.

Archive for the ‘Science/Technology’ Category

The Mediterranean Race and Chimpouts

Friday, April 13th, 2012

The classical Mediterranean race clearly exists in South Europe, Africa and the Middle East. Truth be told, Nordics are basically “depigmented Mediterraneans,” so by that extended definition, it also exists in Northern Europe. Both Nordics and Mediterraneans are part of the Mediterranean race “branch” and other Caucasoid groups like “Alpines” are closely related.

My view, which is influenced by parts of Dienekes, Caryleton Coon, Forum Biodiversity, anthroscape, wikipedia, google, cavilla-sforaza and all the different things I have gotten my hands on has produced MASSIVE CHIMPOUTS. When I “introduced” the idea of a Mediterranean race at Odessa Syndicate (it was replaced by Occidental Dissent, I no longer post there, just comment) and “the phora” (it no longer exists) and stumble inn (still in existence) MASSIVE CHIMPOUTS followed.

JW Holiday / Ted Sallis chimped out like a wannabe WN wop dago. “Der Socialist” chimped out. “1-800″ chimped out. Even the posters on Odessa Syndicate did not like the idea. And so I raise my middle finger in defiance, I still maintain that the concept of a Mediterranean race is a correct one.

The reason all these people chimped out is because they like to promote the idea of “European unity” but what the Mediterranean race proves is that many of the major changes in sub-racial characteristic happened in Europe. Nordics and Alpines mainly separated in Europe. What this also proves is that Arabs and North Africans are part of the same race as Europeans. This “hurt the feelings” of many race fakeist “white nationalist” posters. And I still maintain that I am right.

Saying “Italians are closer to Germans then they are to Syrians genetically” is like saying “Manhattan is closer to Brooklyn than it is to Bergen County New Jersey.” It may be true, but they are both pretty close and Manhattan clearly stands between Bergen County NJ and Brooklyn and all three are part of the same Metro Area.

So we can see why Italians and Southern Europeans often look like Arabs, because they are intermediates between Nordics and Arabs and the genes that happened to change were not related to pigmentation.

edit : by the way, the majority of people on anthroscape, forum biodiversity and biodiversity forum (now defunct) agree with what I have to say about racial classification ever since around late 2008. I made a few errors, but clearly I am seen as knowing what I am talking about.

Casual Thoughts on Anthropology

Thursday, April 12th, 2012

Note that this post is subject to revision. I just wanted to get some ideas out. I know this is not up to the standards that I want it to be up to.

My view on racial categories is that races are determined by bone structure variation that passes a threshold and that skin color is only a secondary trait within the race.

A dark and light skinned Caucasoid is still a Caucasoid.
A dark and light skinned Mongoloid is still a Mongoloid.
A dark and light skinned Negroid is still a Negroid.

There is a range. For instance Alpine Caucasoids have wider skulls than Nordic-Mediterranean Caucasoids, but because this is within a certain tolerance it is still the same race.

The three main racial traits are bone structure, pigmentation and “special dna” (mtdna, y chromosomes, population consistent autosomal markers, SNP markers). While pigmentation varies greatly within a race, bone structure only varies within a certain tolerance.

Genetic drift happens all the time. Random genetic variation happens even between say Poland and the Ukraine or Germany and Austria. Most of DNA does not actually do anything, so most genetic drift does not have a racial effect. This random genetic shift eventually hits a breaking point where it starts to affect bone structure and pigmentation. But changes in pigmentation happen easily whereas it takes a bigger change to change the bone structure. Japanese and Whites may both have developed White skin, but they developed this separately. The difference in bone structure is still obvious.

Unlike Arthur Kemp and “nordicists” (who believe that Mediterraneans are negroid-Nordic hybrids) I believe the White race was born in Africa and Nordic pigmentation was not a feature of the original white race. I believe it migrated to the Middle East and then it migrated to Europe. I believe genetic drift occurred, but it still took a while to shed the Mediterranean skin color. Eventually, in Northern Europe (not Southern Europe), the skin color was shed. I am unsure if the Alpine populations gained their slightly wider skull independently or if they took in small amounts (2-3%) of Mongoloid (Chinese/Japanese/Korean etc.) blood. It is indisputable that there are tiny amounts of Mongoloid blood in Northern Europe and Negroid blood in Southern Europe, but what caused the process of aplinization? I believe the answer is probably that the slight admixture with Mongoloids did make the difference, because “Alpines” cluster closer to Nordic-Mediterraneans of the same nation as opposed to clustering with other Alpines. This makes the idea of a “common orgin” of Alpines unlikely and a common cause more likely. However the Jury is still out, it is possible that Alpines would have gotten wider skulls if Europeans had no contact with Mongoloids.

Caucasians form a very tight cluster, even including Arabs and North Africans. People who are over 90% Caucasian cluster closer to their own race than people who are over 90% Mongoloid or Negroid. Caucasians have less diversity.

The small amount of diversity within the White race explains why Middle Easterners and Europeans were able to maintain similar pigmentation levels until Europeans moved to Northern Europe.

What is interesting however is that even though European Mediterraneans look like Arabs pigmentation wise, they cluster closer to Nordics. This in my opinion means that Nordics evolved out of Mediterraneans and that European Mediterraneans evolved out of middle Eastern Mediterraneans.

The peoples of South Asia (Iran, India etc.) clearly are mixes between Caucasians and non-Caucasians elements. There is a pretty substantial Mongolian element in South Asia. Iranians look down on Arabs too.

It should be noted that in the absence of modern technology, certain traits are preferred by certain climates over others.

Trey Martin – Gangster Bolshevik Martyr

Saturday, March 31st, 2012

Free Media Productions has been relatively silent about the event involving Zimmerman and Martin.

Elsewhere, I have let on about my stance on this, but officially nothing has been written on this website.

Personally, I think Zimmerman went around with a loaded weapon looking for someone to provoke. He singled out Martin because he “looked wierd,” called the cops on him and then physically approached him. The only thing Trey did was not pound his head hard enough into the sidewalk. He should have broke it off.

Zimmerman picked a fight and was lucky to have a gun. Trey put it down for the hood. 8-19.

By the way, I don’t buy the media narrative that it was a “white supremacist” attacking a Black person. Like many people of Latino heritage, Zimmerman appears to be part Indian. He may be part White but he’s not completely White. If you want to see a White hispanic, look at that Cypress Hill video I posted a few days ago. B-real looks like the typical Caucasian hispanic.

8-19. I can only wish more people would rebel like Trey Martin who is a martyr.

Mixture Between Jews and Gentiles in Europe

Saturday, March 3rd, 2012

All these studies are old news but I am going to post them to paint a picture, starting with this one.

In Southern Europe during the Roman Empire, there was HIGH mixture between Jews and Gentiles, both Caucasian. This was not a rare thing, mind you Zionists and Neo-Nazis who both try to allege that Jews are a pure race.

That’s when the Jewish communities in Italy, the Balkans, and North Africa originated, from Jews who migrated or were expelled from Palestine and from people who converted to Judaism during Hellenic times. During that period Jews proselytized with an effectiveness that would put today’s Mormons to shame: at the height of the Roman Empire, as the Roman historian Josephus chronicled, mass conversions produced 6 million practicing Jews, or 10 percent of the population of the Roman Empire. The conversions brought in DNA that had not been part of the original gene pool in the land of Abraham.

—snip—

Of the non-Jewish Europeans, northern Italians were most genetically similar to the Jews, followed by the Sardinians and French. The Druze, Bedouins, and Palestinians were closest to the Iranian, Iraqi, and Syrian Jews.”

The article as well indicates support for the idea of the Mediterranean race (link to Coon). Basically, the entire area around the Mediterranean sea is linked by physical traits and ancestry. Europeans of the North are depigmented Mediterraneans, but the Mediterranean race also existed in the Middle East and North Africa. So if we accept this theory (and the theory is correct, Coon was and is right), Jews were “white” before they ever mixed with Italians. Both Jews and Italians had Mediterranean pigmentation and Caucasian bone features.

That is evidence of “a shared genetic history of related Middle Eastern and non-Semitic Mediterranean ancestors who chose different religious and tribal affiliations.”

Then in Eastern Europe, Ashkenazi Jews continued to mix (this does not apply to Sephardic Jews, but Sephardic Jews did mix with Italians). Not as much, but they did continue to mix. See This link

Ashkenazim also descend, in a smaller way, from European peoples from the northern Mediterranean region and even less from Slavs and Khazars. The non-Israelite Y-DNA haplogroups include Q (typically Central Asian) and R1a1 (typically Eastern European but the Ashkenazic variant comes from somewhere in Asia, probably Central Asia).

Here is another interesting link : http://www.jogg.info/11/coffman.htm

Technocracy and Communism

Saturday, September 17th, 2011

Through my current understanding of theory, Technocracy is the only way to achieve Communism and a high standard of living at the same time. Pol Pot (brother number one) skipped the socialist phase and went straight to Communism. He did achieve Communism, but the standard of living was not very high.

The definition of Communism is “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Basically, the definition of Communism in layman’s terms is “anything you need will be provided for you.” Josef Stalin’s Command economy was not “Communism,” but building infrastructure quickly. This is a form of technocracy, but Communism would require a more advanced form of technocracy. In layman’s terms, in order to achieve “anything you need, you can have,” we would have to improve society by a quantum leap. We would need to see changes that were as radical as the personal computer, the car and the industrial revolution. Major improvements.

I now link you to an old thread on politicsforum in which I contributed. I argued that technocracy was distinct from Communism, but my position has been changed. In my opinion, the technological improvements that technocracy aims to discover would essentially produce Communism. If our technology was really that good, then wage slavery would be abolished. Industry would be superior and the technology to monitor it via the government (no “private” industry) would improve.

Marx did not argue that Communism directly arises out of class struggle the way that he argued Socialism does. Lenin argued that socialists need centralized professional revolutionaries, but that the class antagonisms are already there. Lenin argued that Communism could not be achieved under the current material conditions.

But I believe a socialist and technocratic regime would stand the best change at creating the material conditions necessary to achieve Communism. Class struggle must be aggravated first to achieve socialism, which is defined as “dictatorship of the working class.” Then the dictatorship can organize around technocratic lines. The search for new technology would become one of the most important duties of every citizen and of society as whole. Then once the material conditions exist to achieve “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” then something like Communism could be built. At that point, the standard of living would be so good that there would be virtually no threat of capitalist restoration. The perfect technocracy would eliminate scarcity altogether, and pave the way for something like Communism.

But, a regime could also just skip the socialist stage like pol pot and build a form of Communism that has a lower standard of living, then build up from there. Both methods eventually achieve Communism, but the Leninist method uses socialism to transition while the khmer rouge method simply starts out with a low quality of life and a system that is not fully functional. This may have been necessary in Cambodia, because Pol Pot faced many threats of invasion from Americans, Vietnamese and capitalist Cambodians. When he walked his people out to the countryside, he had to build from scratch. Socialism must follow capitalism, but Pol Pot did not have capitalism, so he could not have achieved socialism and instead went straight to Communism, with a low standard of living.

Judaism on its own Merits

Saturday, July 9th, 2011

The aim of this post is rather casual; a simple personal reflection.

I have established my position that blaming Jews for everything and really for even a high percentage of things is unscientific. 95% of what anonymous internet idiots blame Jews for is hogwash, and I really mean 95%. However, I do not think it is a good Marxist stance to side with Judaism as a theological viewpoint.

All Abrahamic religions of Western Eurasia (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) share a set of myths and myths are never a good thing. Even without a Marxist stance, technocracy alone is enough of a reason to argue against religion.

On its own merits, Judaism has no more favor with me than Islam or Catholicism or born again stuff. All are corrupt in different ways. All are designed to deform the class struggle in different ways. Some do it by promoting weakness, some do it by promoting slavery to the pope, some do it by promoting imperialism (convert to my religion or die) and bullshit morality. Because people tend to generalize about Jews, I will use precise words. In its worst form, Judaism promotes lying and deception and an “us vs. them” mentality against the rest of humanity in which the goal is not to advance ethics and improve the world, but to advance Jews even using unethical means. Most Jews however are reform Jews, if even that, as many are outright atheists. Reform Judaism is nothing but regular old liberalism.

With reform Jews, I have to ask myself “what is the point.” If you want to be a part of something, join a country club, not a fake religion. I say fake because reform Judaism is not real Judaism. Real Judaism however has its own set of ethical issues that are not acceptable to someone who takes a scientific and/or Marxist view on things.

Just to be extra thorough and remove all doubt, I must clarify that it is my belief that Jews are responsible for very little of the problems inside America and the main culprit is capitalism. However, Judaism is no more above criticism than any other religion.

US Imperialism, Islam and Class Consciousness

Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011

US imperialism harms the movement against Islam.

Americans have created the image, among both Islamic sympathizers and those who oppose them, that those who oppose Islam should support American foreign policy. American foreign policy includes the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War and support for the “war” between Zionists and Palestinians.

US imperialism (as well domestic capitalism) takes advantage of modern technology and discredits it by association! When technology and modernization become associated with these goons in power, the popularity of Islam increases. Technology just isn’t “cool” when capitalist warmongers use it.

A class conscious analysis combined with modern technology on its own will get rid of Islam. The same factors will destroy US imperialism as well.

Kill two birds with one stone!

edit:
I apologize for not making the case as well as I should have earlier. I always opposed the Iraq War and opposed the prolonged characteristics of the Afghanistan War, but I never said it enough to sink it through people’s thick skulls. People misinterpreted my opposition to Islam as support for the US policies. People also misinterpreted my opposition to stupid antisemitism as support for these policies. When you are dealing with people of below average intelligence, you have to be extra articulate.

Utopian Socialists vs. Scientific Socialists

Monday, April 11th, 2011

Anyone who reads Marx knows that he writes about “Utopian Socialists.”

I would argue that Utopian Socialists are not Socialists at all. They are merely progressives who are stuck in the current mode of production. FDR could be considered a Utopian Socialist. He wanted to strengthen the economy, redistribute wealth and base society off of ideals, but he did not want tie his analysis and worldview to concepts which involved changing modes of production. Increasing taxes was not changing the mode of production, but a matter of administration within a mode of production that already existed. Increasing taxes may be Socialistic, but it is not Marxist.

Improving people’s quality of life could be considered Utopian Socialism. Arguing that the state should be revolutionized based on the antagonisms caused by class conflicts in Marx’s era is what Marx called Scientific Socialism.

You could argue that even Fascism and Nazism have some Venn Diagram overlap with Utopian Socialism. They want to change society to pursue an ideal, while working within existing means of production. Fascism is based on a strong state and imperialism, whereas Nazism is based on scientifically invalidated interpretations of race.

I personally believe that some Utopian Socialism is necessary after the Socialist Party takes power, in the form of technocracy. Technocracy is idealistically orienting society towards technological improvement and is not inherently tied to a mode of production. Technocracy is necessary to produce an abundance of resources, otherwise Communism will just be poverty. Whether this Technocracy occurs in the Capitalist, Socialist or Communist mode of production is a matter of debate. But the key is that the technocracy must occur after revolution, because a good economy will mask class antagonisms.

Progressive Nationalism

Tuesday, April 5th, 2011

I have pondered why nations formed in the first place. My first thought was that nations are the result of the imperialistic conquering of tribes in ancient times. Now however, I believe this is simplistic. It is more likely that nations, identities, languages, cultures and separate human communities formed due to the lack of the capacity to globalize. The ability to travel did not exist the way it does today, societies were in different stages of economic development and religions were taken as literal truth. A Progressive Nationalist understands the effects and history of technological and economic development, as well as the natural consequences. As Marx concluded, new classes always arise.

If one accepts this view, it would seem to follow that one would accept the view that globalization is the logical conclusion of technology. After all, human beings were merely unable to globalize but now they are. However, it brings up the old saying; “Just because you can do something does not necessarily mean that you should.” There is a difference between aligning workers towards a common goal against an exploiting class and accepting the capitalist mindset that a human being is only an individual with no communitarian ties. Capitalist internationalism is not the same thing as labor solidarity. As far as the matter of race goes, Marx had views that would be considered politically incorrect by today’s standards.

Marxist-Leninists believe in international working class collaboration, but once a nation becomes class conscious, it can use its identity in a progressive sense. Implicitly, the Cuban Revolution used progressive populist Nationalism to fight Batista, though Castro likes to downplay this. Stalin implicitly appealed to national identity with his “Socialism in one country” and he did have separate nations internal to USSR, including a Ukrainian state. In addition, the Polish, German, Romanian and Hungarian Communist regimes were not even part of USSR, though closely tied in alliances. If those examples are not blatant enough, then Mao, Solath Sar (“Pol Pot”) and Kim Jong Il made the implementation of national characteristics an explicit part of theory. Terms that suggests this include “Socialism with Chinese characteristics”, “the Khmer Rouge” and “Juche.” The theoretical writings behind all three examples elaborate on the extent to which each implied that Socialism must be tailored to intersect with Nationalism.

Most Marxists do not interpret internationalism in the way that Trotskyites do. Trotsky’s view of internationalism included the literal forced intermarrying of races and he called it eugenics. It included fighting for revolutions without considering the material conditions on the ground. This is not a class conscious analysis. The typical Marxist line is merely a call for collaboration between workers against the exploiting class. Trotsky went off in a different and unmarxist direction because he was less concerned about protecting the working class and was more concerned with unraveling the fabric of existing communities. While we can acknowledge that Trotsky was a great war leader and an articulate writer, he was an opportunist and a Menshevik (and originally rejected revolution), he weakened the Soviet Union by dividing it and had he taken power he would have destroyed it. His warped and twisted interpretation of internationalism served as a perfect caricature of “evil Jew” to allow Hitler to take power and threaten the survival of individuals of Jewish descent, Slavic descent and the Soviet Union.

Progressive Nationalists, or Marxists who believe in the synthesis between a class conscious analysis and a positive national identity, must be enemies of Trotskyism and Hitlerism simultaneously. They must also seek to view the world scientifically and economically, but understand the value and utility of human communities. Nazism, Trotskyism and primitive Nationalism cannot be seen as compatible with class conscious and progressive Nationalism. Even though Italian Fascism is less crude than the other ideologies, it too has irreconcilable differences. Religious fundamentalists may sometimes fight for progressive causes, but religious fundamentalism itself is not compatible with thought that is anti-imperialist and economically/technologically progressive. A progressive Nationalist realizes that nations go through different stages of development like economies do and believes that future stages of the nation should be woven in class conscious fabric. Progressive Nationalists oppose the exploitative class wherever it is, even if the time for revolution is inopportune (such as the Middle East and America). Progressive Nationalists recognize their nation as a string of dominos against imperialism and perhaps can be considered pan-Nationalists. This is a mode of thought that rejects both nation wrecking ideology and reactionary ideology.

Because antisemitism seems to be the bread and butter of most reactionary ideologues, it needs to be picked apart in this important theoretical post. A surprisingly high number of people attack globalism as a Jewish conspiracy, often caused by “genetic programming.” In truly bizarre fashion, today’s internet dissidents go further than Hitler and do not only label Jews a race but a non-White race. They allege that Jews (who they view as non-Whites) lead Whites to globalization. A class conscious analysis of economics rejects the idea of blaming Jews as the cause of globalization. The desire to globalize society is a result of the uneven development of capitalism.

Historically, the fact that Judaism, Christianity and Islam exist in Europe and the fact that paganism existed in Egypt and predated Judaism in the Near East is evidence that the Mediterranean Sea was not the major demarcation point separating the races. Instead, the Ural Mountains and Sahara Desert were those points. While people lacked the ability to travel worldwide, it should be noted that empires crossed the Mediterranean Sea all the time and fought each other. When Carleton Coon defined his Mediterranean race, he attributed membership to every side of the sea and considered northern Europeans Nordics to be “depigmented Mediterraneans.” The point is that it did not take any special globalization to bring Judaism, Christianity and Islam from the Middle East to North Africa and Europe. Christianity, Judaism and Islam stem from the teachings of Abraham and Moses. Variations of this creed extended throughout all three Caucasian regions. Paganism also existed in all three continents, from Egypt to Rome to Russia. As a matter of a fact, Abraham fought against Jewish Pagans. Jews did not plunder Europe in recent history as antisemitic mythology alleges, but Europe derives its Caucasian origins from the Near East. Most importantly, Jews are not the cause of globalization, though the effects of nazism have lead Jews to embrace reaction-oriented ideas such as extreme free market capitalism, open boarders and a form of Zionism that is not progressive Nationalism.

The Mediterranen Caucasian Subtype

Friday, February 11th, 2011

Coon Link
-from North Africa, to Arabia, to Southern Europe (and southern Romania)

A lot of people suffer from the delusion that this is an outdated concept, and that newer science has repudiated this idea in favor of unifying all Europeans. JW Holiday suggested that races are separated by continents in an article that I once praised, because he did make a few good other points (despite being wrong on that point). First of all the race is Caucasian. All Caucasians cluster. But there are Mediterranean tendencies, and those tendencies occur both inside and outside of Europe.

Some people argue that “modern science” debunked Coon in every single way. The newest science indeed proves the older anthropologists (such as coon) correct in many ways. The Mediterranean Caucasian Subtype is just as validated by modern science as it was by Coon.

Europeans come from the near east.

edit:
below I provide some scientific modern evidence for my claims above. This is stronger evidence than haplogroup mapping. It is based off autosomal DNA (the entire genome).
Source

That is evidence of “a shared genetic history of related Middle Eastern and non-Semitic Mediterranean ancestors who chose different religious and tribal affiliations.”


SEO Powered By SEOPressor