The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Peter Frost ArchiveBlogview
In the Eye of the Ancient Beholder
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Egyptian painting of a Libyan, a Kushi, a Syrian, and an Egyptian.  In the Middle East, the Egyptians were seen as the Dark Other. Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Egyptian painting of a Libyan, a Kushi, a Syrian, and an Egyptian. In the Middle East, the Egyptians were seen as the Dark Other. Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

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 of people who lived within close range, and they tended to look a lot like us. People farther away looked more different, but we had less to do with them. Often, we didn’t even know they existed. So we separated “us” from “them” mainly on the basis of culture—language, religion, customs, and so on.

In those earlier times, skin color was used to distinguish among individuals of the same people and between the two sexes, women being paler and men ruddier and browner. A pale color also set infants apart, particularly in those societies where everyone else was much darker-skinned.

Skin color thus had meanings related to gender, age, or simply the identity of any one individual. This was true for all cultures. For example, in pre-Islamic writings from Arabia:

Human beings are frequently described by words which we might translate as black, white, red, olive, yellow, and two shades of brown, one lighter and one darker. These terms are usually used in a personal rather than an ethnic sense and would correspond to such words as “swarthy,” “sallow,” “blonde,” or “ruddy” in our own modern usage more than to words like “black” and “white.” (Lewis, 1990, p. 22)

Similarly, 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, so that nwoko ocha (white man) merely meant an African with a yellowish or reddish complexion (Ardener, 1954).

Jews of Antiquity

This older way of viewing skin color—personal, relativistic, and gender-oriented—has been studied by David Goldenberg with respect to the Jews of the ancient world.

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 described as “honey-colored” (Cohen, 1999, pp. 29-30).

Nonetheless, Jewish women were preferentially referred to as “white.” This reflected the naturally lighter complexion of women, which was made lighter still by sun avoidance and various cosmetics. One rabbinic text advises, “He who wishes to whiten his daughter’s complexion, let him give her milk and young fowl,” while another recommends using olive oil as a body lotion for the same purpose. A Midrash recounts that after returning from exile in Babylon the men didn’t wish to marry the women who came with them because the sun had darkened their faces on the long journey home (Goldenberg, 2003, p. 86). This preference is implicit in a rabbinic discussion of a vow “not to marry a particular woman who is ugly, but it turns out that the woman is beautiful; or black (dark;shehorah), but it turns out that she is white (fair; levanah); or short, but she is tall. Even if she was ugly, but became beautiful; or black, and became white” (Goldenberg, 2003, pp. 85-86).

“White” was also the preferred color of infants. According to a rabbinic tradition, if a woman was suspected of infidelity and found innocent, she would go through the following changes: “if she formerly bore ugly babies, she will now bear beautiful babies; if she formerly bore dark [shehorin] children, she will now bear fair [levanim] children” (Goldenberg, 2003, p. 96).

In the above cases, the terms “white” and “black” were projected onto individuals and onto the two sexes in a relative sense that is better translated by “light” and “dark.” This relativism also held true when the same terms were projected onto ethnic groups. Hence, the Jews often called themselves “white” in relation to darker-skinned peoples, usually Egyptians or kushi (black Africans).

For example, in one parable a kushit maidservant claims she is the most beautiful of her household. Her matronah (a free woman of good family) replies: “Come the morning and we’ll see who is black [shahor] and who is white [lavan]” (Goldenberg, 2003, p. 88). Interestingly, the Jews also considered themselves “white” in comparison to Arabs (Goldenberg,2003, pp. 120-124).

There was also the reverse semantic process: the description of an individual’s skin color by a word that originally applied to an ethnic group. A lighter-skinned Jew could for instance be called a germani, and a darker-skinned Jew a kushi. There are even cases of the word kushi being used for inanimate objects, like dark wine (Goldenberg, 2003, p. 116).

Whatever the case, use of color terms in an ethnic sense tended to carry over values from the non-ethnic sense, specifically the aesthetic ones associated with the lighter skin of women and infants. We see this in a commentary on Gen 12:11 where Abraham enters Egypt and, fearing that the Egyptians will covet his wife, says: “Now I know that you are a beautiful woman.” This is explained in the commentary as meaning: “Now we are about to enter a place of ugly and dark [people]” (Goldenberg, 2003, p. 86).

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?” (Goldenberg, 2003, pp. 160-161). This view is preserved in a homily by the third-century Christian writer Origen:

But Pharao easily reduced the Egyptian people to bondage to himself, nor is it written that he did this by force. For the Egyptians are prone to a degenerate life and quickly sink to every slavery of the vices. Look at the origin of the race and you will discover that their father Cham, who had laughed at his father’s nakedness, deserved a judgment of this kind, that his son Chanaan should be a servant to his brothers, in which case the condition of bondage would prove the wickedness of his conduct. Not without merit, therefore, does the discolored posterity imitate the ignobility of the race.

Homily on Genesis XVI

Most academics argue that dark skin became mentally associated with slavery through the Atlantic slave trade of the 16th to 19th centuries. Others, like Bernard Lewis, believe this mental association goes back to the expansion of the Muslim world into Africa in the seventh century (Lewis, 1990). Actually, it seems to go even farther back, at least to the third century and perhaps even to the establishment of Roman rule over the region (Goldenberg, 2003, pp. 155-156, 168-174). From that time onward, a pigmentocracy took shape in Egypt with Greeks, Jews, and Romans forming the dominant class. Meanwhile, a trade in slaves grew and developed between sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East. Once the Roman Empire had stopped growing, and stopped taking large numbers of prisoners of war, trade became the main source of domestic servants. It is perhaps significant that the kushitmaidservant appears as a recurring motif in rabbinic literature, since that period—Late Antiquity—would correspond to the time when the black slave trade was slowly but steadily growing (Goldenberg, 2003, pp. 126-128).

This trade may have undermined the status of Egyptians as the Dark Other. Initially, the kushi were often seen as an especially dark sort of Egyptian, perhaps because they were usually encountered in the Middle East as subjects of the Pharaoh (Goldenberg, 2003, pp. 17, 109, 301 n111). In Late Antiquity, they emerged more and more as a distinct category, probably because they were becoming more and more numerous as slaves, particularly in the eastern provinces of the Empire. It was during this time that their dark skin came to be explained as a curse on their forefather Kush, whose father Ham had sinned either by seeing Noah naked or by copulating in the Ark. In one text, Noah curses Ham with the words: “May your progeny be dark and ugly” (Goldenberg, 2003, p. 97). This is not a specifically Jewish tradition, being also attested in early Christian and early Islamic writings (Goldenberg, 2003, pp. 150-177).

Conclusion

We perceive human skin color by means of mental algorithms that originally processed non-ethnic differences in pigmentation: 1) the minor variability that exists among individuals; 2) the difference between infants (who are born with little pigmentation) and older humans; and 3) the sex difference, female skin being paler than male skin because it has less melanisation and less blood flowing through its outer layers. This is a universal sex difference, although it is most visible in humans of medium color (Frost, 2007).

Initially, these algorithms focused on the second source of variability. 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 (Frost, 2011).

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.

References

Ardener, E.W. (1954). Some Ibo attitudes to skin pigmentation,Man, 54, 71-73.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2793760?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Cohen, S.J.D. (1999). The Beginnings of Jewishness, Berkeley.

Frost, P. (2007). Comment on Human skin-color sexual dimorphism: A test of the sexual selection hypothesis, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 133, 779-781.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/6480611_Human_skin-color_sexual_dimorphism_A_test_of_the_sexual_selection_hypothesis

Frost, P. (2011). Hue and luminosity of human skin: a visual cue for gender recognition and other mental tasks, Human Ethology Bulletin, 26(2), 25-34.
/pfrost/hue-and-luminosity-of-human-skin-a-visual-cue-for-gender-recognition-and-other-mental-tasks/

Goldenberg, D.M. (2003). The Curse of Ham. Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=1MS9AiZ74MoC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Goldenberg, D.M. (2009). Racism, Color Symbolism, and Color Prejudice, in M. Eliav-Feldon, B. Isaac, and J. Ziegler (eds.) The Origins of Racism in the West, Cambridge.
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Goldenberg2/publication/263161501_Racism_Color_Symbolism_and_Color_Prejudice/links/00b7d53a09ef919429000000.pdf

Lewis, B. (1990). Race and Slavery in the Middle East, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Origen (2010). Homilies on Genesis and Exodus, transl. by R.E. Heine., Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press
https://books.google.ca/books?id=X_mSBavPcq4C&pg=PA214&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false

Wagatsuma, H. (1967). The social perception of skin color in Japan,Daedalus, 96, 407-443.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20027045?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

(Republished from Evo and Proud by permission of author or representative)
 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Sean says:

    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.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /pfrost/in-the-eye-of-the-ancient-beholder/#comment-1048491
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Seraphim says:

    @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.
  3. Bliss says:

    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.
  4. @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
  5. Anon7 says:
    @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.
  6. Ken Smith says: • Website

    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
  7. syonredux says:
    @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
  8. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    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.
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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?
  12. @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
  13. anon says: • Disclaimer

    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?
  14. Jack_W 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

    “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
  15. Numinous says:
    @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?
  16. Seraphim says:
    @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
  17. Seraphim says:
    @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.
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @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
  21. iffen says:
    @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
  22. - 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
  23. Sean says:

    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
  24. Numinous 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.

    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).
  25. 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.

  26. @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
  27. anon says: • Disclaimer

    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
  28. […] In the Eye of the Ancient Beholder – The Unz Review […]

    Read More
  29. Sean says:
    @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
  30. Sean says:
    @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?
  31. iffen says:
    @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.
     
  32. 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
  33. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @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
  34. 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.
  35. Sean says:
    @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.
  36. Sean says:
    @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
  37. iffen 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.
     

    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.
     
  38. Bliss says:

    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.
  39. dcite says:
    @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.
  40. Bliss says:

    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.
  41. ogunsiron says:
    @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
  42. ogunsiron says:
    @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.

  43. ogunsiron says:
    @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
  44. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @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
  45. Seraphim says:
    @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
  46. Bliss says:
    @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
  47. Bliss says:
    @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
  48. PB and J says:
    @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
  49. iffen says:
    @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
  50. David says:

    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]

  51. 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.
  52. syonredux says:
    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.

  53. Sean says:
    @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?
  54. Bliss 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.

    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
  55. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @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
  56. iffen says:
    @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
  57. Bliss says:
    @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

  58. syonredux says:
    @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
  59. syonredux 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.

    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
  60. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @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.
  61. Numinous says:
    @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.
  62. Chiron says:

    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
  63. @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
  64. :
    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
  65. “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.

  66. Chiron 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.

    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
  67. Luke Lea says: • Website

    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
  68. Sean says:

    “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
  69. @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
  70. Sean says:
    @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
  71. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @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
  72. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @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?
  73. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    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
  74. Bliss 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.

    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?
  75. helena says:
    @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
  76. Bliss says:
    @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
  77. @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
  78. @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
  79. 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.

     

  80. @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
  81. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @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?
  82. @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
  83. 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".
  84. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @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
  85. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    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
  86. Bliss 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.

    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"

  87. @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
  88. Bliss 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.

    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
  89. @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
  90. Seraphim 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.

    @” 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
  91. helena says:

    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
  92. Bliss says:
    @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
  93. Seraphim says:

    @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
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 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
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Peter Frost Comments via RSS