Race % NEC Arab Black Group Ancient Egyptians (LE) 80 0 20? Ancient Egyptians (UE) 90 0 10? Modern Egyptians (LE) 75 5 20 Modern Egyptians (UE) 65 5 30 NE Caucasoid = Near East Caucasoid from 8-10,000 YBP UE = Upper Egypt LE = Lower Egypt
Note that modern Egyptians have received an injection of about 10% additional Black and 5% additional Arab DNA since the end of the Dynastic period. Arab DNA came in via Arab invasions, etc. and much female Black DNA may have entered via the slave trade.
Filed under Africa, Anthropology, Antiquity, Arabs, Blacks, Egypt, Egyptians, Genetics, North Africa, North Africans, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional
Every maniac’s favorite subject: Kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill! And kill some more!
1. Could you kill an innocent person even if you might get caught? Let’s hope you all answer no, but unfortunately, I think the number of folks who answer yes is going to much higher than you would think. I certainly hope my answer is no for God’s sake!
2. Could you kill an innocent person, even if you could be assured of getting away with it? I certainly hope my answer here would be no. I hope if I did it, my conscience would eat away at me for the rest of my life.
3. Could you kill an innocent person if they wanted you to do it because they were sick in the head if you might get caught? I definitely think my answer here would be no. I don’t think I could even hurt an innocent person if they wanted me to do it. I just don’t think I have it in me. Even hurting them would probably scare the living crap out of me and terrify me. I don’t think I would be able to enjoy it. Some people might answer no because they might get caught.
There have been some interesting cases along these lines. In one case, a female lunatic hooked up with a male sick fuck on the Internet. She had a fantasy of being murdered, and he had long wanted to murder someone, but he had enough controls not to do it. Just because she was a willing victim ain’t good enough though in the eyes of the law! The law doesn’t care. You’re a murderer just the same.
A recent legal ethics book argued killers might get lowered sentences in “willing victim” cases. I don’t agree with that.
4. Could you kill an innocent person if they wanted you to do it because they were sick in the head if you could be assured you would not get caught? This is a tougher question, but I still don’t think I have it in me to do that, or at least I hope I don’t.
5. Could you kill an innocent person who wanted you too, in which it was a case of mercy killing, and you might get caught? This is the toughest question of all! In most cases, we can argue that simply taking a life is wrong, wrong, wrong. That’s pretty much the way that I lived my life. But in the case of mercy killing, you are supposedly doing this dying and ill person a favor by killing them.
Apparently this sort of thing goes on in hospitals a lot, in which case doctors are killers. Giving a pull the plug order is actually somewhat trivial morally, though it can be painful. I could definitely give a pull the plug order. A number of people say that they might do this, but the thought of getting caught would stop them.
6. Could you kill an innocent person who wanted you too, in which it was a case of mercy killing, and you could be assured you would not get caught? Toughest one of them all. A lot of people would probably answer yes. I am not sure I could do this. Maybe I could, maybe I could not.
7. Could you execute an enemy prisoner in war, no matter how evil, if they were begging for mercy? In the case of most prisoners within normal bounds of evil, I say no. It’s the mercy part that would get to me.
8. Could you execute an enemy prisoner in war, no matter how evil, if they had given up and resigned to death and were not begging for mercy? This might be a little easier, but I still might have to give the gun to someone else.
9. Could you kill someone who was attacking you after you had already subdued them to the point where they were not fighting anymore (on the ground and beaten) if you might get caught? This would be a crime of rage.
I would like to think my rational mind would take over and I would think they deserve to be hurt about as much as they hurt me, but no more. If someone inflicted nonpermanent injuries on me, I have a right to inflict some nonpermanent injuries on them. That’s the way I see it.
A lot of people would say that they could kill an attacker in rage, but they would not for fear they get caught. I have been in some wild fistfights, and I certainly did not try to kill my attackers. I was mostly interested in stopping them or fending them off.
9. Could you kill someone who was attacking you after you had already subdued them to the point where they were not fighting anymore (on the ground and beaten) if you might get caught? A very interesting question. Could or would you destroy an attacker out of race after they are already out of commission, assuming you could get away with it.
Very hard to answer. I would hope I would be able to control myself enough not to do this. I don’t think it’s ok to destroy an attacker out of race after they are down and out. You already won the fight, now move on. You’ve committed excessive harm compared to the harm that was done to you. But rage takes over and people just go blind.
10. Could you execute a death penalty prisoner if all you had to do was pull a plug? Not sure if I could do this one either. Might just give it to someone way more coldblooded than I am and let them have the honors.
I used to be much more coldblooded, and I had many murder fantasies. Not about innocent people mind you! Mostly about people I hated, even family members. A lot about my enemies here and there. I still have these from time to time, but they are much reduced and only last for a bit, then I get over it and it fades out. I also fantasied about killing enemies in war a lot, even executions. I really enjoyed these fantasies! They were hot!
I don’t know what’s happened to me, but I have become way less coldblooded as I have aged.
Filed under Ethics, Law, Medicine, Philosophy, War
Much ink has now been spilled over the Trayvon Martin case in Sanford, Florida, where an Hispanic man named George Zimmerman shot and killed a 17 year old Black boy.
Zimmerman was a self styled neighborhood watch type who was patrolling his neighborhood. He saw Trayvon walking around the neighborhood wearing a hoodie, and he thought Trayvon looked suspicious so he started to follow the boy.
Trayvon noticed someone was following him and told his girlfriend on the phone that a man was following him and Trayvon was going to try to lose him. Zimmerman called 911, and they told Zimmerman to quit following the boy. “We don’t need you to do that,” they said.
What happened next is very confused. Zimmerman was following Martin in his car and got out of his car to follow him on foot, but Zimmerman said he lost Martin and was heading back to his vehicle. According to Zimmerman, Martin came up behind him and confronted him. “You got a problem?” Martin demanded. “No, I don’t have a problem,” Zimmerman answered. “Well, you do now,” Martin said. Zimmerman then turned and walked away from the ensuing confrontation. As he was walking away, Martin blindsided him with a punch to the back of the head, knocking him to the sidewalk.
Zimmerman was indeed bleeding from the back of head when the police showed up, either from the punch in the head or from getting his head beaten on the pavement, which is more likely (see below). Zimmerman said that Martin then jumped on top of him, pounding his head on the sidewalk while straddling Zimmerman’s chest and pummeling him. They then rolled over onto the grass and the fight continued.
A witness saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him. Zimmerman was armed with loaded gun, which he was permitted to carry. While pinned to the ground, he apparently pulled out the gun and shot Martin dead. Zimmerman had grass stains on his back and was bleeding from the face, consistent with his story.
At some point, Zimmerman’s gun was revealed. Martin tried to grab Zimmerman’s gun during the scuffle. At this point, Martin repeatedly threatened to kill Zimmerman, saying, “You’re going to die tonight.”
Witnesses reporting hearing the sounds of whimpering or screams, which some said came from Martin but which actually came from Zimmerman.
Other reports said that Martin confronted Zimmerman, punched him in the nose and knocked him to the ground, and then began slamming his head into the pavement. They then rolled over onto the grass, where the fight continued.
According to Martin’s phone conversation with his girlfriend, the man was following him and Martin was going to try to lose him. The girlfriend then heard the sounds of a conversation. “What are you doing here?” asked Zimmerman. “Why are you following me?” demanded Martin. Sounds of a fight or scuffle followed, and the phone was dropped. Others say that this phone conversation with the girlfriend never occurred.
Police arrived on the scene, and Martin was dead. They believed Zimmerman’s story. According to a terrible Florida “stand your ground” law written by rightwing Florida legislators, there was no way to arrest, much less prosecute Zimmerman under the law. Zimmerman was within his legal rights to do what he did.
The case has sparked a huge brouhaha, with Blacks going predictably insane and liberals joining in to some extent. At first the case seemed outrageously wrong against Zimmerman, but further evidence seems to have put Martin much more in the blame than before. There are demands for Zimmerman to be prosecuted. Many Blacks are calling it cold blooded murder, but that’s not what it looks like anymore. The mayor has resigned.
Martin is looking less and less angelic as time goes by.
He was involved in a fistfight around Thanksgiving with a boy who Martin suspected of “snitching” on him with regard to marijuana. Just five days before his death, he punched a bus driver. He was recently kicked out of school for having an empty bag of marijuana and a pot pipe in his pocket. Previously, he and his friends were known for hanging out on roofs paintballing cars as they drove by.
Martin was caught in possession of women’s jewelry that was thought to be stolen along with burglary tools. He also graffitied his school’s property and defaced school lockers and doors. He was a fan of hardcore rap music, and he had an interest in handguns. He had already been suspended from school three times.
Gucci Little Piggy describes Martin as a burgeoning hoodlum.
It looks like Martin was getting into a behavioral pattern of increasing fistfights, not uncommon for a boy his age, especially a Black boy. This pattern would be right in line with his blindsiding Zimmerman and then striding his chest and pummeling his face.
At the moment, it does not look like Zimmerman is guilty of any crime.
However, it must be said that Zimmerman set off this whole mess by chasing the boy in the first place. The boy was doing nothing wrong. He was over at his father’s place watching a ballgame when he left to go buy some Skittles and iced tea at the store. He was returning from the store back to the house when Zimmerman started following him. There doesn’t seem to have been a valid reason for Zimmerman to chase the boy in the first place.
The whole thing has turned into a gigantic mess.
Filed under Blacks, Florida, Hispanics, Law, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Sociology, South, USA
Prior to 40,000 YBP: An African population resided here.
40,000 YBP: African population wiped out, to be replaced by a mixed Eurasian/African population.
10,000 YBP: Mixed population mostly replaced by “Capsian” population from the Near East (Asia).
8,000 YBP: Neolithic farmers move in from the Near East and add to the Capsians.
Modern Egyptians derive from a movement of Near Easterners into Egypt 8-10,000 YBP. Maternally, Egyptians are mostly Eurasian. The general appearance of Egyptians is “Middle Eastern.”
Approximately 14% of the mummies and painted statues look Black. Egyptian DNA is only ~5% modern Arab, presumably from Arab invasions and migrations. The Afrocentric theory says that the ancient Black Egyptians mixed with large numbers of Arabs, which is why they look like they do now.
The Y-DNA is largely Near Eastern or Eurasian. The E3b Y DNA and M1 MtDNA originated in the Near East (possibly in Arabia) ~20,25,000 YBP and is also thought to be “ancient Caucasoid.”
Upper Egypt is ~30% Black by DNA. But even upper Egyptians are much closer to the Near East than to Africans. Modern Egyptians are ~25% Black by DNA, but studies on ancient Egyptians show them to much less Black, possibly at ~9%. Most of the Egyptian Black DNA seems to have come in via the Arab conquest and the slave trade.
Ancient Egyptian hair is like modern Egyptian hair, from straight to curly with a small minority having kinky hair. Ancient Egyptians look just like modern Egyptian on the following variables: hair, teeth and skulls.
The paintings do not show people with dark skin. Men are shown with red ocher and women are painted yellow. The lifelike portrait statues don’t have black skin either. The “black land” refers to the color of the soil. The desert was called the red land.
A Eurocentric argument is that the ancient Egyptians were Whites who were replaced by Blacks. Along the same lines, Afrocentrists argue the opposite – that the ancients were Blacks who were then replaced by Whites.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that ancient Egyptians were European Whites or Nordics. We can see this by looking at the crural index (arm length):
American white 82.6% Modern Egyptian 84.9% American Black 85.25%
Ancient Egyptians had the exact same crural index as modern Egyptians, which is nothing like the European index at all. We can also see that modern Egyptians had the same crural index and ancient Egyptians, so there was no change from Black to White over the period.
If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.
Filed under Africa, Anthropology, Antiquity, Art, Blacks, Egypt, Egyptians, Genetics, History, North Africa, North Africans, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional
Here.
Her conclusion is that ancient Egyptians were pretty much the same folks as the modern Egyptians – a North African Caucasoid group with some Black admixture. Sounds about right to me. She says that ancient and modern Egyptian DNA is mainly Asiatic in origin. This is true, but what does it mean. I think she refers to ancient Caucasoid DNA from the Middle East.
85% of modern Egyptian ancestry traces back to Dynastic and earlier times. Only ~5% of modern Egyptian DNA goes back to any Arab input via Arab invasions. They’re the same people as they used to be! The moderns are the same as the ancients.
Matilda did an excellent job taking on Afrocentrist dolts and losers for a long time on her blog.
Modern Egyptian participants in the Miss Egypt contest in Cairo in 2007. These women are the same people as the Dynastic Egyptians.
Filed under Africa, Anthropology, Antiquity, Blacks, Egypt, Egyptians, Genetics, History, North Africa, North Africans, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional
Here.
Most scholars in the West would not label the Ukrainian famine as a ‘systematic intentional genocide’, for the simple reason that other regions of the USSR, notably Kazakhstan and the North Caucasus region of the RSFSR, were also heavily hit by famine in those years. Thus the degree to which Ukraine was specifically targeted is highly debatable.
There is much more widespread agreement that Stalin’s decisionmaking and Soviet policies exacerbated the effects of the famine, which came hot on the heels of collectivisation and ‘dekulakisation’ from 1929 onwards, so that when the harvest failed, decisions to continue exporting grain in order to earn hard currency to pay for machine tools needed for the first five year plan, must be deemed rather dubious to say the least.
This view stands in contrast to the ‘lalala-can’t-hear-you’ denial of certain western journalists in the 1930s and the efforts of some on the left to avoid the subject entirely, or to engage in denialism and negationism (like Tottle).
On the other side of the political spectrum, Western conservatives have certainly tended to embrace higher death tolls, greater degrees of intentionality on the part of Stalin, and to endorse the Ukrainian emigre interpretation that the famine was a deliberate, calculated attempt to destroy the Ukrainian nation.
It’s also worth bearing in mind that if we compare with the Irish potato famine, although one can find plenty of evidence for anti-Irish sentiment and a degree of deliberate refusal to carry out famine relief motivated by the ideology of laisse-faire liberalism, and although the potato famine had a seismic impact on Ireland, essentially no scholars of Irish history would label the famine as genocide.
The more I read about it, the more confused I get. The first paragraph seems to be the take home point.
Most scholars in the West would not label the Ukrainian famine as a ‘systematic intentional genocide’, for the simple reason that other regions of the USSR, notably Kazakhstan and the North Caucasus region of the RSFSR, were also heavily hit by famine in those years. Thus the degree to which Ukraine was specifically targeted is highly debatable.
That’s about it.
More from the same page:
Was there a massive famine caused by stupid Soviet farm policies?
Yes.
Was it particular to Ukraine? It does not appear to be.
Was it an attempt at genocide of the population of Ukraine? Doesn’t appear that way.
I have yet to see evidence of a special intention to starve the citizens of Ukraine. Does that make me a denier?
I think one thing both we and the Afrocentrists can agree on about the ancient Egyptians is that at least a little bit of Black in a Caucasoid stock does not render it incapable of functioning.
After all, this was the very nasty argument of segregationists.
They dishonestly used examples of ancient Egyptians, who they incorrectly said were 100% European Whites, and then compared them to modern Egyptians, who may be up to ~30% Black. They described the decline of Egypt as being due to increasing Negroidization over time.
They made a similar argument about the Portuguese. The Portuguese reached the height of their power around the 1500’s if I am correct. This was supposedly followed by a long and slow decline to where now they have one of the poorest economies in Europe. As usual, this decline was attritubuted to “nigger blood.” There were quite a few slaves in Portugal after 1500, and many of them did breed into the population.
However, the Portuguese population, while one of the Blackest in Europe, is still only ~4% Black. That a great White country would decline into the dregs with the infusion of a mere 4% Black genes is utterly absurd, and I refuse to believe it. Anyway, Portugal is still a very civilized society, with a high standard of living, low crime, and an easy, relaxed way of life. It would be the envy of most 3rd World countries.
Many great naval powers declined during this period for a variety of reasons including naval defeats and the loss of their colonies.
The segregationists were advocates of the one drop rule and felt that “nigger genes” were like some sort of a deadly virus. Once they got in your blood line, your great White wonder race, able to build strong bodies 12 different ways, was shot to Hell and polluted into incompetent inferiority for all time. Of course they opposed miscegenation!
I am not saying that mass infusions of typical Black genes would be great for many White populations. It’s possible that Black-White mixes might have IQ’s ~92, if the genetic theory of IQ is correct. The mixing would be fantastic for Blacks but not so great for Whites, who would suffer an IQ decline in the mixed offspring. However, people have a right to breed with whomever they wish whatever the long-term societal consequences. Anyway, the Flynn Effect carries on nonetheless.
Black-White breeding need not be all that detrimental, even with an operative theory of genetic IQ.
Say mostly the highest IQ and the most accomplished Blacks sought out Whites to breed with. This does seem to be the case, and Black men who make the most money and are the most successful (many of whom are probably the brighter Blacks) do tend to seek out White woman as a sort of a marker for success. If most Black-White interbreeding was between highly successful Blacks and typical Whites, the results would be no great shakes for anyone.
However, mass interbreeding of ordinary Whites with ordinary Blacks (Is this going on anyway) would probably result in an IQ decline in the offspring compared to the White parent. On the other hand, there’s no evidence that this is happening, so honestly it’s nothing to worry about at the moment.
One thing the Egyptian example does show is that at least millenia ago, a population with 9% Black genes created some of the greatest feats known to mankind congruent with their era. Compared to competing societies of the time, they reached the pinnacles of success.
Part Black populations have been capable of astounding feats historically. Are they still capable of such things? No one knows. Perhaps what it takes to achieve greatness now is different than whatever it took thousands of years ago. Perhaps now a population with 9% Black genes could not rise to the heights because the requirements of scaling to the skies are different now as compared to then. But there’s no proof of that.
In the absence of other evidence and looking at the Egyptian example, it seems that having ~10% Black genes is surely not fatal for a Caucasoid group and may well be compatible with a highly functioning or even great society.
Filed under Africa, African, Antiquity, Blacks, Egypt, Egyptians, European, Europeans, Flynn Effect, History, Intelligence, North Africa, North Africans, Portuguese, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, White Racism, Whites
The proto-Greek homeland prior to 4000 YBP.
From Indo-European linguist V. I. Georgiev:
The Proto-Greek region included Epirus, approximately up to Αυλών in the north including Paravaia, Tymphaia, Athamania, Dolopia, Amphilochia, and Acarnania), west and north Thessaly (Hestiaiotis,, Perrhaibia, Tripolis, and Pieria), i.e. more or less the territory of contemporary northwestern Greece)
So prior to 4000 YBP, the proto-Greeks were already in Greece. When did they come there? Sometime between 4800 YBP and 4000 YBP. Who was already there? Probably some sort of non-Indo-European group that that existed in Greece prior to the Greeks. There are many non-IE words in the Greek language and placenames in Greece and the surrounding area.
These people are generally called Pelgasians, but no one quite knows who they were. A relationship with the Etruscans of Italy is possible. They may also have been a non-IE group from Anatolia or from the Caucasus. At any rate, the Greeks moved in over 4000 years ago and intermingled with the people already there, creating the Greek people who created Classical Greece 1,500 years later.
Where did the proto-Greeks come from? No one seems to know, but it’s generally thought that they came from somewhere to the north.
Use your imagination.
 | Calvin Kramer on The Seven Year Bitch |
 | eva.g on PUA/Game: The Honeybees |
 | TRASH 2 on A Hypothesis for the “Un… |
 | Yugal on Some Nepalese Racial Type… |
| TRASH 2 on PUA/Game: Life Is a Shit … |
| TRASH 2 on A Hypothesis for the “Un… |
| TRASH 2 on A Hypothesis for the “Un… |
| TRASH 2 on A Hypothesis for the “Un… |
Alpha Unit
Robert A. Lindsay