these church fathers quote a contemporary, usually anonymous, Jewish source (e.g., “the Hebrew”). Many times they transmit a Jewish interpretation without attribution.

    “House of slaves” means “nation of slaves” and refers to the Egyptian people as a whole and not simply to the Jews.

    Actually it is “house of slavery”. It is stupidly illogical to insist that means “nation of slaves”. Do you really think the jews were the slaves of slaves? That their egyptian slave masters were themselves slaves? Who the hell were they slaves of?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JustAskingAnExpert
    This slavery thing: Can you really not imagine why the Egyptians might be called slaves by the Jews - for, well, non-literal reasons?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The notion that all the “billionaires” like the Koch brothers and George Soros are homogeneous and equally pernicious and anti-white is completely disingenuous, misleading obscurantism. It’s the same sort of deflection and obscurantism we saw with Occupy Wall Street and its opposition to the “1%” and goes back in leftist politics to Marx and his attack on “capitalists”. Its purpose is to obscure any further distinctions and discriminations beyond the vague “the wealthy”, “the rich”, etc. category and deflect from other demographic considerations.

    Soros aggressively promotes Cultural Marxism, socialism and political power for non-whites, and policies amenable to usurious, rent-seeking financiers like himself, and open borders, in the US, Europe, and throughout the world. The Koch brothers don’t, and they have even funded anti-immigration legislation in the past through the American Legislative Exchange Council and supported Arizona’s SB1070 anti-immigration legislation. It’s completely preposterous to suggest that Soros and the Kochs have the same motivations and desires and have and would have the same impact. It’s intellectual dishonesty or cowardice at best, and deception and obscurantism at worst.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JustAskingAnExpert
    Who exactly are you criticizing in this thread?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost
    "We find similar sentiments in early Christian writings, such as those by Origen." What is the source of their sentiments if not the talmudic jews? It is certainly not the Bible.

    The early Christian theologian Origen (184-253 A.D.) wrote his unkind remarks about the Egyptians well before similar remarks appeared in the Talmud. Would you like to see what other early Christians had to say on this subject?

    At one time we were Ethiopians in our vices and sins. How so? Because our sins had blackened us. But afterwards we heard the words: "Wash yourselves clean!" And we said: "Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow." We are Ethiopians, therefore, who have been transformed from blackness to whiteness. St. Jerome (347-420 A.D.)
     

    Chus, in Hebrew means Ethiopian, that is, black and dark, one who has a soul as black as his body, of whom Jeremiah says: "Can the Ethiopian change his skin? The Leopard his spots?" In the psalm, then, Chusi signifies Saul as David's black and dark enemy. ... because it is our concern to interpret Scripture, not according to history, but with spiritual understanding, we are interpreting Chusi, this Ethiopian, to be no other than the devil. The question now is, how is this Chusi the son of Jemini; how is this Ethiopian devil the son of the right hand? He is Ethiopian by reason of his vice; he is the son of the right hand because he was created by God. St. Jerome (347-420 A.D.)
     

    And he looked, and behold, the work of fornication came and drew night unto him, and it stood up before him in the form of an Ethiopian woman whose smell was exceedingly foul, but he was unable to endure her smell, and he drove her away from his presence. Apophthegmata Patrum (fifth century onward)
     

    Do not let the body of a black girl soil yours, nor lie with her for her Hell-black face. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia (473-521 A.D.)
     
    I could cite many other early Christians, but you get the drift. During Late Antiquity, there was a racialization of attitudes toward skin color, and we see this in Christian, Jewish, and Muslim writings. It wasn't a specifically Talmudic thing.

    You are reading it wrong. Who was brought out of Egypt, the land of their slavery?

    In Hebrew, the word is avadim. Literally, it means "a house of slaves." In the past, a "house" meant not only a physical structure but also the people who lived in it, i.e., the household. More broadly, it meant the lineage of people associated with the house. We see this in terms like "the House of Tudor", "the House of Windsor" etc. "House of slaves" means "nation of slaves" and refers to the Egyptian people as a whole and not simply to the Jews.

    For what it's worth, that is how ancient Jewish and Christian scholars understood Exodus 20:2. The term "their slavery" appears nowhere in the original text.

    It’s still the case that eliminating welfare and reducing or eliminating taxes would benefit whites relative to non-whites.

    You're seeing "whites" and "non-whites" as homogeneous entities. They aren't. This may come as a surprise to you, but the richest 10% of whites feel little sense of solidarity with the other 90%. As for "non-whites" you're talking largely about African Americans and to a lesser extent Hispanic Americans. Asians, who are the fastest-growing group among "non-whites", have their own welfare system and would do well in a post-welfare America. This is especially true for many Muslim groups, but I've also seen it with other groups, like the Sikhs. Their welfare system will survive the end of ours.

    Eliminating things like Social Security would hurt old and middle aged people who depend on or have planned to depend on them. But most plans to eliminate them don’t call for eliminating them for such people, but for the future.

    The future will come sooner than you think.

    No, I don’t see whites and non-whites as homogeneous. And when I say that eliminating welfare and reducing or eliminating taxes would benefit whites relative to non-whites, I mean middle class whites. I’m not talking about wealthy whites, for whom taxation and welfare are largely irrelevant.

    This isn’t about “solidarity”. This is about bringing public policy in line with actual costs, rather than socializing costs. The Asian welfare system you’re talking about is completely dependent on state socialism – favorable family migration policies, government benefits, small business laws, non-discrimination and equality legislation, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @helena
    "would do well in a post-welfare America"

    That's an interesting ponderable. An extreme HBD perspective might be that the different groups would do differently and the difference would lead some to proliferate and others to flounder. But I'm not sure that 'well' is necessarily the same thing is it? Isn't 'well' simply how Europeans 'like' to live?

    There is already one young man (at least) who has returned to a cabin in Appalachia to live as his forebears did.

    The point about western nations supporting tribal networks, albeit with their own intrinsic welfare (finance and legal too?) systems, is well made.
    , @JustAskingAnExpert
    And this zero tax, zero welfare thing is rather ambitious. I don't recall any post-tribal culture that did not have some form of them. But maybe you can educate me. Or is it just that you want any solidarity to remain intra-racial?
    At any rate, since you have millions of hours of efforts at persuasion before you, why start in a place where it seems to be somewhat offtopic?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Numinous

    This isn’t true except for the dimmest and most feeble whites, whose numbers are small enough that they can survive on voluntary charity.
     
    Not according to this National Review journalist. It seems there are entire counties in Appalachia that are dependent on food stamps.

    Being on food stamps is not identical to being unable to survive without food stamps. Appalachian folk on food stamps would be able to survive without them, just like their ancestors did for generations. That’s not the case for non-whites on food stamps.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @FirkinRidiculous

    I disagree. Biology didn’t really begin to affect popular attitudes toward race until after Darwin. If we go back to the time of the American Civil War there were a few anatomists here and there who tried to explain black/white differences in terms of biology, but they were very marginal in public discourse. At that time Lamarckian thinking was very dominant, i.e., blacks were considered mentally and behaviorally different but it was thought these differences would disappear through exposure to white society.
     
    Could you expand on this a little? Are you claiming that during the period of American slavery, popular wisdom had it that blacks were on the upward path to moral and social improvement and that the state of slavery would wither away?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_eclipse_of_Darwinism

    The leading scientists openly argued against Darwinism and for Lamarckian mechanisms of race improvement until WW2. They were never really defeated.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnest_Hooton#Hooton_on_African_Americans_.281930-1940.29

    http://www.unz.org/Pub/Colliers-1939may06-00012

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    There must have been some kind of selection for white skin in the Neolithic.

    We know that white skin was already prevalent before the Neolithic in what is now Scandinavia and Russia. There may have been some selection during that time, although I wouldn't rule out population replacement. There seems to have been a general trend of population movement from the north to the south. There are actually references to such movements in ancient Greek legends (e.g., the Dorian invasions).

    The Emperor Septimius Severus, born in Leptis Magna in 146AD, appears in a painting from Algeria as dark skinned and his Syrian wife and the children (the future Emperors Geta and Caracalla) as white.

    That sex difference is typical in Roman paintings:

    https://www.pinterest.com/pin/391391023838286963/
    https://www.pinterest.com/pin/391391023838286940/
    http://www.thehistoryblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/herculestelephus.jpg

    It's not a racial difference. It's a difference in complexion that normally exists between a man and a woman. It's less visible in people who are very fair- or very dark-skinned, but it's quite visible in people of Mediterranean origin.

    People in the 21st century are also "primed" to interpret skin color differences as having an ethnic/racial meaning.

    Smith demonstrates how the denial of moral equality between Europeans and non-Europeans resulted from converging philosophical and scientific developments, including a declining belief in human nature’s universality and the rise of biological classification.

    I disagree. Biology didn't really begin to affect popular attitudes toward race until after Darwin. If we go back to the time of the American Civil War there were a few anatomists here and there who tried to explain black/white differences in terms of biology, but they were very marginal in public discourse. At that time Lamarckian thinking was very dominant, i.e., blacks were considered mentally and behaviorally different but it was thought these differences would disappear through exposure to white society.

    White attitudes "racialized" to the extent that white settler societies developed overseas with large numbers of white women. Such societies grew and consolidated from the 18th century onward in North America and later in South Africa, the southern cone of South America, and Australia. There is much evidence that these attitudes were weaker where whites were overwhelmingly single men (who were often cohabiting with native women).

    Why does this site and its ‘writers’ have an obsession with people’s colour, and more specifically a not-so-hidden celebration of being white? Is it because the site owners, admins, and majority visitors are white, and it just feels good to be of that group?

    The issue of skin color, and race in general, has become very taboo in Western societies. It's not so much that we talk too much about it as that other people don't talk at all (except from a very narrow and predictable perspective).

    It's not because the HBD columnists here are all white. For one thing, they aren't. For another thing, look at the columnists at most newspapers and magazines in North America. Aren't they mainly white? Do they feel good about being white? That's not my impression ...

    I disagree. Biology didn’t really begin to affect popular attitudes toward race until after Darwin. If we go back to the time of the American Civil War there were a few anatomists here and there who tried to explain black/white differences in terms of biology, but they were very marginal in public discourse. At that time Lamarckian thinking was very dominant, i.e., blacks were considered mentally and behaviorally different but it was thought these differences would disappear through exposure to white society.

    Could you expand on this a little? Are you claiming that during the period of American slavery, popular wisdom had it that blacks were on the upward path to moral and social improvement and that the state of slavery would wither away?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_eclipse_of_Darwinism

    The leading scientists openly argued against Darwinism and for Lamarckian mechanisms of race improvement until WW2. They were never really defeated.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnest_Hooton#Hooton_on_African_Americans_.281930-1940.29

    http://www.unz.org/Pub/Colliers-1939may06-00012
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “After being a sign of age difference and then gender difference, skin color took on a third meaning within historic times—to varying degrees in Antiquity and then overwhelmingly with the expansion of the European world from the sixteenth century onward. Today, this new meaning has eclipsed the older ones, at least at the level of conscious thought.”

    Razib on Motala

    http://www.unz.com/gnxp/white-people-are-a-homoplasy/#comment-1058282

    The Motala people being killed like an enemy people, could that have something to do with them being lighter (or darker) that whoever killed them? There seems to have been a common culture across Scotland-Doggerland-Germany (same artifacts). As Doggerland slowly sank into the sea a huge population of Doggerlanders could have ended up in Scandinavia. The Motala people’s skin may have made them seem different to the Doggerlanders and vice versa . Motala people, who may not have been welcoming of the climate change migrants, would surely have noticed the skin difference.

    Note that this conflict scenario would not be as modern diversity theories predict, an example of how the most minor discrimination is a slippery slope to insane exterminatory prejudice, but an existential conflict where there was not enough land for both peoples to flourish or even survive.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Colorism, according to Wikipedia, appears to be near-universal: https://goo.gl/xw4FqR

    Since women tend to be fairer in complexion but were of inferior status to males in all known civilized societies before modern democracies (patriarchy was universal) isn’t it curious that darker male tones were not the more prestigious?

    This points to sexual selection, I think, as the major force driving the paleness of females: it was attraction, not status, perhaps not unlinked to the cuteness of the newborn child. Even so, couldn’t evolution have led to a bifurcation: the lighter the female the more desirable, but also the darker the male? We see that to some degree in interracial or inter-ethnic dating (tall, dark, and handsome, southern Italians for example) but not within mono-ethnic societies that I am aware. Do some of the latter differ in the average difference of hue between the sexes?

    And then there are exceptions: East Asian females tend to prefer Caucasian males, and Caucasian males are not averse to East Asian females. Why would that be?

    These are just thoughts off the top of my old-man’s-head.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    "We find similar sentiments in early Christian writings, such as those by Origen." What is the source of their sentiments if not the talmudic jews? It is certainly not the Bible.

    The early Christian theologian Origen (184-253 A.D.) wrote his unkind remarks about the Egyptians well before similar remarks appeared in the Talmud. Would you like to see what other early Christians had to say on this subject?

    At one time we were Ethiopians in our vices and sins. How so? Because our sins had blackened us. But afterwards we heard the words: "Wash yourselves clean!" And we said: "Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow." We are Ethiopians, therefore, who have been transformed from blackness to whiteness. St. Jerome (347-420 A.D.)
     

    Chus, in Hebrew means Ethiopian, that is, black and dark, one who has a soul as black as his body, of whom Jeremiah says: "Can the Ethiopian change his skin? The Leopard his spots?" In the psalm, then, Chusi signifies Saul as David's black and dark enemy. ... because it is our concern to interpret Scripture, not according to history, but with spiritual understanding, we are interpreting Chusi, this Ethiopian, to be no other than the devil. The question now is, how is this Chusi the son of Jemini; how is this Ethiopian devil the son of the right hand? He is Ethiopian by reason of his vice; he is the son of the right hand because he was created by God. St. Jerome (347-420 A.D.)
     

    And he looked, and behold, the work of fornication came and drew night unto him, and it stood up before him in the form of an Ethiopian woman whose smell was exceedingly foul, but he was unable to endure her smell, and he drove her away from his presence. Apophthegmata Patrum (fifth century onward)
     

    Do not let the body of a black girl soil yours, nor lie with her for her Hell-black face. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia (473-521 A.D.)
     
    I could cite many other early Christians, but you get the drift. During Late Antiquity, there was a racialization of attitudes toward skin color, and we see this in Christian, Jewish, and Muslim writings. It wasn't a specifically Talmudic thing.

    You are reading it wrong. Who was brought out of Egypt, the land of their slavery?

    In Hebrew, the word is avadim. Literally, it means "a house of slaves." In the past, a "house" meant not only a physical structure but also the people who lived in it, i.e., the household. More broadly, it meant the lineage of people associated with the house. We see this in terms like "the House of Tudor", "the House of Windsor" etc. "House of slaves" means "nation of slaves" and refers to the Egyptian people as a whole and not simply to the Jews.

    For what it's worth, that is how ancient Jewish and Christian scholars understood Exodus 20:2. The term "their slavery" appears nowhere in the original text.

    It’s still the case that eliminating welfare and reducing or eliminating taxes would benefit whites relative to non-whites.

    You're seeing "whites" and "non-whites" as homogeneous entities. They aren't. This may come as a surprise to you, but the richest 10% of whites feel little sense of solidarity with the other 90%. As for "non-whites" you're talking largely about African Americans and to a lesser extent Hispanic Americans. Asians, who are the fastest-growing group among "non-whites", have their own welfare system and would do well in a post-welfare America. This is especially true for many Muslim groups, but I've also seen it with other groups, like the Sikhs. Their welfare system will survive the end of ours.

    Eliminating things like Social Security would hurt old and middle aged people who depend on or have planned to depend on them. But most plans to eliminate them don’t call for eliminating them for such people, but for the future.

    The future will come sooner than you think.

    Ethiopia means “burn face” in Greek, it was term used for all sub-sahara Africa in Hellenistic and Roman times, but the irony is that the second country to become officially Christian was the Kingdom of Aksum in what is today Ethiopia.

    The Ethiopian Orthodox Church preserved a bunch of books that were lost and forgotten for Western Christianity like Enoch.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “We find similar sentiments in early Christian writings, such as those by Origen.” What is the source of their sentiments if not the talmudic jews? It is certainly not the Bible.

    The early Christian theologian Origen (184-253 A.D.) wrote his unkind remarks about the Egyptians well before similar remarks appeared in the Talmud. Would you like to see what other early Christians had to say on this subject?

    At one time we were Ethiopians in our vices and sins. How so? Because our sins had blackened us. But afterwards we heard the words: “Wash yourselves clean!” And we said: “Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.” We are Ethiopians, therefore, who have been transformed from blackness to whiteness. St. Jerome (347-420 A.D.)

    Chus, in Hebrew means Ethiopian, that is, black and dark, one who has a soul as black as his body, of whom Jeremiah says: “Can the Ethiopian change his skin? The Leopard his spots?” In the psalm, then, Chusi signifies Saul as David’s black and dark enemy. … because it is our concern to interpret Scripture, not according to history, but with spiritual understanding, we are interpreting Chusi, this Ethiopian, to be no other than the devil. The question now is, how is this Chusi the son of Jemini; how is this Ethiopian devil the son of the right hand? He is Ethiopian by reason of his vice; he is the son of the right hand because he was created by God. St. Jerome (347-420 A.D.)

    And he looked, and behold, the work of fornication came and drew night unto him, and it stood up before him in the form of an Ethiopian woman whose smell was exceedingly foul, but he was unable to endure her smell, and he drove her away from his presence. Apophthegmata Patrum (fifth century onward)

    Do not let the body of a black girl soil yours, nor lie with her for her Hell-black face. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia (473-521 A.D.)

    I could cite many other early Christians, but you get the drift. During Late Antiquity, there was a racialization of attitudes toward skin color, and we see this in Christian, Jewish, and Muslim writings. It wasn’t a specifically Talmudic thing.

    You are reading it wrong. Who was brought out of Egypt, the land of their slavery?

    In Hebrew, the word is avadim. Literally, it means “a house of slaves.” In the past, a “house” meant not only a physical structure but also the people who lived in it, i.e., the household. More broadly, it meant the lineage of people associated with the house. We see this in terms like “the House of Tudor”, “the House of Windsor” etc. “House of slaves” means “nation of slaves” and refers to the Egyptian people as a whole and not simply to the Jews.

    For what it’s worth, that is how ancient Jewish and Christian scholars understood Exodus 20:2. The term “their slavery” appears nowhere in the original text.

    It’s still the case that eliminating welfare and reducing or eliminating taxes would benefit whites relative to non-whites.

    You’re seeing “whites” and “non-whites” as homogeneous entities. They aren’t. This may come as a surprise to you, but the richest 10% of whites feel little sense of solidarity with the other 90%. As for “non-whites” you’re talking largely about African Americans and to a lesser extent Hispanic Americans. Asians, who are the fastest-growing group among “non-whites”, have their own welfare system and would do well in a post-welfare America. This is especially true for many Muslim groups, but I’ve also seen it with other groups, like the Sikhs. Their welfare system will survive the end of ours.

    Eliminating things like Social Security would hurt old and middle aged people who depend on or have planned to depend on them. But most plans to eliminate them don’t call for eliminating them for such people, but for the future.

    The future will come sooner than you think.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chiron
    Ethiopia means "burn face" in Greek, it was term used for all sub-sahara Africa in Hellenistic and Roman times, but the irony is that the second country to become officially Christian was the Kingdom of Aksum in what is today Ethiopia.

    The Ethiopian Orthodox Church preserved a bunch of books that were lost and forgotten for Western Christianity like Enoch.

    , @Anonymous
    No, I don't see whites and non-whites as homogeneous. And when I say that eliminating welfare and reducing or eliminating taxes would benefit whites relative to non-whites, I mean middle class whites. I'm not talking about wealthy whites, for whom taxation and welfare are largely irrelevant.

    This isn't about "solidarity". This is about bringing public policy in line with actual costs, rather than socializing costs. The Asian welfare system you're talking about is completely dependent on state socialism - favorable family migration policies, government benefits, small business laws, non-discrimination and equality legislation, etc.
    , @Bliss

    The early Christian theologian Origen (184-253 A.D.) wrote his unkind remarks about the Egyptians well before similar remarks appeared in the Talmud. ....I could cite many other early Christians, but you get the drift. During Late Antiquity, there was a racialization of attitudes toward skin color, and we see this in Christian, Jewish, and Muslim writings. It wasn’t a specifically Talmudic thing.
     
    The jewish Philo of Alexandria precedes Origen, also from Alexandria, Egypt, and expressed these sentiments a couple centuries earlier. So again, where did some christians (and later some muslims) get this idiotic idea from if not from the jews?

    http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7641.html

    Of course, when Christianity and Islam accepted the Jewish Bible as part of their heritage, they inherited as well some of Judaism's interpretations of its sacred text. It is often noted that the Qurhan and later Islamic stories about biblical personalities and events (israHi liyyat) reflect much of ancient Jewish biblical interpretation. As the ninth-century traditionist, al-Bukhari, wrote: "The Jews used to read the Torah in Hebrew and to interpret it to the people of Islam in Arabic."15 The same is true for Christianity in Asia Minor and the lands of the Near East. The Christian Syriac Bible translation, the Peshit3ta, has been shown to contain many Jewish interpretations embedded in its translation. The church fathers of the East, especially, but not only, Ephrem (d. 373), transmit Jewish midrashic explanations again and again. Origen (ca. 253), who wrote in Greek, not Syriac, lived in the Near East, first in Alexandria, then in Caesarea, and his works too contain many Jewish interpretations. So do the writings of Jerome, who lived in Bethlehem.16 Sometimes these church fathers quote a contemporary, usually anonymous, Jewish source (e.g., "the Hebrew"). Many times they transmit a Jewish interpretation without attribution.

    “House of slaves” means “nation of slaves” and refers to the Egyptian people as a whole and not simply to the Jews.
     
    Actually it is "house of slavery". It is stupidly illogical to insist that means "nation of slaves". Do you really think the jews were the slaves of slaves? That their egyptian slave masters were themselves slaves? Who the hell were they slaves of?
    , @Seraphim
    @” We are Ethiopians, therefore, who have been transformed from blackness to whiteness. St. Jerome (347-420 A.D.)

    Clearly St. Jerome refers to the episode of the baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch by the Apostle Philip, in the Acts of the Apostles, 8, 26-40.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • :
    Clearly an important advantage people in the north had was the easier preservability of meat. Is it correct if I infer that the disadvantages Africa had were a) the high pathogen load (Malaria etc.) and b) unavailability of a method of meat preservation? Or is there a third factor: wildlife preventing an expansion of agriculture and mostly being perceived as a danger to one’s crop rather than a source of food?
    And, of course, people with spears in their hands will likely not conceive of the notion that they need to first eradicate the megafauna in their environment just to be able to increase their agricultural acreage. Or would they also not have been capable of effecting that? I’d assume their hunting weapons were not necessarily inferior to those of the whitening people in the north?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Numinous

    This isn’t true except for the dimmest and most feeble whites, whose numbers are small enough that they can survive on voluntary charity.
     
    Not according to this National Review journalist. It seems there are entire counties in Appalachia that are dependent on food stamps.

    It seems there are entire counties in Appalachia that are dependent on food stamps.

    “Entire counties” like Owsley County with a population of 4,722.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • There was racism in Antiquity but many Historians and Intellectuals with a axe to grind lie about this.

    The Old Testament is sort of War propaganda for the Tribe and the New Testament is sort of anti-racism movement for the Roman Empire.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    It's still the case that eliminating welfare and reducing or eliminating taxes would benefit whites relative to non-whites. Welfare doesn't come out of thin air; it comes from taxes. And those taxes are paid by whites.

    Many non-whites depend on public housing and food stamps, and would not be able to make it through a winter in much of the US without public assistance. They would not be able to earn enough on the private market to pay for basic utilities for survival like heating bills. This isn't true except for the dimmest and most feeble whites, whose numbers are small enough that they can survive on voluntary charity.

    Eliminating things like Social Security would hurt old and middle aged people who depend on or have planned to depend on them. But most plans to eliminate them don't call for eliminating them for such people, but for the future.

    This isn’t true except for the dimmest and most feeble whites, whose numbers are small enough that they can survive on voluntary charity.

    Not according to this National Review journalist. It seems there are entire counties in Appalachia that are dependent on food stamps.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome


    It seems there are entire counties in Appalachia that are dependent on food stamps.

     

    "Entire counties" like Owsley County with a population of 4,722.
    , @Anonymous
    Being on food stamps is not identical to being unable to survive without food stamps. Appalachian folk on food stamps would be able to survive without them, just like their ancestors did for generations. That's not the case for non-whites on food stamps.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost
    1) Is megafauna-hunting categorically distinctive? What role did it play where it did not fundamentally “change the equation”, because other food sources were continuously available in sufficient amounts?

    It wasn't so much megafauna as highly mobile herds of game animals (mostly reindeer). Hunting distances were thus longer, and male mortality correspondingly higher. It was this higher male mortality, together with the higher costs of polygyny (because men had to supply most of the food), that created a deficit of men on the mate market and thus intensified sexual selection of women.

    Polygyny becomes less expensive for men where women can get enough food through gathering. This is the big difference between tropical and non-tropical environments. In winter, there are few opportunities for food gathering.

    2) Do we have other “evolutionary stories” of the impact of gender disparities – e.g., when the sign of the disparity is reversed?

    I deal with these other "stories" in:

    Frost, P. (2008). Sexual selection and human geographic variation, Special Issue: Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Meeting of the NorthEastern Evolutionary Psychology Society, Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2(4),169-191.
    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228353785_Sexual_selection_and_human_geographic_variation/file/e0b495220b0b07c9f7.pdf

    Sean,

    Globalism is neither left nor right, and that's part of the problem. It's hard to organize opposition to it because the opposition is dispersed on both sides of the political spectrum.

    In other words it is the rabbinic babylonian Talmud, not the “revealed” Torah, that equates Egypt with Ham. There is nothing in the Bible itself that condemns egyptians/africans to slavery.

    Not just the Talmud. We find similar sentiments in early Christian writings, such as those by Origen.

    Your comment is partly right. The Curse of Ham was originally aimed at the Canaanites and not at the kushi (black Africans). When the Old Testament was written, there were few black slaves but many Canaanite slaves, so the Curse of Ham originally developed as a religious justification for the enslavement of the Canaanites.

    The situation changed as black slaves became more common in the Middle East, from about the time of Christ onward. The Curse of Ham thus became re-interpreted as a curse on another of Ham's sons, i.e., Kush.

    But the Bible does describe the Egyptians as slaves. Read Exodus 20:2

    “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery."

    In Hebrew, the term is literally "house of slavery." Egyptians were seen as a slave people in thrall to a slave-king.

    So the brown yemeni jews are the authentic jews and the white jews are mongrels or converts

    No. The Yemeni Jews are largely descended from local converts. It's significant that the ancient Jews often referred to the Arabs as "black," so they must have had a visibly lighter color.

    I’ve been wondering about a possible talmudic origins of the biological racism that arose in Europe in the last 500 years. But I shall say no more about that particular train of thought, as the blog author really doesn’t like that kind of stuff.

    I don't like that stuff because it's not really true, and I've grown tired of debating it.

    As black slaves became more numerous in the Middle East, there was a racialization of attitudes toward skin color, and this can be seen not only in the Talmud but also in early Christian and early Islamic writings.

    Eliminating welfare and reducing or eliminating taxes would benefit whites relative to non-whites.

    You're treating White Americans as a single homogenous group. It's true that most billionaires are "white" but their interests don't coincide with those of the majority of Americans, be they white or black. In fact, they increasingly feel scorn for most Americans.

    Eliminating social welfare programs would hurt a lot of whites. I'm not thinking so much about welfare per se, but rather things like Old Age Security. The average White American is an individualist who doesn't have much of a safety net in the form of family and relatives. Yes, eliminating social welfare programs would hurt African Americans much more than White Americans, but it would probably hurt White Americans much more than certain immigrant groups.

    That drawing by Heinrich Menu von Minutoliis is worse than just “cultural baggage”. It was a hoax meant to deceive.

    If you have evidence that it's a hoax, please produce it. I'm being sincere. I don't wish to legitimize a hoax.

    It’s still the case that eliminating welfare and reducing or eliminating taxes would benefit whites relative to non-whites. Welfare doesn’t come out of thin air; it comes from taxes. And those taxes are paid by whites.

    Many non-whites depend on public housing and food stamps, and would not be able to make it through a winter in much of the US without public assistance. They would not be able to earn enough on the private market to pay for basic utilities for survival like heating bills. This isn’t true except for the dimmest and most feeble whites, whose numbers are small enough that they can survive on voluntary charity.

    Eliminating things like Social Security would hurt old and middle aged people who depend on or have planned to depend on them. But most plans to eliminate them don’t call for eliminating them for such people, but for the future.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous

    This isn’t true except for the dimmest and most feeble whites, whose numbers are small enough that they can survive on voluntary charity.
     
    Not according to this National Review journalist. It seems there are entire counties in Appalachia that are dependent on food stamps.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    1) Is megafauna-hunting categorically distinctive? What role did it play where it did not fundamentally “change the equation”, because other food sources were continuously available in sufficient amounts?

    It wasn't so much megafauna as highly mobile herds of game animals (mostly reindeer). Hunting distances were thus longer, and male mortality correspondingly higher. It was this higher male mortality, together with the higher costs of polygyny (because men had to supply most of the food), that created a deficit of men on the mate market and thus intensified sexual selection of women.

    Polygyny becomes less expensive for men where women can get enough food through gathering. This is the big difference between tropical and non-tropical environments. In winter, there are few opportunities for food gathering.

    2) Do we have other “evolutionary stories” of the impact of gender disparities – e.g., when the sign of the disparity is reversed?

    I deal with these other "stories" in:

    Frost, P. (2008). Sexual selection and human geographic variation, Special Issue: Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Meeting of the NorthEastern Evolutionary Psychology Society, Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2(4),169-191.
    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228353785_Sexual_selection_and_human_geographic_variation/file/e0b495220b0b07c9f7.pdf

    Sean,

    Globalism is neither left nor right, and that's part of the problem. It's hard to organize opposition to it because the opposition is dispersed on both sides of the political spectrum.

    In other words it is the rabbinic babylonian Talmud, not the “revealed” Torah, that equates Egypt with Ham. There is nothing in the Bible itself that condemns egyptians/africans to slavery.

    Not just the Talmud. We find similar sentiments in early Christian writings, such as those by Origen.

    Your comment is partly right. The Curse of Ham was originally aimed at the Canaanites and not at the kushi (black Africans). When the Old Testament was written, there were few black slaves but many Canaanite slaves, so the Curse of Ham originally developed as a religious justification for the enslavement of the Canaanites.

    The situation changed as black slaves became more common in the Middle East, from about the time of Christ onward. The Curse of Ham thus became re-interpreted as a curse on another of Ham's sons, i.e., Kush.

    But the Bible does describe the Egyptians as slaves. Read Exodus 20:2

    “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery."

    In Hebrew, the term is literally "house of slavery." Egyptians were seen as a slave people in thrall to a slave-king.

    So the brown yemeni jews are the authentic jews and the white jews are mongrels or converts

    No. The Yemeni Jews are largely descended from local converts. It's significant that the ancient Jews often referred to the Arabs as "black," so they must have had a visibly lighter color.

    I’ve been wondering about a possible talmudic origins of the biological racism that arose in Europe in the last 500 years. But I shall say no more about that particular train of thought, as the blog author really doesn’t like that kind of stuff.

    I don't like that stuff because it's not really true, and I've grown tired of debating it.

    As black slaves became more numerous in the Middle East, there was a racialization of attitudes toward skin color, and this can be seen not only in the Talmud but also in early Christian and early Islamic writings.

    Eliminating welfare and reducing or eliminating taxes would benefit whites relative to non-whites.

    You're treating White Americans as a single homogenous group. It's true that most billionaires are "white" but their interests don't coincide with those of the majority of Americans, be they white or black. In fact, they increasingly feel scorn for most Americans.

    Eliminating social welfare programs would hurt a lot of whites. I'm not thinking so much about welfare per se, but rather things like Old Age Security. The average White American is an individualist who doesn't have much of a safety net in the form of family and relatives. Yes, eliminating social welfare programs would hurt African Americans much more than White Americans, but it would probably hurt White Americans much more than certain immigrant groups.

    That drawing by Heinrich Menu von Minutoliis is worse than just “cultural baggage”. It was a hoax meant to deceive.

    If you have evidence that it's a hoax, please produce it. I'm being sincere. I don't wish to legitimize a hoax.

    If you have evidence that it’s a hoax, please produce it. I’m being sincere. I don’t wish to legitimize a hoax.

    The images seem to be used by reputable sources:

    The Theban Mapping Project

    http://www.thebanmappingproject.com/search/search_images.asp?Keywords=libyans&Query=Search

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Bliss

    Useful to note that the Berbers can be quite fair:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-484176/The-Berber-blondes-Morocco-sparked-Madeleine-sightings.html
     

    How many of such berbers are the descendants of european slaves?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade

    The Barbary slave trade refers to the slave markets that flourished on the Barbary Coast of North Africa, or modern-day Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and western Libya, between the 16th and 19th centuries...The North African slave markets traded in European slaves. The European slaves were acquired by Barbary pirates in slave raids on ships and by raids on coastal towns from Italy to Spain, Portugal, France, England, the Netherlands, and as far afield as Iceland. Men, women, and children were captured, to such a devastating extent that vast numbers of sea coast towns were abandoned.

    Ohio State University history Professor Robert Davis describes the White Slave Trade as minimized by most modern historians in his book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500–1800 (Palgrave Macmillan). Davis estimates that 1 million to 1.25 million white Christian Europeans were enslaved in North Africa, from the beginning of the 16th century to the middle of the 18th, by slave traders from Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli alone (these numbers do not include the European people which were enslaved by Morocco and by other raiders and traders of the Mediterranean Sea coast),[1] and roughly 700 Americans were held captive in this region as slaves between 1785 and 1815.

    How many of such berbers are the descendants of european slaves?

    Don’t know for certain.My instinct is to say relatively few.Slaves in traditional societies typically had poor reproductive rates*.

    And, of course, one also has to bear in mind the North African importation of Black slaves from Sub-Saharan Africa:

    Ronald Segal, in Islam’s Black Slaves, estimates the total number of African slaves shipped to the Muslim world at 11.5M-14M. This breaks down as follows:

    From 650-1600 CE
    Citing Ralph Austen:
    Trans-Saharan: 4,820,000
    Red Sea: 1.6M
    East Africa: 0.8M
    TOTAL: 7.22M shipped
    Citing Paul Lovejoy: 3.5-10.0M shipped

    17th Century
    Sahara: 0.7M
    Red Sea: 0.1M
    East Africa: 0.1M
    TOTAL: 900,000 shipped
    18th C
    Sahara: 0.7M
    Red Sea: 0.2M
    East Africa: 0.4M
    TOTAL: 1,300,000 shipped
    19th C
    Sahara: 1.2M
    Red Sea: 0.45M
    East Africa: 0.442M
    TOTAL: 2,092,000 shipped
    TOTAL: 11,512,000 shipped
    Segal also mentions estimates by Raymond Mauvy:

    7th C: 0.1M
    8th C: 0.2M
    9th C: 0.4M
    10th-13th Cs: 2.0M
    14th C: 1.0M
    15th-19th Cs: 10.0M
    First half 20th C.: 300,000
    TOTAL: 14M shipped

    http://necrometrics.com/pre1700b.htm#ISlave

    Hence, one could argue that dark Berbers have been affected by an influx of Sub-Saharan genes via the trans-Saharan Slave trade

    *People have a tendency to use mainland North America as a model for slave reproduction rates in traditional societies.This is a bad idea, as slaves in mainland North America had uniquely high rates of natural growth

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @syonredux
    RE: Libyans,

    Useful to note that the Berbers can be quite fair:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinedine_Zidane#/media/File:Zidane_Zizu.jpg

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-484176/The-Berber-blondes-Morocco-sparked-Madeleine-sightings.html

    Useful to note that the Berbers can be quite fair:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-484176/The-Berber-blondes-Morocco-sparked-Madeleine-sightings.html

    How many of such berbers are the descendants of european slaves?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade

    The Barbary slave trade refers to the slave markets that flourished on the Barbary Coast of North Africa, or modern-day Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and western Libya, between the 16th and 19th centuries...The North African slave markets traded in European slaves. The European slaves were acquired by Barbary pirates in slave raids on ships and by raids on coastal towns from Italy to Spain, Portugal, France, England, the Netherlands, and as far afield as Iceland. Men, women, and children were captured, to such a devastating extent that vast numbers of sea coast towns were abandoned.

    Ohio State University history Professor Robert Davis describes the White Slave Trade as minimized by most modern historians in his book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500–1800 (Palgrave Macmillan). Davis estimates that 1 million to 1.25 million white Christian Europeans were enslaved in North Africa, from the beginning of the 16th century to the middle of the 18th, by slave traders from Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli alone (these numbers do not include the European people which were enslaved by Morocco and by other raiders and traders of the Mediterranean Sea coast),[1] and roughly 700 Americans were held captive in this region as slaves between 1785 and 1815.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    How many of such berbers are the descendants of european slaves?
     
    Don't know for certain.My instinct is to say relatively few.Slaves in traditional societies typically had poor reproductive rates*.

    And, of course, one also has to bear in mind the North African importation of Black slaves from Sub-Saharan Africa:


    Ronald Segal, in Islam's Black Slaves, estimates the total number of African slaves shipped to the Muslim world at 11.5M-14M. This breaks down as follows:

    From 650-1600 CE
    Citing Ralph Austen:
    Trans-Saharan: 4,820,000
    Red Sea: 1.6M
    East Africa: 0.8M
    TOTAL: 7.22M shipped
    Citing Paul Lovejoy: 3.5-10.0M shipped

    17th Century
    Sahara: 0.7M
    Red Sea: 0.1M
    East Africa: 0.1M
    TOTAL: 900,000 shipped
    18th C
    Sahara: 0.7M
    Red Sea: 0.2M
    East Africa: 0.4M
    TOTAL: 1,300,000 shipped
    19th C
    Sahara: 1.2M
    Red Sea: 0.45M
    East Africa: 0.442M
    TOTAL: 2,092,000 shipped
    TOTAL: 11,512,000 shipped
    Segal also mentions estimates by Raymond Mauvy:

    7th C: 0.1M
    8th C: 0.2M
    9th C: 0.4M
    10th-13th Cs: 2.0M
    14th C: 1.0M
    15th-19th Cs: 10.0M
    First half 20th C.: 300,000
    TOTAL: 14M shipped


     

    http://necrometrics.com/pre1700b.htm#ISlave

    Hence, one could argue that dark Berbers have been affected by an influx of Sub-Saharan genes via the trans-Saharan Slave trade

    *People have a tendency to use mainland North America as a model for slave reproduction rates in traditional societies.This is a bad idea, as slaves in mainland North America had uniquely high rates of natural growth

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean
    It is the coercive power of the state that is bring about the changes we are discussing. Old comment of mine.

    A lot of people bang on about France being the first nation state. But the author of The Origins of the Modern European State, 1450-1725 (1974) had an interesting view of the process .

    A vital thread within this story of “state-building”, according to Joe, was the long-running and sinuous duel explored in his next book. The emergence of modern government involved, among other things, the erosion or downright destruction by centralising rulers of old liberties – those of hierarchical “estates”, such as the clergy, nobility and commoners in pre-revolutionary France, corporate bodies, and communities large and small. Into this space flowed new ideas of individual freedom and rights, presenting rulers with new challenges in their defence – whether dutiful or self-interested – of order. He concluded that in this struggle it was indisputably, and perhaps inevitably, order that tended to prevail, leaving only private thought as an area of inalienable personal freedom. His regret at a conclusion he regarded as bearing on the present and future, as well as the past, was undisguised.
     

    It is the coercive power of the state that is bring about the changes we are discussing.

    It is undeniable that government has sucked up all power centers unto itself. Given that, why is that a liability if one wants to change the status quo? Whereas 200-300 years ago (and before), the power and the elites were dispersed which required a balancing act to fight the Hydra. Now that all power resides with one group that has no natural allies why does that not enhance the ability of the opposition to focus?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost
    - do people shout for help in a higher pitch than normal?

    Perhaps. Men tend to dislike crying for help because they see it as babyish.

    - do domestic cat’s miaow sound more like a baby than wild cats?

    I found this on wiki:

    Adult cats do not meow to each other, and so adult meowing to human beings is likely to be a post-domestication extension of mewing by kittens
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_communication#Meow

    I assume you are referring to genetic research? Otherwise the principal change in attitude regarding race seems to be “it’s not cool to discriminate against or denigrate someone on account of their race“. Socially that’s where society seems to have gone. Are you saying that’s a bad thing?

    Actually, the situation is better among geneticists. They're at least aware that mental and behavioral traits are as heritable as anatomical traits. So they understand the logical disconnect in believing that the human species has diversified to a great degree anatomically and not at all mentally.

    In the social sciences and the humanities it's another story. It's not just that they're ignorant of biology and evolution.

    I belong to a writers group, and I'm continually exposed to the way they think and write. One thing I've learned is that most young writers are reluctant to describe the physical appearance of their characters. They say that the reader should be free to project his or her own appearance on to the characters.

    The situation is a bit different with picture books for children. In that case, the characters have to look a certain way. This leads to a dilemma: what proportion of the characters should be white and what proportion non-white? Many authors err on the side of safety by making most of the characters non-white.

    With the decline of Christianity, the mental space it once occupied has been replaced by the ethos of non-discrimination, which now functions just like a religion. People often react angrily if you ask them to explain why it is always wrong to discriminate. Even when they don't get angry, they'll offer circular reasons. It is wrong to discriminate because a good person does not discriminate.

    You ask me whether the ethos of non-discrimination is a bad thing. I believe it is. One cannot be a sentient human being without discriminating every minute of every day. We discriminate in the food we choose to eat, in the beliefs we choose to accept, and in the people we choose to frequent and, ultimately, marry.

    You'll probably reply that I'm using the word "discriminate" in a broad sense and that you mean it in a narrow sense. Unfortunately, the distinction between broad and narrow is less and less clear. Is it wrong to discriminate against transsexuals? Now it is. And now we are faced with the laborious task of abolishing male and female washrooms -- so that transsexuals will not feel excluded from society.

    But it doesn't end there. What about all the books -- including great works of literature -- that glorify "heteronormative values" and "cis-normative values"? They will have to go. And they are going. Just look at the children's books that are now being published. That's your future.

    The ethos of non-discrimination will make Communism seem like a walk in the park.

    another side effect of those evolved behaviors might be attitudes to young animals

    Pets tend to look more neotenous than their wild ancestors, i.e., bigger eyes relative to the face, smaller muzzles, smaller noses, etc.

    Perhaps the non-discrimination that concerns you so much has roots in Christianity:

    “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”–Galatians 3:28.

    “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.”–Colossians 3:11

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    1) Is megafauna-hunting categorically distinctive? What role did it play where it did not fundamentally “change the equation”, because other food sources were continuously available in sufficient amounts?

    It wasn't so much megafauna as highly mobile herds of game animals (mostly reindeer). Hunting distances were thus longer, and male mortality correspondingly higher. It was this higher male mortality, together with the higher costs of polygyny (because men had to supply most of the food), that created a deficit of men on the mate market and thus intensified sexual selection of women.

    Polygyny becomes less expensive for men where women can get enough food through gathering. This is the big difference between tropical and non-tropical environments. In winter, there are few opportunities for food gathering.

    2) Do we have other “evolutionary stories” of the impact of gender disparities – e.g., when the sign of the disparity is reversed?

    I deal with these other "stories" in:

    Frost, P. (2008). Sexual selection and human geographic variation, Special Issue: Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Meeting of the NorthEastern Evolutionary Psychology Society, Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2(4),169-191.
    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228353785_Sexual_selection_and_human_geographic_variation/file/e0b495220b0b07c9f7.pdf

    Sean,

    Globalism is neither left nor right, and that's part of the problem. It's hard to organize opposition to it because the opposition is dispersed on both sides of the political spectrum.

    In other words it is the rabbinic babylonian Talmud, not the “revealed” Torah, that equates Egypt with Ham. There is nothing in the Bible itself that condemns egyptians/africans to slavery.

    Not just the Talmud. We find similar sentiments in early Christian writings, such as those by Origen.

    Your comment is partly right. The Curse of Ham was originally aimed at the Canaanites and not at the kushi (black Africans). When the Old Testament was written, there were few black slaves but many Canaanite slaves, so the Curse of Ham originally developed as a religious justification for the enslavement of the Canaanites.

    The situation changed as black slaves became more common in the Middle East, from about the time of Christ onward. The Curse of Ham thus became re-interpreted as a curse on another of Ham's sons, i.e., Kush.

    But the Bible does describe the Egyptians as slaves. Read Exodus 20:2

    “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery."

    In Hebrew, the term is literally "house of slavery." Egyptians were seen as a slave people in thrall to a slave-king.

    So the brown yemeni jews are the authentic jews and the white jews are mongrels or converts

    No. The Yemeni Jews are largely descended from local converts. It's significant that the ancient Jews often referred to the Arabs as "black," so they must have had a visibly lighter color.

    I’ve been wondering about a possible talmudic origins of the biological racism that arose in Europe in the last 500 years. But I shall say no more about that particular train of thought, as the blog author really doesn’t like that kind of stuff.

    I don't like that stuff because it's not really true, and I've grown tired of debating it.

    As black slaves became more numerous in the Middle East, there was a racialization of attitudes toward skin color, and this can be seen not only in the Talmud but also in early Christian and early Islamic writings.

    Eliminating welfare and reducing or eliminating taxes would benefit whites relative to non-whites.

    You're treating White Americans as a single homogenous group. It's true that most billionaires are "white" but their interests don't coincide with those of the majority of Americans, be they white or black. In fact, they increasingly feel scorn for most Americans.

    Eliminating social welfare programs would hurt a lot of whites. I'm not thinking so much about welfare per se, but rather things like Old Age Security. The average White American is an individualist who doesn't have much of a safety net in the form of family and relatives. Yes, eliminating social welfare programs would hurt African Americans much more than White Americans, but it would probably hurt White Americans much more than certain immigrant groups.

    That drawing by Heinrich Menu von Minutoliis is worse than just “cultural baggage”. It was a hoax meant to deceive.

    If you have evidence that it's a hoax, please produce it. I'm being sincere. I don't wish to legitimize a hoax.

    Not just the Talmud. We find similar sentiments in early Christian writings, such as those by Origen.

    What is the source of their sentiments if not the talmudic jews? It is certainly not the Bible.

    But the Bible does describe the Egyptians as slaves. Read Exodus 20:2

    “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.”

    You are reading it wrong. Who was brought out of Egypt, the land of their slavery? The hebrew slaves of the egyptians. Does that not make the talmudic narrative a brazen ass-backwards lie? Shows the power of brainwashing when one of the the most well known stories of the Old Testament is totally ignored because it contradicts the narrative…

    No. The Yemeni Jews are largely descended from local converts.

    If the original, authentic hebrews were “honey-colored” who are more likely to be the converts: the white jews or the brown ones?

    If you have evidence that it’s a hoax, please produce it. I’m being sincere. I don’t wish to legitimize a hoax.

    It’s a hoax because it’s being passed off as an ancient egyptian painting when in fact it is a 19th century drawing by the european Heinrich Menu von Minutoli using “artistic license”:

    A Libyan, a Nubian, a Syrian, and an Egyptian, drawing by an unknown artist after a mural of the tomb of Seti I; Copy by Heinrich von Minutoli (1820). Note that the skin shades are due to the 19th century illustrator, not the Ancient Egyptian original.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @iffen
    Thanks for your reply. I think I understand most of what you are saying. I disagree on some points.

    Well at first blush, one would expect the ongoing tendency to be in the direction of the entropic state. In other words society would be altering towards more ethnocentric arrangements on the part of the largest group within them . So there would be proposals to take the vote away from non-whites just because of their race. But the tendency is very definitely in the opposite direction.
     
    The tendency in European states and their descendant states is away from ethnocentrism. Learned people see it for what it is. The largest group within does not fit the definition of a group.

    I certainly see that the billionaires want to do away with borders and take a globalist view because that is more money for them. Undifferentiated masses of individuals are certainly easier to control. The logical place for them is the libertarian globalist POV and this would be the "smart money" position.

    Liberals and the left are not against all groups. They are great defenders of “underdog “groups and push back against groups that they see as part of the historic hierarchy. They want to liberate the individual from group norms and controls. This causes a lot of dissonance for them when a favored underdog group is found to be stifling the individual.

    A good number of anti-government conservative types are Social Darwinists and do not want the government to be used to empower the lower orders. In other words, "If you are not independently wealthy; work until you drop."

    It is the coercive power of the state that is bring about the changes we are discussing. Old comment of mine.

    A lot of people bang on about France being the first nation state. But the author of The Origins of the Modern European State, 1450-1725 (1974) had an interesting view of the process .

    A vital thread within this story of “state-building”, according to Joe, was the long-running and sinuous duel explored in his next book. The emergence of modern government involved, among other things, the erosion or downright destruction by centralising rulers of old liberties – those of hierarchical “estates”, such as the clergy, nobility and commoners in pre-revolutionary France, corporate bodies, and communities large and small. Into this space flowed new ideas of individual freedom and rights, presenting rulers with new challenges in their defence – whether dutiful or self-interested – of order. He concluded that in this struggle it was indisputably, and perhaps inevitably, order that tended to prevail, leaving only private thought as an area of inalienable personal freedom. His regret at a conclusion he regarded as bearing on the present and future, as well as the past, was undisguised.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen

    It is the coercive power of the state that is bring about the changes we are discussing.
     
    It is undeniable that government has sucked up all power centers unto itself. Given that, why is that a liability if one wants to change the status quo? Whereas 200-300 years ago (and before), the power and the elites were dispersed which required a balancing act to fight the Hydra. Now that all power resides with one group that has no natural allies why does that not enhance the ability of the opposition to focus?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Read More
    • Replies: @Bliss

    Useful to note that the Berbers can be quite fair:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-484176/The-Berber-blondes-Morocco-sparked-Madeleine-sightings.html
     

    How many of such berbers are the descendants of european slaves?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade

    The Barbary slave trade refers to the slave markets that flourished on the Barbary Coast of North Africa, or modern-day Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and western Libya, between the 16th and 19th centuries...The North African slave markets traded in European slaves. The European slaves were acquired by Barbary pirates in slave raids on ships and by raids on coastal towns from Italy to Spain, Portugal, France, England, the Netherlands, and as far afield as Iceland. Men, women, and children were captured, to such a devastating extent that vast numbers of sea coast towns were abandoned.

    Ohio State University history Professor Robert Davis describes the White Slave Trade as minimized by most modern historians in his book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500–1800 (Palgrave Macmillan). Davis estimates that 1 million to 1.25 million white Christian Europeans were enslaved in North Africa, from the beginning of the 16th century to the middle of the 18th, by slave traders from Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli alone (these numbers do not include the European people which were enslaved by Morocco and by other raiders and traders of the Mediterranean Sea coast),[1] and roughly 700 Americans were held captive in this region as slaves between 1785 and 1815.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • 1) Is megafauna-hunting categorically distinctive? What role did it play where it did not fundamentally “change the equation”, because other food sources were continuously available in sufficient amounts?

    It wasn’t so much megafauna as highly mobile herds of game animals (mostly reindeer). Hunting distances were thus longer, and male mortality correspondingly higher. It was this higher male mortality, together with the higher costs of polygyny (because men had to supply most of the food), that created a deficit of men on the mate market and thus intensified sexual selection of women.

    Polygyny becomes less expensive for men where women can get enough food through gathering. This is the big difference between tropical and non-tropical environments. In winter, there are few opportunities for food gathering.

    2) Do we have other “evolutionary stories” of the impact of gender disparities – e.g., when the sign of the disparity is reversed?

    I deal with these other “stories” in:

    Frost, P. (2008). Sexual selection and human geographic variation, Special Issue: Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Meeting of the NorthEastern Evolutionary Psychology Society, Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2(4),169-191.

    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228353785_Sexual_selection_and_human_geographic_variation/file/e0b495220b0b07c9f7.pdf

    Sean,

    Globalism is neither left nor right, and that’s part of the problem. It’s hard to organize opposition to it because the opposition is dispersed on both sides of the political spectrum.

    In other words it is the rabbinic babylonian Talmud, not the “revealed” Torah, that equates Egypt with Ham. There is nothing in the Bible itself that condemns egyptians/africans to slavery.

    Not just the Talmud. We find similar sentiments in early Christian writings, such as those by Origen.

    Your comment is partly right. The Curse of Ham was originally aimed at the Canaanites and not at the kushi (black Africans). When the Old Testament was written, there were few black slaves but many Canaanite slaves, so the Curse of Ham originally developed as a religious justification for the enslavement of the Canaanites.

    The situation changed as black slaves became more common in the Middle East, from about the time of Christ onward. The Curse of Ham thus became re-interpreted as a curse on another of Ham’s sons, i.e., Kush.

    But the Bible does describe the Egyptians as slaves. Read Exodus 20:2

    “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.”

    In Hebrew, the term is literally “house of slavery.” Egyptians were seen as a slave people in thrall to a slave-king.

    So the brown yemeni jews are the authentic jews and the white jews are mongrels or converts

    No. The Yemeni Jews are largely descended from local converts. It’s significant that the ancient Jews often referred to the Arabs as “black,” so they must have had a visibly lighter color.

    I’ve been wondering about a possible talmudic origins of the biological racism that arose in Europe in the last 500 years. But I shall say no more about that particular train of thought, as the blog author really doesn’t like that kind of stuff.

    I don’t like that stuff because it’s not really true, and I’ve grown tired of debating it.

    As black slaves became more numerous in the Middle East, there was a racialization of attitudes toward skin color, and this can be seen not only in the Talmud but also in early Christian and early Islamic writings.

    Eliminating welfare and reducing or eliminating taxes would benefit whites relative to non-whites.

    You’re treating White Americans as a single homogenous group. It’s true that most billionaires are “white” but their interests don’t coincide with those of the majority of Americans, be they white or black. In fact, they increasingly feel scorn for most Americans.

    Eliminating social welfare programs would hurt a lot of whites. I’m not thinking so much about welfare per se, but rather things like Old Age Security. The average White American is an individualist who doesn’t have much of a safety net in the form of family and relatives. Yes, eliminating social welfare programs would hurt African Americans much more than White Americans, but it would probably hurt White Americans much more than certain immigrant groups.

    That drawing by Heinrich Menu von Minutoliis is worse than just “cultural baggage”. It was a hoax meant to deceive.

    If you have evidence that it’s a hoax, please produce it. I’m being sincere. I don’t wish to legitimize a hoax.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bliss

    Not just the Talmud. We find similar sentiments in early Christian writings, such as those by Origen.
     
    What is the source of their sentiments if not the talmudic jews? It is certainly not the Bible.

    But the Bible does describe the Egyptians as slaves. Read Exodus 20:2

    “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.”
     
    You are reading it wrong. Who was brought out of Egypt, the land of their slavery? The hebrew slaves of the egyptians. Does that not make the talmudic narrative a brazen ass-backwards lie? Shows the power of brainwashing when one of the the most well known stories of the Old Testament is totally ignored because it contradicts the narrative...

    No. The Yemeni Jews are largely descended from local converts.
     
    If the original, authentic hebrews were "honey-colored" who are more likely to be the converts: the white jews or the brown ones?

    If you have evidence that it’s a hoax, please produce it. I’m being sincere. I don’t wish to legitimize a hoax.
     
    It's a hoax because it's being passed off as an ancient egyptian painting when in fact it is a 19th century drawing by the european Heinrich Menu von Minutoli using "artistic license":

    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seti1a.jpg

    A Libyan, a Nubian, a Syrian, and an Egyptian, drawing by an unknown artist after a mural of the tomb of Seti I; Copy by Heinrich von Minutoli (1820). Note that the skin shades are due to the 19th century illustrator, not the Ancient Egyptian original.
    , @syonredux

    If you have evidence that it’s a hoax, please produce it. I’m being sincere. I don’t wish to legitimize a hoax.
     
    The images seem to be used by reputable sources:

    The Theban Mapping Project


    http://www.thebanmappingproject.com/search/search_images.asp?Keywords=libyans&Query=Search
    , @Anonymous
    It's still the case that eliminating welfare and reducing or eliminating taxes would benefit whites relative to non-whites. Welfare doesn't come out of thin air; it comes from taxes. And those taxes are paid by whites.

    Many non-whites depend on public housing and food stamps, and would not be able to make it through a winter in much of the US without public assistance. They would not be able to earn enough on the private market to pay for basic utilities for survival like heating bills. This isn't true except for the dimmest and most feeble whites, whose numbers are small enough that they can survive on voluntary charity.

    Eliminating things like Social Security would hurt old and middle aged people who depend on or have planned to depend on them. But most plans to eliminate them don't call for eliminating them for such people, but for the future.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Not to disagree, but just to offer two minor counter examples that came to mind: Bernard Lewis quotes a Persian of the sixth century and an Iraqi of the tenth both of whom consider the mean tint of middle eastern skin and their middling hair texture to indicate a sort of ideal mean.

    Iran is the navel of the world because our land lies in the midst of other lands and our people are the most noble and illustrious of beings… And He made our appearance and our coloring and our hair according to a just mean…
    –Letter of Tansar

    The people of Iraq have sound minds… balanced natures… and a pale brown color, which is the most apt and proper color. They are the ones who are done to a turn in the womb. They do not come out with something between blond, buff, blanched, and leprous coloring such as the infants dropped from the wombs of the women of the Slaves and others of similar light complexion; nor are they overdone in the womb until they are burned so that the child comes out something between black, murky, malodorous, stinking, and crinkly-haired with uneven limbs, deficient minds, and depraved passions, such as… the Ethiopians. The Iraqis are neither half-baked dough nor burned crust…
    –Ibn al-Faqih

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bliss
    The ancient Greeks thought something similar:

    The nations inhabiting the cold places and those of
    Europe are full of spirit but somewhat deficient in intelligence and skill...The peoples of Asia on the other hand are intelligent and skillful in temperament, but lack spirit....But the Greek race participates in both characters, just as it occupies the middle position geographically, for it is both spirited and intelligent.
    [Aristotle, in Politics]

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Bliss

    The Egyptians were the Dark Other. Depreciation of their darker skin became associated with negative values, not only ugliness but also uncleanliness and servility. In rabbinic writings, Egypt is called “a house of slaves” and the Pharaoh himself is said to be a “slave.” In one text, Jacob debates whether to go to Egypt: “Shall I go to an unclean land, among slaves, the children of Ham?”
     
    In other words it is the rabbinic babylonian Talmud, not the "revealed" Torah, that equates Egypt with Ham. There is nothing in the Bible itself that condemns egyptians/africans to slavery. In fact the Bible/Old Testament tells the opposite story: it is the children of Shem, the Hebrews, who become the slaves of egyptians.

    This notion of africans being cursed by the Bible to slavery, so eagerly embraced by the "race realists" of the Confederate States, is clearly perverse talmudic nonsense with no biblical basis whatsoever.

    Who are the Canaanites to whom the the Curse of Canaan (there is no Curse of Ham) applies?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan#Biblical_Canaanites

    Unlike in the Talmud there are no egyptians, ethiopians, cushites mentioned in the biblical list...

    1And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman. … And the LORD heard it… 4And the LORD spake suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam, Come out ye three unto the tabernacle of the congregation……6And he said, Hear now my words…My servant Moses…. who is faithful in all mine house…. 9And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Bliss

    Egyptian painting of a Libyan, a Kushi, a Syrian, and an Egyptian.
     
    I am willing to bet that painting is a hoax.

    A few years back I read a book on Egyptian dynasties, centered around the New Kingdom of Egypt. The book had photographs of military-oriented artwork that showed Libyans, Hittites, Nubians, and a couple other ethnic groups which I don’t remember specifically (Syrians? Canaanites? The “Sea Peoples”?)

    Those depictions were very similar to those shown above, although IIRC the Nubian looked more Nilotic-black and not so Congoid-black as the figure above appears to me.

    Surprisingly, Ramesses II had blue eyes (based on another piece of artwork) and reddish hair (based on his mummy). It is possible that his progenitors may not have been aboriginal Egyptians because they rose to prominence as non-aristocratic military leaders coming from the Nile Delta region.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon7
    I thought the same thing, but here's the (apparent) provenance of this image, from Wiki media:

    Depicting (from left): a Berber, a Nubian, an Asiatic, and an Egyptian.
    An 1820 drawing of a relief from the tomb of Seti I.

    It is a drawing, which can easily carry the cultural baggage of the artist.

    It is a drawing, which can easily carry the cultural baggage of the artist.

    That drawing by Heinrich Menu von Minutoliis is worse than just “cultural baggage”. It was a hoax meant to deceive. There have been a number of libyan pharaohs and none of them look remotely like this northern european looking fake.

    Just the fact that this drawing by a 19th century european is being passed off as an actual painting from ancient egypt all over the internet is seriously problematic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @ogunsiron
    You just ignore the bit about the ideal hebrew or jewish woman being white skinned ?
    Idealizing brownish skin for men and white skin for women is pretty much standard practice among mediterranean white and white-ish peoples.

    You just ignore the bit about the ideal hebrew or jewish woman being white skinned ?

    What part of neither black nor white, but in between or honey-colored couldn’t you understand?

    Maybe you read “the Japanese would use the terms shiroi (white) and kuroi(black) to describe their gradations of skin color (Wagatsuma, 1967). The Igbo of precolonial Nigeria used ocha (white) and ojii(black) in the same way” and were dumb enough to conclude that fairer nigerians were actually white-skinned or that darker japanese were actually black-skinned? You clearly have issues with logic and/or reading comprehension.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @dcite
    There's a difference between the pallor that comes from sickness and a normal, pale skin. I knew a person from the middle east whose skin was very dark, almost like ashes. It was not a normal dark skin tone; it was caused by liver disease. In a paler person it would have been yellowish brown. Indeed, adrenal disease causes white skin to go bronze but it's not an attractive, normal sort of color.
    In any case, "sickly" or not, for women through most of history, in most cultures where pale skin occurs (and they are not just European), the paler the better. Look at geishas--they paint themselves white. White enamel paint was used as a skin cosmetic in ancient Rome, in Persia before the 20th century, in England in Elizabethan times. They did everything they could to keep from appearing dark. Why? I dunno. Tan skin looks fine to me. But sometimes, when I free myself from beauty standards doubtless influenced by people-of-more-color (such tyranny) I can see why. Especially outside of very sunny climates, I can see why it was preferred -- in a gloomy, cloudy environment, a pale, bright face and sun-colored hair, light up the environment. Obviously in a sunny clime, it doesn't look so appropo. Yet even in sunny climes, women wanted to be pale.
    Actually I don't get that except that it showed up the eyes and eyebrows more sharply, and indicated status of not having to work outside.

    @Yet even in sunny climes, women wanted to be pale.

    Those who live in Australia know of some bad effects of sun on white skins. It has little to do with environmental esthetics.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean
    Well at first blush, one would expect the ongoing tendency to be in the direction of the entropic state. In other words society would be altering towards more ethnocentric arrangements on the part of the largest group within them . So there would be proposals to take the vote away from non-whites just because of their race. But the tendency is very definitely in the opposite direction.

    Also, the smart money (ie the money of people with a lot because they understand the way the world works) would be going into ethnocentrism. The Koch brothers, for example, would be funding campaigns for keeping America a white-majority country. But the Koch brothers are Libertarians, David in 1980 ran on a platform that included “As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.

    Bernie Sanders's says :The agenda of the Koch brothers is to repeal every major piece of legislation that has been signed into law over the past 80 years that has protected the middle class, the elderly, the children, the sick, and the most vulnerable in this country. It is clear that the Koch brothers and other right wing billionaires are calling the shots and are pulling the strings of the Republican Party. And because of the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, they now have the power to spend an unlimited amount of money to buy the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the next President of the United States.
     
    Sanders is correct that open borders is a proposal of billionaires like the Koch brothers, and all billionaires are like the Koch brothers . Not a single billionaire of the hundreds in the US is in favor of reducing the flow of immigration. What about corporate America "

    AFTER all a group of human resources executives from the construction, food services, hospitality, and technology sectors recently joined together to send a letter to “The Honorable John Boehner” arguing in favor of immigration reform. [...] Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerburg, whose company earned $5.1 billion in revenues in 2012 and has donated to both Republicans and Democrats, has emerged as a high profile advocate for immigration reform. “This is something that we believe is really important for the future of our country — and for us to do what’s right,” he said.
     

    Georgetown history professor Carroll Quigley (1910-1977): “Conservatives now are telling us that we must curtail government, cut government spending, cut government powers, reduce government personnel for the sake of making individuals more free.

    “Liberals, on the other hand, are still telling us, as they have for a long, long time, that in order to make individuals free, we must destroy communities. By communities I mean villages. Ghettos and cities. Ethnic groupings. Religious groupings. Anything which is segregated. We must destroy them. So that all individuals would be, if possible, identical. Including boys and girls.“

    But the area of political action … in which you have government, individuals … three others: voluntary associations (which I’ll say no more about), corporations and communities. And if the liberals destroy communities for the sake of the individual, and the conservatives destroy the government for the sake of individuals, you’re going to have an area of political action in which irresponsible, immensely powerful corporations are engaged in opposition to individuals who are socially naked and defenseless.
     

    I don’t see how trying to dismantle welfare legislation is relevant here. Welfare disproportionately benefits non-whites, and disproportionately costs whites. Eliminating welfare and reducing or eliminating taxes would benefit whites relative to non-whites.

    As far as “billionaires” in the US go, what is the demographic composition of billionaires in the US? Who is overrepresented and underrepresented among them? If they’re not a completely random sample of the US population, then it doesn’t make sense to say that they being billionaires is the feature or characteristic that motivates their views.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Bliss

    The Egyptians were the Dark Other. Depreciation of their darker skin became associated with negative values, not only ugliness but also uncleanliness and servility. In rabbinic writings, Egypt is called “a house of slaves” and the Pharaoh himself is said to be a “slave.” In one text, Jacob debates whether to go to Egypt: “Shall I go to an unclean land, among slaves, the children of Ham?”
     
    In other words it is the rabbinic babylonian Talmud, not the "revealed" Torah, that equates Egypt with Ham. There is nothing in the Bible itself that condemns egyptians/africans to slavery. In fact the Bible/Old Testament tells the opposite story: it is the children of Shem, the Hebrews, who become the slaves of egyptians.

    This notion of africans being cursed by the Bible to slavery, so eagerly embraced by the "race realists" of the Confederate States, is clearly perverse talmudic nonsense with no biblical basis whatsoever.

    Who are the Canaanites to whom the the Curse of Canaan (there is no Curse of Ham) applies?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan#Biblical_Canaanites

    Unlike in the Talmud there are no egyptians, ethiopians, cushites mentioned in the biblical list...

    I haven’t had time to investigate this at all but I’ve been wondering about a possible talmudic origins of the biological racism that arose in Europe in the last 500 years. But I shall say no more about that particular train of thought, as the blog author really doesn’t like that kind of stuff.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Bliss

    The Jews considered their skin to be light brown. A second-century rabbi compared it to “the boxwood tree, neither black nor white, but in between” (Goldenberg, 2003, p. 95). In papyri from Ptolemaic Egypt, Jews are almost always deThe Jews considered their skin to be light brown. A second-century rabbi compared it to “the boxwood tree, neither black nor white, but in between” (Goldenberg, 2003, p. 95). In papyri from Ptolemaic Egypt, Jews are almost always described as “honey-colored” (Cohen, 1999, pp. 29-30).
     
    So the brown yemeni jews are the authentic jews and the white jews are mongrels or converts. Makes sense considering the original habitat of the hebrews.

    You just ignore the bit about the ideal hebrew or jewish woman being white skinned ?
    Idealizing brownish skin for men and white skin for women is pretty much standard practice among mediterranean white and white-ish peoples.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bliss

    You just ignore the bit about the ideal hebrew or jewish woman being white skinned ?
     
    What part of neither black nor white, but in between or honey-colored couldn't you understand?

    Maybe you read "the Japanese would use the terms shiroi (white) and kuroi(black) to describe their gradations of skin color (Wagatsuma, 1967). The Igbo of precolonial Nigeria used ocha (white) and ojii(black) in the same way" and were dumb enough to conclude that fairer nigerians were actually white-skinned or that darker japanese were actually black-skinned? You clearly have issues with logic and/or reading comprehension.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @FirkinRidiculous

    Why does this site and its ‘writers’ have an obsession with people’s colour, and more specifically a not-so-hidden celebration of being white?
     
    Think of it as a counterweight to all the websites and people who pretend not to have an obsession with racial/ethnic differences. But, yes, we like being white.

    It’s not an all-white club here.
    I’m definitely not white, but I appreciate some respite from the now routine anti-white propaganda that’s seeping from every pore of the mainstream usa ( western) media.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The Jews considered their skin to be light brown. A second-century rabbi compared it to “the boxwood tree, neither black nor white, but in between” (Goldenberg, 2003, p. 95). In papyri from Ptolemaic Egypt, Jews are almost always deThe Jews considered their skin to be light brown. A second-century rabbi compared it to “the boxwood tree, neither black nor white, but in between” (Goldenberg, 2003, p. 95). In papyri from Ptolemaic Egypt, Jews are almost always described as “honey-colored” (Cohen, 1999, pp. 29-30).

    So the brown yemeni jews are the authentic jews and the white jews are mongrels or converts. Makes sense considering the original habitat of the hebrews.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ogunsiron
    You just ignore the bit about the ideal hebrew or jewish woman being white skinned ?
    Idealizing brownish skin for men and white skin for women is pretty much standard practice among mediterranean white and white-ish peoples.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Seraphim
    @Why does anyone need to feel good or bad about the skin they were born with?

    Why do they go to such lengths to get a suntan? Why is pallor considered a sign of sickness?

    There’s a difference between the pallor that comes from sickness and a normal, pale skin. I knew a person from the middle east whose skin was very dark, almost like ashes. It was not a normal dark skin tone; it was caused by liver disease. In a paler person it would have been yellowish brown. Indeed, adrenal disease causes white skin to go bronze but it’s not an attractive, normal sort of color.
    In any case, “sickly” or not, for women through most of history, in most cultures where pale skin occurs (and they are not just European), the paler the better. Look at geishas–they paint themselves white. White enamel paint was used as a skin cosmetic in ancient Rome, in Persia before the 20th century, in England in Elizabethan times. They did everything they could to keep from appearing dark. Why? I dunno. Tan skin looks fine to me. But sometimes, when I free myself from beauty standards doubtless influenced by people-of-more-color (such tyranny) I can see why. Especially outside of very sunny climates, I can see why it was preferred — in a gloomy, cloudy environment, a pale, bright face and sun-colored hair, light up the environment. Obviously in a sunny clime, it doesn’t look so appropo. Yet even in sunny climes, women wanted to be pale.
    Actually I don’t get that except that it showed up the eyes and eyebrows more sharply, and indicated status of not having to work outside.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    @Yet even in sunny climes, women wanted to be pale.

    Those who live in Australia know of some bad effects of sun on white skins. It has little to do with environmental esthetics.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The Egyptians were the Dark Other. Depreciation of their darker skin became associated with negative values, not only ugliness but also uncleanliness and servility. In rabbinic writings, Egypt is called “a house of slaves” and the Pharaoh himself is said to be a “slave.” In one text, Jacob debates whether to go to Egypt: “Shall I go to an unclean land, among slaves, the children of Ham?”

    In other words it is the rabbinic babylonian Talmud, not the “revealed” Torah, that equates Egypt with Ham. There is nothing in the Bible itself that condemns egyptians/africans to slavery. In fact the Bible/Old Testament tells the opposite story: it is the children of Shem, the Hebrews, who become the slaves of egyptians.

    This notion of africans being cursed by the Bible to slavery, so eagerly embraced by the “race realists” of the Confederate States, is clearly perverse talmudic nonsense with no biblical basis whatsoever.

    Who are the Canaanites to whom the the Curse of Canaan (there is no Curse of Ham) applies?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan#Biblical_Canaanites

    Unlike in the Talmud there are no egyptians, ethiopians, cushites mentioned in the biblical list…

    Read More
    • Replies: @ogunsiron
    I haven't had time to investigate this at all but I've been wondering about a possible talmudic origins of the biological racism that arose in Europe in the last 500 years. But I shall say no more about that particular train of thought, as the blog author really doesn't like that kind of stuff.
    , @iffen
    1And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman. … And the LORD heard it… 4And the LORD spake suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam, Come out ye three unto the tabernacle of the congregation……6And he said, Hear now my words…My servant Moses…. who is faithful in all mine house…. 9And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean
    Well at first blush, one would expect the ongoing tendency to be in the direction of the entropic state. In other words society would be altering towards more ethnocentric arrangements on the part of the largest group within them . So there would be proposals to take the vote away from non-whites just because of their race. But the tendency is very definitely in the opposite direction.

    Also, the smart money (ie the money of people with a lot because they understand the way the world works) would be going into ethnocentrism. The Koch brothers, for example, would be funding campaigns for keeping America a white-majority country. But the Koch brothers are Libertarians, David in 1980 ran on a platform that included “As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.

    Bernie Sanders's says :The agenda of the Koch brothers is to repeal every major piece of legislation that has been signed into law over the past 80 years that has protected the middle class, the elderly, the children, the sick, and the most vulnerable in this country. It is clear that the Koch brothers and other right wing billionaires are calling the shots and are pulling the strings of the Republican Party. And because of the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, they now have the power to spend an unlimited amount of money to buy the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the next President of the United States.
     
    Sanders is correct that open borders is a proposal of billionaires like the Koch brothers, and all billionaires are like the Koch brothers . Not a single billionaire of the hundreds in the US is in favor of reducing the flow of immigration. What about corporate America "

    AFTER all a group of human resources executives from the construction, food services, hospitality, and technology sectors recently joined together to send a letter to “The Honorable John Boehner” arguing in favor of immigration reform. [...] Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerburg, whose company earned $5.1 billion in revenues in 2012 and has donated to both Republicans and Democrats, has emerged as a high profile advocate for immigration reform. “This is something that we believe is really important for the future of our country — and for us to do what’s right,” he said.
     

    Georgetown history professor Carroll Quigley (1910-1977): “Conservatives now are telling us that we must curtail government, cut government spending, cut government powers, reduce government personnel for the sake of making individuals more free.

    “Liberals, on the other hand, are still telling us, as they have for a long, long time, that in order to make individuals free, we must destroy communities. By communities I mean villages. Ghettos and cities. Ethnic groupings. Religious groupings. Anything which is segregated. We must destroy them. So that all individuals would be, if possible, identical. Including boys and girls.“

    But the area of political action … in which you have government, individuals … three others: voluntary associations (which I’ll say no more about), corporations and communities. And if the liberals destroy communities for the sake of the individual, and the conservatives destroy the government for the sake of individuals, you’re going to have an area of political action in which irresponsible, immensely powerful corporations are engaged in opposition to individuals who are socially naked and defenseless.
     

    Thanks for your reply. I think I understand most of what you are saying. I disagree on some points.

    Well at first blush, one would expect the ongoing tendency to be in the direction of the entropic state. In other words society would be altering towards more ethnocentric arrangements on the part of the largest group within them . So there would be proposals to take the vote away from non-whites just because of their race. But the tendency is very definitely in the opposite direction.

    The tendency in European states and their descendant states is away from ethnocentrism. Learned people see it for what it is. The largest group within does not fit the definition of a group.

    I certainly see that the billionaires want to do away with borders and take a globalist view because that is more money for them. Undifferentiated masses of individuals are certainly easier to control. The logical place for them is the libertarian globalist POV and this would be the “smart money” position.

    Liberals and the left are not against all groups. They are great defenders of “underdog “groups and push back against groups that they see as part of the historic hierarchy. They want to liberate the individual from group norms and controls. This causes a lot of dissonance for them when a favored underdog group is found to be stifling the individual.

    A good number of anti-government conservative types are Social Darwinists and do not want the government to be used to empower the lower orders. In other words, “If you are not independently wealthy; work until you drop.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    It is the coercive power of the state that is bring about the changes we are discussing. Old comment of mine.

    A lot of people bang on about France being the first nation state. But the author of The Origins of the Modern European State, 1450-1725 (1974) had an interesting view of the process .

    A vital thread within this story of “state-building”, according to Joe, was the long-running and sinuous duel explored in his next book. The emergence of modern government involved, among other things, the erosion or downright destruction by centralising rulers of old liberties – those of hierarchical “estates”, such as the clergy, nobility and commoners in pre-revolutionary France, corporate bodies, and communities large and small. Into this space flowed new ideas of individual freedom and rights, presenting rulers with new challenges in their defence – whether dutiful or self-interested – of order. He concluded that in this struggle it was indisputably, and perhaps inevitably, order that tended to prevail, leaving only private thought as an area of inalienable personal freedom. His regret at a conclusion he regarded as bearing on the present and future, as well as the past, was undisguised.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JustAskingAnExpert
    If I understand your reconstruction of the emergence of whiteness correctly, both gender disparities and megafauna-hunting play a rather important part in it.
    1) Is megafauna-hunting categorically distinctive? What role did it play where it did not fundamentally "change the equation", because other food sources were continuously available in sufficient amounts?
    2) Do we have other "evolutionary stories" of the impact of gender disparities - e.g., when the sign of the disparity is reversed?

    1) The late European Late Glacial Maximum steppe tundra hunters were basically hunters of Reindeer, which are the most mobile animal on earth. And they had to do it on foot.

    2) Tibetans have pale skin, yet the elevation there means UV there is as strong as equatorial African. Tibet has polyandry. In the most polygynous part of the world, west Africa, where women are in short supply, men appear to have many characteristics designed for attracting women.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @iffen

    That is because you think the slippery slope has individual logic at the top and traditional allegiances cloaking unthinking ethnocentrism (seen as the innate human tendency) at the bottom).
     
    Would you take time to explain why this is not true?

    Well at first blush, one would expect the ongoing tendency to be in the direction of the entropic state. In other words society would be altering towards more ethnocentric arrangements on the part of the largest group within them . So there would be proposals to take the vote away from non-whites just because of their race. But the tendency is very definitely in the opposite direction.

    Also, the smart money (ie the money of people with a lot because they understand the way the world works) would be going into ethnocentrism. The Koch brothers, for example, would be funding campaigns for keeping America a white-majority country. But the Koch brothers are Libertarians, David in 1980 ran on a platform that included “As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.

    Bernie Sanders’s says :The agenda of the Koch brothers is to repeal every major piece of legislation that has been signed into law over the past 80 years that has protected the middle class, the elderly, the children, the sick, and the most vulnerable in this country. It is clear that the Koch brothers and other right wing billionaires are calling the shots and are pulling the strings of the Republican Party. And because of the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, they now have the power to spend an unlimited amount of money to buy the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the next President of the United States.

    Sanders is correct that open borders is a proposal of billionaires like the Koch brothers, and all billionaires are like the Koch brothers . Not a single billionaire of the hundreds in the US is in favor of reducing the flow of immigration. What about corporate America ”

    AFTER all a group of human resources executives from the construction, food services, hospitality, and technology sectors recently joined together to send a letter to “The Honorable John Boehner” arguing in favor of immigration reform. [...] Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerburg, whose company earned $5.1 billion in revenues in 2012 and has donated to both Republicans and Democrats, has emerged as a high profile advocate for immigration reform. “This is something that we believe is really important for the future of our country — and for us to do what’s right,” he said.

    Georgetown history professor Carroll Quigley (1910-1977): “Conservatives now are telling us that we must curtail government, cut government spending, cut government powers, reduce government personnel for the sake of making individuals more free.

    “Liberals, on the other hand, are still telling us, as they have for a long, long time, that in order to make individuals free, we must destroy communities. By communities I mean villages. Ghettos and cities. Ethnic groupings. Religious groupings. Anything which is segregated. We must destroy them. So that all individuals would be, if possible, identical. Including boys and girls.“

    But the area of political action … in which you have government, individuals … three others: voluntary associations (which I’ll say no more about), corporations and communities. And if the liberals destroy communities for the sake of the individual, and the conservatives destroy the government for the sake of individuals, you’re going to have an area of political action in which irresponsible, immensely powerful corporations are engaged in opposition to individuals who are socially naked and defenseless.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Thanks for your reply. I think I understand most of what you are saying. I disagree on some points.

    Well at first blush, one would expect the ongoing tendency to be in the direction of the entropic state. In other words society would be altering towards more ethnocentric arrangements on the part of the largest group within them . So there would be proposals to take the vote away from non-whites just because of their race. But the tendency is very definitely in the opposite direction.
     
    The tendency in European states and their descendant states is away from ethnocentrism. Learned people see it for what it is. The largest group within does not fit the definition of a group.

    I certainly see that the billionaires want to do away with borders and take a globalist view because that is more money for them. Undifferentiated masses of individuals are certainly easier to control. The logical place for them is the libertarian globalist POV and this would be the "smart money" position.

    Liberals and the left are not against all groups. They are great defenders of “underdog “groups and push back against groups that they see as part of the historic hierarchy. They want to liberate the individual from group norms and controls. This causes a lot of dissonance for them when a favored underdog group is found to be stifling the individual.

    A good number of anti-government conservative types are Social Darwinists and do not want the government to be used to empower the lower orders. In other words, "If you are not independently wealthy; work until you drop."
    , @Anonymous
    I don't see how trying to dismantle welfare legislation is relevant here. Welfare disproportionately benefits non-whites, and disproportionately costs whites. Eliminating welfare and reducing or eliminating taxes would benefit whites relative to non-whites.

    As far as "billionaires" in the US go, what is the demographic composition of billionaires in the US? Who is overrepresented and underrepresented among them? If they're not a completely random sample of the US population, then it doesn't make sense to say that they being billionaires is the feature or characteristic that motivates their views.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • If I understand your reconstruction of the emergence of whiteness correctly, both gender disparities and megafauna-hunting play a rather important part in it.
    1) Is megafauna-hunting categorically distinctive? What role did it play where it did not fundamentally “change the equation”, because other food sources were continuously available in sufficient amounts?
    2) Do we have other “evolutionary stories” of the impact of gender disparities – e.g., when the sign of the disparity is reversed?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    1) The late European Late Glacial Maximum steppe tundra hunters were basically hunters of Reindeer, which are the most mobile animal on earth. And they had to do it on foot.

    2) Tibetans have pale skin, yet the elevation there means UV there is as strong as equatorial African. Tibet has polyandry. In the most polygynous part of the world, west Africa, where women are in short supply, men appear to have many characteristics designed for attracting women.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Hippopotamusdrome
    Rickets?


    Nutritional rickets among children in the United States: review of cases reported between 1986 and 2003

    Approximately 83% of children with rickets were described as African American or black

     



    Why Black People Need More Vitamin D

    TR: Why are African Americans particularly vulnerable to vitamin D deficiency?
    CHW: Melanin protects the skin against ultraviolet light. But by blocking the sun’s rays, melanin affects the skin’s ability to activate pre-vitamin D. So the darker the skin, the less vitamin D you produce. In the scientific literature, the difference is striking.

     

    That’s a good example of how which genes do what and why and precisely how is both interesting and potentially useful knowledge.

    Blank slatists won’t publicize this kind of thing because it messes up the narrative; they’d rather leave people with rickets.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • My non-discrimination ethos revolves around negative rights. The examples you provide as being of concern pertain to positive rights. Following up on one of your examples, I think society ought to tolerate the existence of transsexuals as long as they don’t cause any harm to others. Whether or not they have a right to toilet facility ought to be left to individuals. And though slippery slope arguments sometimes have their merits, I fail to see what those are in this scenario.

    That’s what I thought about thirty years ago, when gay rights became a high-profile issue. I was in favor because I thought it was just a matter of “live and let live.” Gays don’t want to be accepted by people who don’t accept them. They just want to be left alone, as consenting adults.

    Boy was I wrong. Today, in Canada, Catholic elementary schools are being pressured into having gay/lesbian clubs. I never thought that would ever happen. In that situation, I thought gay rights would have been trumped not only by religious rights but also by the age of consent. Surely children in Grades 4 and 5 are too young to have a sexual orientation, either hetero or homo.

    Doesn’t matter. Since 2012, under the Accepting Schools Act, all schools in Ontario have to allow the formation of gay/lesbian clubs, even elementary schools.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/05/11/polly-quinn-gsa-catholic-elementary-school_n_7226896.html

    We will see the same thing with transsexual rights. In fact, we already are.

    Most people don’t make the distinction you make between positive and negative rights. In any case, one could argue that this is just a matter of negative rights — the right of children to do as they please. Your notion of “rights” leaves no room for collective entities unless they are purely voluntary. Is a family a voluntary association? Or a Catholic elementary school? For that matter, countries aren’t voluntary associations. Many of the things that give meaning to our lives — family, kinship, and ethny — are non-voluntary collective entities that, by their very nature, place limits on individual rights.

    You are portraying “anti-discrimination” as a form of secular religion. Honestly I am not sure how popular that religion is, but the only way to combat its crazy aspects, as the only way to combat any religion’s crazy aspects, is logic.

    Let’s take libertarians. They are schooled in the difference between negative rights and positive rights. Other people have trouble making the distinction, but they don’t.

    But just look at libertarians today. I often hear them praise open borders. Employers should have the right to get cheaper labor wherever they want, and a collectivist notion like a “national border” shouldn’t get in their way. Fine. Libertarians are being consistent with their ideology. Wrong perhaps, but consistent.

    Now put these same libertarians on a public platform and ask them about freedom of association. Should people be free to associate with others on the basis of ethnicity or religion? Not just private clubs. Things like neighborhoods, schools, swimming pools …

    Oops! Don’t go there.

    If even libertarians comply with the religion of anti-discrimination, a radical alteration to our thought patterns is in order. When people think in terms of right and wrong, they don’t naturally think in terms of negative and positive rights. And even those who understand the distinction will have to fall into line, either out of herd instinct or just plain cowardice.

    Morality tends to be totalitarian. It wasn’t so bad in the past when it was monopolized by Christianity. For all its faults, Christianity has had to come to terms with reality for the past two millennia. It has learned how to organize social relations on a sustainable basis. This is not the case with neo-religions like anti-discrimination. They haven’t been around long enough, and we’ll probably have to endure a lot of grief before we relearn the basic rules of human existence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean
    "And though slippery slope arguments sometimes have their merits, I fail to see what those are in this scenario"

    That is because you think the slippery slope has individual logic at the top and traditional allegiances cloaking unthinking ethnocentrism (seen as the innate human tendency) at the bottom).

    That is because you think the slippery slope has individual logic at the top and traditional allegiances cloaking unthinking ethnocentrism (seen as the innate human tendency) at the bottom).

    Would you take time to explain why this is not true?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Well at first blush, one would expect the ongoing tendency to be in the direction of the entropic state. In other words society would be altering towards more ethnocentric arrangements on the part of the largest group within them . So there would be proposals to take the vote away from non-whites just because of their race. But the tendency is very definitely in the opposite direction.

    Also, the smart money (ie the money of people with a lot because they understand the way the world works) would be going into ethnocentrism. The Koch brothers, for example, would be funding campaigns for keeping America a white-majority country. But the Koch brothers are Libertarians, David in 1980 ran on a platform that included “As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.

    Bernie Sanders's says :The agenda of the Koch brothers is to repeal every major piece of legislation that has been signed into law over the past 80 years that has protected the middle class, the elderly, the children, the sick, and the most vulnerable in this country. It is clear that the Koch brothers and other right wing billionaires are calling the shots and are pulling the strings of the Republican Party. And because of the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, they now have the power to spend an unlimited amount of money to buy the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the next President of the United States.
     
    Sanders is correct that open borders is a proposal of billionaires like the Koch brothers, and all billionaires are like the Koch brothers . Not a single billionaire of the hundreds in the US is in favor of reducing the flow of immigration. What about corporate America "

    AFTER all a group of human resources executives from the construction, food services, hospitality, and technology sectors recently joined together to send a letter to “The Honorable John Boehner” arguing in favor of immigration reform. [...] Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerburg, whose company earned $5.1 billion in revenues in 2012 and has donated to both Republicans and Democrats, has emerged as a high profile advocate for immigration reform. “This is something that we believe is really important for the future of our country — and for us to do what’s right,” he said.
     

    Georgetown history professor Carroll Quigley (1910-1977): “Conservatives now are telling us that we must curtail government, cut government spending, cut government powers, reduce government personnel for the sake of making individuals more free.

    “Liberals, on the other hand, are still telling us, as they have for a long, long time, that in order to make individuals free, we must destroy communities. By communities I mean villages. Ghettos and cities. Ethnic groupings. Religious groupings. Anything which is segregated. We must destroy them. So that all individuals would be, if possible, identical. Including boys and girls.“

    But the area of political action … in which you have government, individuals … three others: voluntary associations (which I’ll say no more about), corporations and communities. And if the liberals destroy communities for the sake of the individual, and the conservatives destroy the government for the sake of individuals, you’re going to have an area of political action in which irresponsible, immensely powerful corporations are engaged in opposition to individuals who are socially naked and defenseless.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Numinous

    You ask me whether the ethos of non-discrimination is a bad thing. I believe it is.
     
    My non-discrimination ethos revolves around negative rights. The examples you provide as being of concern pertain to positive rights. Following up on one of your examples, I think society ought to tolerate the existence of transsexuals as long as they don't cause any harm to others. Whether or not they have a right to toilet facility ought to be left to individuals. And though slippery slope arguments sometimes have their merits, I fail to see what those are in this scenario. Every claim of discrimination can be argued about on its own terms. Racial discrimination had little logic and much prejudice backing it, which is why there was a movement to get rid of it. The logic that combated anti-racial prejudice does not necessarily apply to other forms of discrimination.

    You are portraying "anti-discrimination" as a form of secular religion. Honestly I am not sure how popular that religion is, but the only way to combat its crazy aspects, as the only way to combat any religion's crazy aspects, is logic. Not create your own counter-religion.

    “And though slippery slope arguments sometimes have their merits, I fail to see what those are in this scenario

    That is because you think the slippery slope has individual logic at the top and traditional allegiances cloaking unthinking ethnocentrism (seen as the innate human tendency) at the bottom).

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen

    That is because you think the slippery slope has individual logic at the top and traditional allegiances cloaking unthinking ethnocentrism (seen as the innate human tendency) at the bottom).
     
    Would you take time to explain why this is not true?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Numinous

    You ask me whether the ethos of non-discrimination is a bad thing. I believe it is.
     
    My non-discrimination ethos revolves around negative rights. The examples you provide as being of concern pertain to positive rights. Following up on one of your examples, I think society ought to tolerate the existence of transsexuals as long as they don't cause any harm to others. Whether or not they have a right to toilet facility ought to be left to individuals. And though slippery slope arguments sometimes have their merits, I fail to see what those are in this scenario. Every claim of discrimination can be argued about on its own terms. Racial discrimination had little logic and much prejudice backing it, which is why there was a movement to get rid of it. The logic that combated anti-racial prejudice does not necessarily apply to other forms of discrimination.

    You are portraying "anti-discrimination" as a form of secular religion. Honestly I am not sure how popular that religion is, but the only way to combat its crazy aspects, as the only way to combat any religion's crazy aspects, is logic. Not create your own counter-religion.

    You can read avowed white nationalists saying the same thing (they are islands of rationality, while opponents’ beliefs are a pseudo religion ) any day of the week. But society is not based on conscious logic by individuals starting from self evident truths and ending up with reasonable conclusions from the premises

    “Otherwise the principal change in attitude regarding race seems to be “it’s not cool to discriminate against or denigrate someone on account of their race“. Socially that’s where society seems to have gone. Are you saying that’s a bad thing?”

    Well, it all depends what you mean by discriminate. I don’t think the view that only whites should have votes or full rights has a single advocate anywhere on this site. If a standard has a disparate impact by self-avowed race we might agree that is unfortunate, without thinking the standard ought to cease to apply, or that those who as a group object to the standard have group rights against us because of our race.

    Honestly I am not sure how popular that religion is, but the only way to combat its crazy aspects, as the only way to combat any religion’s crazy aspects, is logic. Not create your own counter-religion.

    Except when you disavow white interests as such you are helpless against those asserting a claim against the white community (which you in the complainant’s eyes are a part of ). Bernie Sanders and his supporters in that Seattle rally had logic and apparent power, but were actually powerless in the face of Black lives Matter activists demanding justice from the evil white system that runs everything .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] In the Eye of the Ancient Beholder – The Unz Review […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • 100% speculating but it’s an interesting thought that maybe the first animal domestication started with someone who killed an adult animal for food but then couldn’t kill the baby.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Bliss

    Egyptian painting of a Libyan, a Kushi, a Syrian, and an Egyptian.
     
    I am willing to bet that painting is a hoax.

    I bet you are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Rickets?

    Nutritional rickets among children in the United States: review of cases reported between 1986 and 2003

    Approximately 83% of children with rickets were described as African American or black

    Why Black People Need More Vitamin D

    TR: Why are African Americans particularly vulnerable to vitamin D deficiency?
    CHW: Melanin protects the skin against ultraviolet light. But by blocking the sun’s rays, melanin affects the skin’s ability to activate pre-vitamin D. So the darker the skin, the less vitamin D you produce. In the scientific literature, the difference is striking.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    That's a good example of how which genes do what and why and precisely how is both interesting and potentially useful knowledge.


    Blank slatists won't publicize this kind of thing because it messes up the narrative; they'd rather leave people with rickets.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    - do people shout for help in a higher pitch than normal?

    Perhaps. Men tend to dislike crying for help because they see it as babyish.

    - do domestic cat’s miaow sound more like a baby than wild cats?

    I found this on wiki:

    Adult cats do not meow to each other, and so adult meowing to human beings is likely to be a post-domestication extension of mewing by kittens
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_communication#Meow

    I assume you are referring to genetic research? Otherwise the principal change in attitude regarding race seems to be “it’s not cool to discriminate against or denigrate someone on account of their race“. Socially that’s where society seems to have gone. Are you saying that’s a bad thing?

    Actually, the situation is better among geneticists. They're at least aware that mental and behavioral traits are as heritable as anatomical traits. So they understand the logical disconnect in believing that the human species has diversified to a great degree anatomically and not at all mentally.

    In the social sciences and the humanities it's another story. It's not just that they're ignorant of biology and evolution.

    I belong to a writers group, and I'm continually exposed to the way they think and write. One thing I've learned is that most young writers are reluctant to describe the physical appearance of their characters. They say that the reader should be free to project his or her own appearance on to the characters.

    The situation is a bit different with picture books for children. In that case, the characters have to look a certain way. This leads to a dilemma: what proportion of the characters should be white and what proportion non-white? Many authors err on the side of safety by making most of the characters non-white.

    With the decline of Christianity, the mental space it once occupied has been replaced by the ethos of non-discrimination, which now functions just like a religion. People often react angrily if you ask them to explain why it is always wrong to discriminate. Even when they don't get angry, they'll offer circular reasons. It is wrong to discriminate because a good person does not discriminate.

    You ask me whether the ethos of non-discrimination is a bad thing. I believe it is. One cannot be a sentient human being without discriminating every minute of every day. We discriminate in the food we choose to eat, in the beliefs we choose to accept, and in the people we choose to frequent and, ultimately, marry.

    You'll probably reply that I'm using the word "discriminate" in a broad sense and that you mean it in a narrow sense. Unfortunately, the distinction between broad and narrow is less and less clear. Is it wrong to discriminate against transsexuals? Now it is. And now we are faced with the laborious task of abolishing male and female washrooms -- so that transsexuals will not feel excluded from society.

    But it doesn't end there. What about all the books -- including great works of literature -- that glorify "heteronormative values" and "cis-normative values"? They will have to go. And they are going. Just look at the children's books that are now being published. That's your future.

    The ethos of non-discrimination will make Communism seem like a walk in the park.

    another side effect of those evolved behaviors might be attitudes to young animals

    Pets tend to look more neotenous than their wild ancestors, i.e., bigger eyes relative to the face, smaller muzzles, smaller noses, etc.

    You ask me whether the ethos of non-discrimination is a bad thing. I believe it is.

    My non-discrimination ethos revolves around negative rights. The examples you provide as being of concern pertain to positive rights. Following up on one of your examples, I think society ought to tolerate the existence of transsexuals as long as they don’t cause any harm to others. Whether or not they have a right to toilet facility ought to be left to individuals. And though slippery slope arguments sometimes have their merits, I fail to see what those are in this scenario. Every claim of discrimination can be argued about on its own terms. Racial discrimination had little logic and much prejudice backing it, which is why there was a movement to get rid of it. The logic that combated anti-racial prejudice does not necessarily apply to other forms of discrimination.

    You are portraying “anti-discrimination” as a form of secular religion. Honestly I am not sure how popular that religion is, but the only way to combat its crazy aspects, as the only way to combat any religion’s crazy aspects, is logic. Not create your own counter-religion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    You can read avowed white nationalists saying the same thing (they are islands of rationality, while opponents' beliefs are a pseudo religion ) any day of the week. But society is not based on conscious logic by individuals starting from self evident truths and ending up with reasonable conclusions from the premises

    "Otherwise the principal change in attitude regarding race seems to be “it’s not cool to discriminate against or denigrate someone on account of their race“. Socially that’s where society seems to have gone. Are you saying that’s a bad thing?"

    Well, it all depends what you mean by discriminate. I don't think the view that only whites should have votes or full rights has a single advocate anywhere on this site. If a standard has a disparate impact by self-avowed race we might agree that is unfortunate, without thinking the standard ought to cease to apply, or that those who as a group object to the standard have group rights against us because of our race.

    Honestly I am not sure how popular that religion is, but the only way to combat its crazy aspects, as the only way to combat any religion’s crazy aspects, is logic. Not create your own counter-religion.

    Except when you disavow white interests as such you are helpless against those asserting a claim against the white community (which you in the complainant's eyes are a part of ). Bernie Sanders and his supporters in that Seattle rally had logic and apparent power, but were actually powerless in the face of Black lives Matter activists demanding justice from the evil white system that runs everything .
    , @Sean
    "And though slippery slope arguments sometimes have their merits, I fail to see what those are in this scenario"

    That is because you think the slippery slope has individual logic at the top and traditional allegiances cloaking unthinking ethnocentrism (seen as the innate human tendency) at the bottom).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • another side effect of those evolved behaviors might be attitudes to young animals

    Pets tend to look more neotenous than their wild ancestors, i.e., bigger eyes relative to the face, smaller muzzles, smaller noses, etc.

    Domestication selection for smaller jaws is supposed to affect neural crest cells and reduce adrenaline based behavior. Impacted wisdom teeth?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • - do people shout for help in a higher pitch than normal?

    Perhaps. Men tend to dislike crying for help because they see it as babyish.

    – do domestic cat’s miaow sound more like a baby than wild cats?

    I found this on wiki:

    Adult cats do not meow to each other, and so adult meowing to human beings is likely to be a post-domestication extension of mewing by kittens

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_communication#Meow

    I assume you are referring to genetic research? Otherwise the principal change in attitude regarding race seems to be “it’s not cool to discriminate against or denigrate someone on account of their race“. Socially that’s where society seems to have gone. Are you saying that’s a bad thing?

    Actually, the situation is better among geneticists. They’re at least aware that mental and behavioral traits are as heritable as anatomical traits. So they understand the logical disconnect in believing that the human species has diversified to a great degree anatomically and not at all mentally.

    In the social sciences and the humanities it’s another story. It’s not just that they’re ignorant of biology and evolution.

    I belong to a writers group, and I’m continually exposed to the way they think and write. One thing I’ve learned is that most young writers are reluctant to describe the physical appearance of their characters. They say that the reader should be free to project his or her own appearance on to the characters.

    The situation is a bit different with picture books for children. In that case, the characters have to look a certain way. This leads to a dilemma: what proportion of the characters should be white and what proportion non-white? Many authors err on the side of safety by making most of the characters non-white.

    With the decline of Christianity, the mental space it once occupied has been replaced by the ethos of non-discrimination, which now functions just like a religion. People often react angrily if you ask them to explain why it is always wrong to discriminate. Even when they don’t get angry, they’ll offer circular reasons. It is wrong to discriminate because a good person does not discriminate.

    You ask me whether the ethos of non-discrimination is a bad thing. I believe it is. One cannot be a sentient human being without discriminating every minute of every day. We discriminate in the food we choose to eat, in the beliefs we choose to accept, and in the people we choose to frequent and, ultimately, marry.

    You’ll probably reply that I’m using the word “discriminate” in a broad sense and that you mean it in a narrow sense. Unfortunately, the distinction between broad and narrow is less and less clear. Is it wrong to discriminate against transsexuals? Now it is. And now we are faced with the laborious task of abolishing male and female washrooms — so that transsexuals will not feel excluded from society.

    But it doesn’t end there. What about all the books — including great works of literature — that glorify “heteronormative values” and “cis-normative values”? They will have to go. And they are going. Just look at the children’s books that are now being published. That’s your future.

    The ethos of non-discrimination will make Communism seem like a walk in the park.

    another side effect of those evolved behaviors might be attitudes to young animals

    Pets tend to look more neotenous than their wild ancestors, i.e., bigger eyes relative to the face, smaller muzzles, smaller noses, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous

    You ask me whether the ethos of non-discrimination is a bad thing. I believe it is.
     
    My non-discrimination ethos revolves around negative rights. The examples you provide as being of concern pertain to positive rights. Following up on one of your examples, I think society ought to tolerate the existence of transsexuals as long as they don't cause any harm to others. Whether or not they have a right to toilet facility ought to be left to individuals. And though slippery slope arguments sometimes have their merits, I fail to see what those are in this scenario. Every claim of discrimination can be argued about on its own terms. Racial discrimination had little logic and much prejudice backing it, which is why there was a movement to get rid of it. The logic that combated anti-racial prejudice does not necessarily apply to other forms of discrimination.

    You are portraying "anti-discrimination" as a form of secular religion. Honestly I am not sure how popular that religion is, but the only way to combat its crazy aspects, as the only way to combat any religion's crazy aspects, is logic. Not create your own counter-religion.
    , @Anonymous
    Perhaps the non-discrimination that concerns you so much has roots in Christianity:

    "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."--Galatians 3:28.

    "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all."--Colossians 3:11
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    Why does this site and its 'writers' have an obsession with people's colour, and more specifically a not-so-hidden celebration of being white? Is it because the site owners, admins, and majority visitors are white, and it just feels good to be of that group?

    Thought bubble of many here: "Hey, man has always wished to be pale... phew, thank God, we are one of those."

    Western civilization is pretty much the domain of people of little or no color. Some people, mostly whites, think that means they are special as an individual white. Also, there is a belief that there might be some special sauce that tracks with white skin that explains why whites have been able to create the modern era. (This idea should not be dismissed out of hand.) Some people have the idea that people of color are mucking up everything that the people of little or no color have accomplished and some people of little or no color think that “whites” should band together to preserve and extend the accomplishments of the previous generations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anon • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    Why does this site and its ‘writers’ have an obsession with people’s colour
     
    It's interesting.

    At some point in evolution, human skin acquired a new meaning when the adult female body began to mimic the relative lightness of infant skin, as well as other visible, audible, and tangible aspects of infants—smoother, more pliable skin, a higher-pitched voice, and a more childlike face. This mimicry arose apparently as a means to provide the adult female with the psychological effects that these traits induce in other adults, particularly males, i.e., a lower level of aggressiveness and a greater desire to provide care and nurturance
     
    One of the interesting things about that is those behaviors towards infants must have pre-dated the physical change in females or there would have been no benefit.

    Which might tie in with a lot of other things like
    - people crying when they get beat up
    - do people shout for help in a higher pitch than normal?
    - do domestic cat's miaow sound more like a baby than wild cats?
    etc

    Another thought related to this is if evolved behaviors towards infants could possibly act to change female phenotypes another side effect of those evolved behaviors might be attitudes to young animals (due to the noises they make, large eyes for the skull size etc).

    I wonder if that might have been a factor in domestication?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • It’s absolutely a gender thing and not a race thing. There’s a reason names meaning white (light skin), such as Blanca, Bai and Gauri are common names for women in non-white cultures, and the male equivalent is not a name but a term meaning a gringo.

    But it’s within the same race. Don’t get it twisted, “black” and “white” in this context have about jack to do with African or European. Skin bleaching is considered gay for men in Asia and Africa btw.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says:

    What is interesting is how Egyptians illustrated different peoples in exactly the same Egyptian poses.

    They look different but are positioned exactly the same.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Numinous

    The issue of skin color, and race in general, has become very taboo in Western societies.
     
    I assume you are referring to genetic research? Otherwise the principal change in attitude regarding race seems to be "it's not cool to discriminate against or denigrate someone on account of their race". Socially that's where society seems to have gone. Are you saying that's a bad thing? Policies like affirmative action are independent of these societal attitudes, and are inspired by Marxist philosophy, namely perpetual redressal of injustice. Such policies can be combated without taking recourse to older theories and attitudes regarding race. Unless there is something else that is driving the angst in white people.

    Do they feel good about being white?
     
    Why does anyone need to feel good or bad about the skin they were born with?

    @Why does anyone need to feel good or bad about the skin they were born with?

    Why do they go to such lengths to get a suntan? Why is pallor considered a sign of sickness?

    Read More
    • Replies: @dcite
    There's a difference between the pallor that comes from sickness and a normal, pale skin. I knew a person from the middle east whose skin was very dark, almost like ashes. It was not a normal dark skin tone; it was caused by liver disease. In a paler person it would have been yellowish brown. Indeed, adrenal disease causes white skin to go bronze but it's not an attractive, normal sort of color.
    In any case, "sickly" or not, for women through most of history, in most cultures where pale skin occurs (and they are not just European), the paler the better. Look at geishas--they paint themselves white. White enamel paint was used as a skin cosmetic in ancient Rome, in Persia before the 20th century, in England in Elizabethan times. They did everything they could to keep from appearing dark. Why? I dunno. Tan skin looks fine to me. But sometimes, when I free myself from beauty standards doubtless influenced by people-of-more-color (such tyranny) I can see why. Especially outside of very sunny climates, I can see why it was preferred -- in a gloomy, cloudy environment, a pale, bright face and sun-colored hair, light up the environment. Obviously in a sunny clime, it doesn't look so appropo. Yet even in sunny climes, women wanted to be pale.
    Actually I don't get that except that it showed up the eyes and eyebrows more sharply, and indicated status of not having to work outside.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @jimmyriddle
    That's Juvenal. Here is Dryden's translation:

    I hate, in Rome, a Grecian town to find;
    To see the scum of Greece transplanted here,
    Received like gods, is what I cannot bear.
    Nor Greeks alone, but Syrians here abound;
    Obscene Orontes, diving under ground,
    Conveys his wealth to Tiber's hungry shores,
    And fattens Italy with foreign whores:
    Hither their crooked harps and customs come;
    All find receipt in hospitable Rome.

    Yes, indeed, it was a bit of poetic license.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    There must have been some kind of selection for white skin in the Neolithic.

    We know that white skin was already prevalent before the Neolithic in what is now Scandinavia and Russia. There may have been some selection during that time, although I wouldn't rule out population replacement. There seems to have been a general trend of population movement from the north to the south. There are actually references to such movements in ancient Greek legends (e.g., the Dorian invasions).

    The Emperor Septimius Severus, born in Leptis Magna in 146AD, appears in a painting from Algeria as dark skinned and his Syrian wife and the children (the future Emperors Geta and Caracalla) as white.

    That sex difference is typical in Roman paintings:

    https://www.pinterest.com/pin/391391023838286963/
    https://www.pinterest.com/pin/391391023838286940/
    http://www.thehistoryblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/herculestelephus.jpg

    It's not a racial difference. It's a difference in complexion that normally exists between a man and a woman. It's less visible in people who are very fair- or very dark-skinned, but it's quite visible in people of Mediterranean origin.

    People in the 21st century are also "primed" to interpret skin color differences as having an ethnic/racial meaning.

    Smith demonstrates how the denial of moral equality between Europeans and non-Europeans resulted from converging philosophical and scientific developments, including a declining belief in human nature’s universality and the rise of biological classification.

    I disagree. Biology didn't really begin to affect popular attitudes toward race until after Darwin. If we go back to the time of the American Civil War there were a few anatomists here and there who tried to explain black/white differences in terms of biology, but they were very marginal in public discourse. At that time Lamarckian thinking was very dominant, i.e., blacks were considered mentally and behaviorally different but it was thought these differences would disappear through exposure to white society.

    White attitudes "racialized" to the extent that white settler societies developed overseas with large numbers of white women. Such societies grew and consolidated from the 18th century onward in North America and later in South Africa, the southern cone of South America, and Australia. There is much evidence that these attitudes were weaker where whites were overwhelmingly single men (who were often cohabiting with native women).

    Why does this site and its ‘writers’ have an obsession with people’s colour, and more specifically a not-so-hidden celebration of being white? Is it because the site owners, admins, and majority visitors are white, and it just feels good to be of that group?

    The issue of skin color, and race in general, has become very taboo in Western societies. It's not so much that we talk too much about it as that other people don't talk at all (except from a very narrow and predictable perspective).

    It's not because the HBD columnists here are all white. For one thing, they aren't. For another thing, look at the columnists at most newspapers and magazines in North America. Aren't they mainly white? Do they feel good about being white? That's not my impression ...

    The issue of skin color, and race in general, has become very taboo in Western societies.

    I assume you are referring to genetic research? Otherwise the principal change in attitude regarding race seems to be “it’s not cool to discriminate against or denigrate someone on account of their race“. Socially that’s where society seems to have gone. Are you saying that’s a bad thing? Policies like affirmative action are independent of these societal attitudes, and are inspired by Marxist philosophy, namely perpetual redressal of injustice. Such policies can be combated without taking recourse to older theories and attitudes regarding race. Unless there is something else that is driving the angst in white people.

    Do they feel good about being white?

    Why does anyone need to feel good or bad about the skin they were born with?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    @Why does anyone need to feel good or bad about the skin they were born with?

    Why do they go to such lengths to get a suntan? Why is pallor considered a sign of sickness?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @anon

    Why does this site and its ‘writers’ have an obsession with people’s colour
     
    It's interesting.

    At some point in evolution, human skin acquired a new meaning when the adult female body began to mimic the relative lightness of infant skin, as well as other visible, audible, and tangible aspects of infants—smoother, more pliable skin, a higher-pitched voice, and a more childlike face. This mimicry arose apparently as a means to provide the adult female with the psychological effects that these traits induce in other adults, particularly males, i.e., a lower level of aggressiveness and a greater desire to provide care and nurturance
     
    One of the interesting things about that is those behaviors towards infants must have pre-dated the physical change in females or there would have been no benefit.

    Which might tie in with a lot of other things like
    - people crying when they get beat up
    - do people shout for help in a higher pitch than normal?
    - do domestic cat's miaow sound more like a baby than wild cats?
    etc

    “do people shout for help in a higher pitch than normal?”

    In any case, it’s easier to locate the source of a higher pitch.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anon • Disclaimer says:

    Why does this site and its ‘writers’ have an obsession with people’s colour

    It’s interesting.

    At some point in evolution, human skin acquired a new meaning when the adult female body began to mimic the relative lightness of infant skin, as well as other visible, audible, and tangible aspects of infants—smoother, more pliable skin, a higher-pitched voice, and a more childlike face. This mimicry arose apparently as a means to provide the adult female with the psychological effects that these traits induce in other adults, particularly males, i.e., a lower level of aggressiveness and a greater desire to provide care and nurturance

    One of the interesting things about that is those behaviors towards infants must have pre-dated the physical change in females or there would have been no benefit.

    Which might tie in with a lot of other things like
    - people crying when they get beat up
    - do people shout for help in a higher pitch than normal?
    - do domestic cat’s miaow sound more like a baby than wild cats?
    etc

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack_W

    "do people shout for help in a higher pitch than normal?"
     
    In any case, it's easier to locate the source of a higher pitch.
    , @anon
    Another thought related to this is if evolved behaviors towards infants could possibly act to change female phenotypes another side effect of those evolved behaviors might be attitudes to young animals (due to the noises they make, large eyes for the skull size etc).

    I wonder if that might have been a factor in domestication?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Seraphim
    @dark skin became mentally associated with slavery... seems to go even farther back, at least to the third century and perhaps even to the establishment of Roman rule over the region(Africa)

    The Emperor Septimius Severus, born in Leptis Magna in 146AD, appears in a painting from Algeria as dark skinned and his Syrian wife and the children (the future Emperors Geta and Caracalla) as white.
    Nobody seemed to be troubled by that. Actually, the Roman "racists" of the time complained that "the Orontes has poured into the Tiber", referring to the Syrian "invasion" represented by the Severian dinasty.

    That’s Juvenal. Here is Dryden’s translation:

    I hate, in Rome, a Grecian town to find;
    To see the scum of Greece transplanted here,
    Received like gods, is what I cannot bear.
    Nor Greeks alone, but Syrians here abound;
    Obscene Orontes, diving under ground,
    Conveys his wealth to Tiber’s hungry shores,
    And fattens Italy with foreign whores:
    Hither their crooked harps and customs come;
    All find receipt in hospitable Rome.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Yes, indeed, it was a bit of poetic license.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • There must have been some kind of selection for white skin in the Neolithic.

    We know that white skin was already prevalent before the Neolithic in what is now Scandinavia and Russia. There may have been some selection during that time, although I wouldn’t rule out population replacement. There seems to have been a general trend of population movement from the north to the south. There are actually references to such movements in ancient Greek legends (e.g., the Dorian invasions).

    The Emperor Septimius Severus, born in Leptis Magna in 146AD, appears in a painting from Algeria as dark skinned and his Syrian wife and the children (the future Emperors Geta and Caracalla) as white.

    That sex difference is typical in Roman paintings:

    https://www.pinterest.com/pin/391391023838286963/

    https://www.pinterest.com/pin/391391023838286940/

    It’s not a racial difference. It’s a difference in complexion that normally exists between a man and a woman. It’s less visible in people who are very fair- or very dark-skinned, but it’s quite visible in people of Mediterranean origin.

    People in the 21st century are also “primed” to interpret skin color differences as having an ethnic/racial meaning.

    Smith demonstrates how the denial of moral equality between Europeans and non-Europeans resulted from converging philosophical and scientific developments, including a declining belief in human nature’s universality and the rise of biological classification.

    I disagree. Biology didn’t really begin to affect popular attitudes toward race until after Darwin. If we go back to the time of the American Civil War there were a few anatomists here and there who tried to explain black/white differences in terms of biology, but they were very marginal in public discourse. At that time Lamarckian thinking was very dominant, i.e., blacks were considered mentally and behaviorally different but it was thought these differences would disappear through exposure to white society.

    White attitudes “racialized” to the extent that white settler societies developed overseas with large numbers of white women. Such societies grew and consolidated from the 18th century onward in North America and later in South Africa, the southern cone of South America, and Australia. There is much evidence that these attitudes were weaker where whites were overwhelmingly single men (who were often cohabiting with native women).

    Why does this site and its ‘writers’ have an obsession with people’s colour, and more specifically a not-so-hidden celebration of being white? Is it because the site owners, admins, and majority visitors are white, and it just feels good to be of that group?

    The issue of skin color, and race in general, has become very taboo in Western societies. It’s not so much that we talk too much about it as that other people don’t talk at all (except from a very narrow and predictable perspective).

    It’s not because the HBD columnists here are all white. For one thing, they aren’t. For another thing, look at the columnists at most newspapers and magazines in North America. Aren’t they mainly white? Do they feel good about being white? That’s not my impression …

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous

    The issue of skin color, and race in general, has become very taboo in Western societies.
     
    I assume you are referring to genetic research? Otherwise the principal change in attitude regarding race seems to be "it's not cool to discriminate against or denigrate someone on account of their race". Socially that's where society seems to have gone. Are you saying that's a bad thing? Policies like affirmative action are independent of these societal attitudes, and are inspired by Marxist philosophy, namely perpetual redressal of injustice. Such policies can be combated without taking recourse to older theories and attitudes regarding race. Unless there is something else that is driving the angst in white people.

    Do they feel good about being white?
     
    Why does anyone need to feel good or bad about the skin they were born with?
    , @FirkinRidiculous

    I disagree. Biology didn’t really begin to affect popular attitudes toward race until after Darwin. If we go back to the time of the American Civil War there were a few anatomists here and there who tried to explain black/white differences in terms of biology, but they were very marginal in public discourse. At that time Lamarckian thinking was very dominant, i.e., blacks were considered mentally and behaviorally different but it was thought these differences would disappear through exposure to white society.
     
    Could you expand on this a little? Are you claiming that during the period of American slavery, popular wisdom had it that blacks were on the upward path to moral and social improvement and that the state of slavery would wither away?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Why does this site and its ‘writers’ have an obsession with people’s colour, and more specifically a not-so-hidden celebration of being white?

    Think of it as a counterweight to all the websites and people who pretend not to have an obsession with racial/ethnic differences. But, yes, we like being white.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ogunsiron
    It's not an all-white club here.
    I'm definitely not white, but I appreciate some respite from the now routine anti-white propaganda that's seeping from every pore of the mainstream usa ( western) media.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • It is Nature, Human Nature, and Human Difference: Race in Early Modern Philosophy, published by Princeton University Press.

    Just out of interest, could you give me a ballpark figure of how many copies a book like this would be expected to sell?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Why does this site and its ‘writers’ have an obsession with people’s colour, and more specifically a not-so-hidden celebration of being white? Is it because the site owners, admins, and majority visitors are white, and it just feels good to be of that group?

    Thought bubble of many here: “Hey, man has always wished to be pale… phew, thank God, we are one of those.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Western civilization is pretty much the domain of people of little or no color. Some people, mostly whites, think that means they are special as an individual white. Also, there is a belief that there might be some special sauce that tracks with white skin that explains why whites have been able to create the modern era. (This idea should not be dismissed out of hand.) Some people have the idea that people of color are mucking up everything that the people of little or no color have accomplished and some people of little or no color think that “whites” should band together to preserve and extend the accomplishments of the previous generations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon7
    I thought the same thing, but here's the (apparent) provenance of this image, from Wiki media:

    Depicting (from left): a Berber, a Nubian, an Asiatic, and an Egyptian.
    An 1820 drawing of a relief from the tomb of Seti I.

    It is a drawing, which can easily carry the cultural baggage of the artist.

    People in the ancient Mediterranean routinely grouped people according to complexion/physiognomy.Frank Snowden:

    The assumption that a majority of the inhabitants of north Africa such as Numidians, Gaetulians, and Moors, were blacks, is also contradicted by the ancient evidence. Classical accounts clearly distinguish between the light-skinned inhabitants of coastal northwest Africa and the darker Ethiopians who lived on the southern fringes of the area. The ancient sources also point to the presence in northwest Africa of mixed black-white types, strongly suggested by names such as Libyoaethiopes (Libyan Ethiopians), Leucoaethiopes (white Ethiopians) and Melanogeatuli (black Gaetulians), a kind of intermediate population, an amalgam of whites and Ethiopians, and by the descriptions of the Garamantes, classified in some classical texts as Ethiopians but distinguished from Ethiopians by others. [15] Classical accounts of the physical features of northwest Africans are amply confirmed by the iconographical evidence. Mosaics, sculpture in the round, and other art objects from northwest Africa depict the inhabitants as predominantly white and portray relatively few blacks, far fewer than in the art of the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans. [16]

    Further, Diop overlooks the fact that classical authors regularly differentiated between Egyptians and Ethiopians. The Indians south of the Ganges, though browned by the sun, Arrian observed, were not so dark as Ethiopians, whereas northern Indians resembled Egyptians. Finally, it should be noted that Egyptian artists at various times from the middle of the third millennium BC onward depicted southerners (Kushites, Nubians) with tightly coiled hair and thick lips–characteristics clearly differing from those in their portrayals of Egyptians. Further, Egyptian painters often used a carbon black color in representations of Kushites, a reddish tint for Egyptian men and a paler hue for Egyptian women. This important evidence does not mean that there were not inhabitants of Egypt who were apparently racially mixed. In fact, the earliest recognizable portrait of a black in Egyptian art is preserved in a limestone head (ca. 2600 BC) of the Negroid wife of an Egyptian prince from Giza, near modern Cairo. [12] The Negroid archers and their Egyptian wives depicted on stelae at Gebelein were not the only soldiers in the Egyptian army whose wives were Egyptians. Flavius Philostratus may also have had mixed black-white types in mind when he observed that people in the neighborhood of the Egyptian-Nubian boundary were not completely black, but half-breeds in color, not so black as Ethiopians but darker than Egyptians.

    Greeks and Romans, well acquainted with their contemporaries, differentiated between the various gradations of color in Mediterranean populations and made it clear that only some of the black- or dark-skinned peoples, those coming from the south of Egypt and the southern fringes of northwest Africa, were Ethiopians, i.e. Negroes. Ethiopians, known as the blackest peoples on earth, became the yardstick by which classical authors measured the color of others. In first century AD, Manilius described Ethiopians as the blackest; Indians, less sunburnt; Egyptians, mildly dark; with Moors the lightest in this color scheme. In other words, to all these peoples–Ethiopians, Indians, Egyptians, and Moors–who were darker than the Greeks and Romans, classical authors applied color-words but it should be emphasized that in general the ancients described only one of these–Ethiopians–as unmistakably Negroid.

    http://library.howard.edu/content.php?pid=554250

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • My son Justin’s most recent book is on this topic. It is Nature, Human Nature, and Human Difference: Race in Early Modern Philosophy, published by Princeton University Press.

    http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10499.html

    From the publisher’s website:

    People have always been xenophobic, but an explicit philosophical and scientific view of human racial difference only began to emerge during the modern period. Why and how did this happen? Surveying a range of philosophical and natural-scientific texts, dating from the Spanish Renaissance to the German Enlightenment, Nature, Human Nature, and Human Difference charts the evolution of the modern concept of race and shows that natural philosophy, particularly efforts to taxonomize and to order nature, played a crucial role.

    Smith demonstrates how the denial of moral equality between Europeans and non-Europeans resulted from converging philosophical and scientific developments, including a declining belief in human nature’s universality and the rise of biological classification. The racial typing of human beings grew from the need to understand humanity within an all-encompassing system of nature, alongside plants, minerals, primates, and other animals. While racial difference as seen through science did not arise in order to justify the enslavement of people, it became a rationalization and buttress for the practices of trans-Atlantic slavery. From the work of François Bernier to G. W. Leibniz, Immanuel Kant, and others, Smith delves into philosophy’s part in the legacy and damages of modern racism.

    With a broad narrative stretching over two centuries, Nature, Human Nature, and Human Difference takes a critical historical look at how the racial categories that we divide ourselves into came into being.

    Justin E. H. Smith is university professor of the history and philosophy of science at the Université Paris Diderot — Paris VII. He is the author of Divine Machines: Leibniz and the Sciences of Life (Princeton), coeditor and cotranslator of The Leibniz-Stahl Controversy, and a regular contributor to the New York Times and other publications.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Bliss

    Egyptian painting of a Libyan, a Kushi, a Syrian, and an Egyptian.
     
    I am willing to bet that painting is a hoax.

    I thought the same thing, but here’s the (apparent) provenance of this image, from Wiki media:

    Depicting (from left): a Berber, a Nubian, an Asiatic, and an Egyptian.
    An 1820 drawing of a relief from the tomb of Seti I.

    It is a drawing, which can easily carry the cultural baggage of the artist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    People in the ancient Mediterranean routinely grouped people according to complexion/physiognomy.Frank Snowden:

    The assumption that a majority of the inhabitants of north Africa such as Numidians, Gaetulians, and Moors, were blacks, is also contradicted by the ancient evidence. Classical accounts clearly distinguish between the light-skinned inhabitants of coastal northwest Africa and the darker Ethiopians who lived on the southern fringes of the area. The ancient sources also point to the presence in northwest Africa of mixed black-white types, strongly suggested by names such as Libyoaethiopes (Libyan Ethiopians), Leucoaethiopes (white Ethiopians) and Melanogeatuli (black Gaetulians), a kind of intermediate population, an amalgam of whites and Ethiopians, and by the descriptions of the Garamantes, classified in some classical texts as Ethiopians but distinguished from Ethiopians by others. [15] Classical accounts of the physical features of northwest Africans are amply confirmed by the iconographical evidence. Mosaics, sculpture in the round, and other art objects from northwest Africa depict the inhabitants as predominantly white and portray relatively few blacks, far fewer than in the art of the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans. [16]
     

    Further, Diop overlooks the fact that classical authors regularly differentiated between Egyptians and Ethiopians. The Indians south of the Ganges, though browned by the sun, Arrian observed, were not so dark as Ethiopians, whereas northern Indians resembled Egyptians. Finally, it should be noted that Egyptian artists at various times from the middle of the third millennium BC onward depicted southerners (Kushites, Nubians) with tightly coiled hair and thick lips–characteristics clearly differing from those in their portrayals of Egyptians. Further, Egyptian painters often used a carbon black color in representations of Kushites, a reddish tint for Egyptian men and a paler hue for Egyptian women. This important evidence does not mean that there were not inhabitants of Egypt who were apparently racially mixed. In fact, the earliest recognizable portrait of a black in Egyptian art is preserved in a limestone head (ca. 2600 BC) of the Negroid wife of an Egyptian prince from Giza, near modern Cairo. [12] The Negroid archers and their Egyptian wives depicted on stelae at Gebelein were not the only soldiers in the Egyptian army whose wives were Egyptians. Flavius Philostratus may also have had mixed black-white types in mind when he observed that people in the neighborhood of the Egyptian-Nubian boundary were not completely black, but half-breeds in color, not so black as Ethiopians but darker than Egyptians.
     

    Greeks and Romans, well acquainted with their contemporaries, differentiated between the various gradations of color in Mediterranean populations and made it clear that only some of the black- or dark-skinned peoples, those coming from the south of Egypt and the southern fringes of northwest Africa, were Ethiopians, i.e. Negroes. Ethiopians, known as the blackest peoples on earth, became the yardstick by which classical authors measured the color of others. In first century AD, Manilius described Ethiopians as the blackest; Indians, less sunburnt; Egyptians, mildly dark; with Moors the lightest in this color scheme. In other words, to all these peoples–Ethiopians, Indians, Egyptians, and Moors–who were darker than the Greeks and Romans, classical authors applied color-words but it should be emphasized that in general the ancients described only one of these–Ethiopians–as unmistakably Negroid.
     
    http://library.howard.edu/content.php?pid=554250
    , @Bliss

    It is a drawing, which can easily carry the cultural baggage of the artist.
     
    That drawing by Heinrich Menu von Minutoliis is worse than just "cultural baggage". It was a hoax meant to deceive. There have been a number of libyan pharaohs and none of them look remotely like this northern european looking fake.

    Just the fact that this drawing by a 19th century european is being passed off as an actual painting from ancient egypt all over the internet is seriously problematic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Seraphim
    @dark skin became mentally associated with slavery... seems to go even farther back, at least to the third century and perhaps even to the establishment of Roman rule over the region(Africa)

    The Emperor Septimius Severus, born in Leptis Magna in 146AD, appears in a painting from Algeria as dark skinned and his Syrian wife and the children (the future Emperors Geta and Caracalla) as white.
    Nobody seemed to be troubled by that. Actually, the Roman "racists" of the time complained that "the Orontes has poured into the Tiber", referring to the Syrian "invasion" represented by the Severian dinasty.

    The “Orontes pours into the Tiber”-line comes from Juvenal (who died more than half a century before Septimius Severus’ rise to power):

    http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/juvenal/3.shtml (line 62).

    Interesting poem…someone should write a modernised version about present-day London.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Egyptian painting of a Libyan, a Kushi, a Syrian, and an Egyptian.

    I am willing to bet that painting is a hoax.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon7
    I thought the same thing, but here's the (apparent) provenance of this image, from Wiki media:

    Depicting (from left): a Berber, a Nubian, an Asiatic, and an Egyptian.
    An 1820 drawing of a relief from the tomb of Seti I.

    It is a drawing, which can easily carry the cultural baggage of the artist.
    , @The Albino Sasquatch
    I bet you are.
    , @PB and J
    A few years back I read a book on Egyptian dynasties, centered around the New Kingdom of Egypt. The book had photographs of military-oriented artwork that showed Libyans, Hittites, Nubians, and a couple other ethnic groups which I don't remember specifically (Syrians? Canaanites? The "Sea Peoples"?)

    Those depictions were very similar to those shown above, although IIRC the Nubian looked more Nilotic-black and not so Congoid-black as the figure above appears to me.

    Surprisingly, Ramesses II had blue eyes (based on another piece of artwork) and reddish hair (based on his mummy). It is possible that his progenitors may not have been aboriginal Egyptians because they rose to prominence as non-aristocratic military leaders coming from the Nile Delta region.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @dark skin became mentally associated with slavery… seems to go even farther back, at least to the third century and perhaps even to the establishment of Roman rule over the region(Africa)

    The Emperor Septimius Severus, born in Leptis Magna in 146AD, appears in a painting from Algeria as dark skinned and his Syrian wife and the children (the future Emperors Geta and Caracalla) as white.
    Nobody seemed to be troubled by that. Actually, the Roman “racists” of the time complained that “the Orontes has poured into the Tiber”, referring to the Syrian “invasion” represented by the Severian dinasty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    The "Orontes pours into the Tiber"-line comes from Juvenal (who died more than half a century before Septimius Severus' rise to power):

    http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/juvenal/3.shtml (line 62).

    Interesting poem...someone should write a modernised version about present-day London.
    , @jimmyriddle
    That's Juvenal. Here is Dryden's translation:

    I hate, in Rome, a Grecian town to find;
    To see the scum of Greece transplanted here,
    Received like gods, is what I cannot bear.
    Nor Greeks alone, but Syrians here abound;
    Obscene Orontes, diving under ground,
    Conveys his wealth to Tiber's hungry shores,
    And fattens Italy with foreign whores:
    Hither their crooked harps and customs come;
    All find receipt in hospitable Rome.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/prehistoric-farmers-from-northern.html

    “Prehistoric farmers from northern Greece had lactose intolerance, brown eyes, dark skin”

    There must have been some kind of selection for white skin in the Neolithic. The only kind I can think of is a Yamnaya elite destroying farming societies and taking the light skinned females as wives. Dark skinned farmers would not be much use to Yamnaya, so maybe they killed them off.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Do empires provide a higher standard of living? In theory, this might seem so. Empires allow goods, capital, and labor to circulate within a much larger land area, thus creating economies of scale and matching supply and demand more efficiently. Empires can also build public works—roads, canals, aqueducts, etc.—that are beyond the reach of smaller...
  • At the height of the most recent English rickets epidemic bakers were adding talc to bread as a whitener. There's a claim that that increases vitamin D deficiency (besides being a bad idea generally). Which would exaggerate the negative economic effects of the British empire.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • coldequation,

    The Pax Romana reduced the death rate due to war and intercommunal strife. Unfortunately, this was more than offset by a rise in infant mortality and a fall in the birth rate. By late imperial times, the Empire was actually losing population, despite immigration of slaves, mercenaries and, increasingly, barbarian settlers.

    For this reason, I don't believe that the Romano-British were ethnically cleansed by the Anglo-Saxons. They largely withered away on their own through the effects of below-replacement fertility (as well as the plagues that struck in the 6th century).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Tod,

    As I understand it, below-replacement fertility was a problem in all classes of Roman society. The problem was not simply high infant mortality. It was also a high rate of bachelorhood and a low birth rate within marriage.

    In atomized imperial societies, the burden of procreation and child care rests entirely on the couple, and there is no guarantee that they will stay together for the time it takes to raise a family.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Does a Malthusian explanation play a part? In a country where people actually choose to reproduce, peace and law = less death due to strife = more population = resources divided into smaller increments. This reminds me of how the Japanese were poorer than Africans during the stable Tokugawa period, according to Greg Clark.

    I don't know what happened to Britain's population from the beginning of the Roman period to the end, so I'm not sure if this is reasonable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • A diet made up almost wholly of phytic acid rich bread would be all the worse for not containing meat, this seems to be important in preventing rickets. Confusingly the anti rickets effect is not because of the vitamin D in the meat.

    Vitamin D and UV fluctuations . (Hyperlipid post):-

    "Dunnigan feels the evidence from Glasgow suggests that an animal based diet largely protects against bone based effects of gross 1,25(OH)2D deficiency in the plasma. Supplementary vitamin D does also work, but was only transiently taken up by the Asian community.

    [...]the primary determinant of gross clinical expression of deficiency of vitamin D is vegetarianism. There is a protective effect of meat consumption. McDonalds will do. So might reindeeer meat in the Magdalenian Basin 18,000 years ago."
    ——

    Wouldn't the descendants of the elite or better off artisans have become a majority of the population if the lower classes had low fertility and higher mortality over many generations?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • There is a thread of thought going back to antiquity and revived by Nietzsche that blames Christianity for the fall of the Roman Empire. Christ and his followers are thus held responsible for replacing pagan virtues with ‘slave values’ of submission and pacifism. In reality, and long before the triumph of Christianity, it was pagan...
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Sorry for bringing this many months old post to life again. I recently discovered this blog and have been reading through most of the posts, including old ones such as this, with great interest, and this one in particular prompts me to ask a question, which I can only hope will be noticed despite the old age of the original post.

    The analogy between the old roman empire and modern western europe seems, to me, to have one big flaw, and that is the malthusian dynamics involved. There were pressure on the Roman borders, because, in Roman times, there were no contraceptives. Today, we are witnessing falling birth rates throughout the world, including the middle east. I think the great western complacency is due to the assumption there will never again be violent competition over resources; only economic. Whether this is true or not we can not know – but no doubt this belief is sourced in the reduction in human conflict brought about by economic growth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.