Asian Invasion

Well it seems that wherever you go there is one constant. Every race looks after their own. Except for whites who look after every other race except their own.

“They called us ‘white boys’ and told us that we should put up with it, as one day we would need them as doctors.”

Who would want an Asian “doctor” anyway? This would be particularly true, if they were only second generation “Americans.” If I have a pain in my neck or back, I want it treated with accepted Western medical applications; I most certainly do not want needles (sans syringes) stuck in me, or to have a concoction of tea and ground “dragon bones” given to me as “medicine.”

“Indians, in particular, are renowned for their arrogance. One of my professional colleagues, a private banker at Wachovia Bank, is an Indian immigrant who refers to white men as ‘hillbillies’ and will only work with other Asian financial professionals.”

My experiences with Indians, is that their arrogance is largely dependant (much like Arabs and other Middle Easterners) on their numbers and backgrounds. Some Indians are just plain hatefully arrogant and disgustingly “entitled” and lazy, while others are almost absurdly friendly and hard working. In general, it tends to be the darker Indians (of central or lower casts) that make up that latter group; that, or they are coming from another English speaking white country, like Great Britain or Canada. Why that is (numbers aside) I’ll leave to the sociologists and other savants.

With Arabs and other Middle Easterners (particularly Persians) the better their former social status or background in the “old country,” the reverse is largely true. They tend to be the more affable, cordial, and assimilated. The opposite numbers from these groups, the goat herders and street sweepers, are the most vulgar and vilely ignorant beings I have ever had the misfortune to deal with. The only thing that sustains them is hatred and their worthless belief in “the religion of peace.”

As always, God help us all!

I got more than my fill of Indians in grad school. “Arrogant” doesn’t begin to do justice to their character. More puzzling was how incommensurate their attitudes were to their actual achievements. They had no trouble letting one know how vastly superior they were, and how our department couldn’t do without them. Then they’d turn out little 80-page “dissertations,” that frankly would not have passed muster if white students had written them. With a few exceptions, they consisted mostly of marginally competent and unimaginative summaries of the views of other scholars. One fellow, Ramdas, actually demanded to know the full text of the questions on the upcoming doctoral comprehensive exams. Of course he intended to memorize answers. Rote, uncreative work with little scholary merit is the characteristic product of asiatics in the humanities and, I’m told, in the technical fields as well.

Why are we allowing ourselves to be overrun with these people?

Indians immigrants to the USA actually believe they are smarter and look down on the average white American. However,when one considers many of these immigrants are actually “best and the brightest” of a nation of 1 billion people their arrogance is unfounded. A similar sized group of whites who were offered 25 times what they currently earn based on their intellectual ability would produce almost every Nobel Prize winner,and inventors such as Bill Gates.If it is true the average East Asian has a slightly higher IQ than the average white IQ, why are India and China creating few, if any real technological innovations? Indians immigrants to the US are in occupations such as medicine not because of ability but because of potential incomes 25 times what they can earn in India and because India was a colony of England resulting in their very inferior medical schools using English as the language of instruction.

Innovation is not the same thing as IQ-style intelligence. Asians indeed do outperform all Caucasoid groups except Ashkenazi Jews in IQ tests.

IQ test have a spatial and verbal component. Asians do in fact outperform Jews in spatial matters.

But innovation is not exactly correlated to IQ. There are plenty of desirable intellectual traits that are not measured by the IQ test. It’s short-sighted and simple-minded to view intelligence in such a one-dimensional way.

Daryl:

On this site at least, can we please use a more precise term than Asian? I just watched a video about Pakistanis in England who were called “Asians.” Now you are using the term “Asian” when presumably you are actually talking about East Asians. Up until about ten years ago I thought the term “Oriental” was perfectly fine. I do not know if Indians in the US have higher IQs than whites, but in India they are certainly much lower on average (~85). It is the East Asians who have a high IQ for spatial skills, anyway, not the Indians.

I tend to think that the use of this imprecise term “Asian” serves a politically correct agenda, which is to deny us the ability to speak precisely about issues of race (not that this is your agenda, of course).

The term Asian implies Mongoloid. Not Caucasoid Asian.

The main article was using the term Asian to refer to both East Asians and Indians. This is a bit problematic already, but when you talk about spatial IQ it is a good idea in particular to make the distinction between East Asians and South Asians.

It seems far more sensible to refer to people from the Indian sub continent as “Asians” and people from China, Japan, and Korea as “Orientals”. Perhaps using the term “Asian” to refer to both does serve the same agenda as referring to Indians and Pakistanis as “blacks”, which often happens in the UK.

“Oriental” refers to food, not to people. I use the term mongoloid and Caucasoid to separate. This angers people, because it implies middle-easterners and Europeans are somewhat related (because both are labeled Caucasoid). I’m sorry if it’s offensive, but sometimes the truth is offensive. I am out of step with people, because I believe Caucasoids span outside of Europe. Europeans are just Caucasoids with relatively minor evolution (and they differ between each other).

Daryl,

I wouldn’t say “minor” evolution has occured between Europeans and Middle Easterners. How “minor” is “minor”? And refering to them as Caucasoid is fine. It is when people say that they are the exact same as Europeans (or that they are white) that I get bent out of shape. Caucasoid and white can’t be used interchangeably. This is something else that people on Amren don’t understand.

As far as Indians go, I’m sure a lot of you remember the long quarrels I would get into with many of the Indian posters on Amren. I had to deal with them in college, and you should see how they look down on white people in the South. They also make ridiculous statements like “every child in India is growing up to become an engineer”. Really? I thought at least half of the children in India couldn’t read at all (that is, if they make it to their 10th birthday even without dying from malnutrition or disease). One Indian took offense when I told him that Sanskrit was related to the European languages. Indians act like Afrocentrists. They have created their own fantasy of their people that isn’t even a reality. But of course the 60 to 70% of the population that is living in poverty probably knows better.

Caucasoid and white are used interchangeably by most people.

There are three main Caucasoid branches : Meds (Italians, Greeks, Middle-Easterners, Northern Africans, Spanish), Nordics (central european), and Alpines (eastern europe). Arabs (and Persians for that matter) are a linguistic group, not a racial one. But the majority of Arabs could be classified as Mediterranean. Yes, they are not nordic, and they are not alpine (other white subraces) but a med is a med, whether located in Europe or the Middle East. This is where I part with the white nationalists, I am not wn, but a studier of human biodiversity and a race realist.

>“Oriental” refers to food, not to people.

Of course Oriental also refers to people. It also seems more correct to use this term instead of Asian when referring to the general Eastern populations. Using the term Asian to describe an individual from Korea or Malaysia (Southeast Asia) is analogous to calling someone American if he/she is from the United States or from South America. In general terms, those of Western lineage are Occidentals and those of the East are Orientals.

Daryl,

Are you in favor of reestablishing and maintaining the the pre-1965 white majority in the US? If so, then you are a de facto white nationalist. Or, are you just interested in human biodiversity in an academic sense, content to watch the flood of non-Europeans wash over America?

I’m surprised and disappointed that the conversaton here has focused on the minor semantic issues of ‘Asian’ vs. ‘Oriental’. Get a grip, guys. Your country is being invaded and colonised by the third world, and that’s all you can discuss? Interesting.

Read my post. I said to use mongoloid, not to use asian. It’s superior to both “oriental” and “asian.”

Are you in favor of reestablishing and maintaining the the pre-1965 white majority in the US? If so, then you are a de facto white nationalist. Or, are you just interested in human biodiversity in an academic sense, content to watch the flood of non-Europeans wash over America?

Not really for any racialist reason. I am simply fairly conservative on immigration, believing that a nation should be careful who it lets in and who you doesn’t. My racialism is academic, not political. Also, I believe in different types of whites/caucasoids. I think it’s overly-simplistic to lump all whites together into one ethnic category.

This will strike a cord, but I think America, racially, is a lost cause. There never was an American people, and there never will be. While I advocate some immigration control, I don’t have any delusions of a homogenous american people. Other countries are different. Most of the countries in Europe are not nations of immigrants, but nations of common ancestry, and that is why they can form a nationalist movement and america can’t. I don’t want to downplay the diversity of the white race, even white americans are too diverse for nationalism.

Daryl (or anyone else), as a racial group, where do Mexicans and Central Americans fall? I realize they are Mestizos, and it all depends on the admixture of Spanish and Indian blood, but I notice the government always wants to lump Hispanics in with whites (except when they are victims of crime, then they are classified as Hispanic), which I find mostly ludicrous.

Only in Argentina and Uruguay will you find the Hispanic population to be of predominantly European stock, as over 90% of their population is of Spanish and Italian descent. I can see them being called white.

Pretty much all other nations of Central and South America are mestizos with far more Indian blood than European (this is certainly true of Mexicans). Why does the government insist on classifying them as white. That’s absurd.

As I understand it, the racial groupings are Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid… anything else? There should be, I think.

It seems like Asians that crossed the land bridge (our Native Americans) are signficantly different from Asians in Asia and that they might merit a unique classification. How are Native Americans classified? As mongoloids (Asians)? Since there is a lot of discussion about just how much difference there are amongst the races (and it has been postulated that the differences were more rapid, more recently, it’d be interesting to see how much difference there is between Asians in Asia, and Native Americans in America. As Native Americans have only been in America, what is it, 10,000 years, I think it might be particularly interesting and instructive to know how much difference between those two Asiatic groups there is in only 10,000 years.

Sorry to get off topic. It just got me thinking about the various racial classifications, and it seems to me that if a people populated an entirely new environment in the last 10,000 years, that the new environmental pressures that the migrating group experienced would be enough to, in effect, create a new race. Certainly Native Americans look somewhat Asian, but it seems to the naked eye, that they had become something new and different.

Daryl (or anyone else), as a racial group, where do Mexicans and Central Americans fall? I realize they are Mestizos, and it all depends on the admixture of Spanish and Indian blood, but I notice the government always wants to lump Hispanics in with whites (except when they are victims of crime, then they are classified as Hispanic), which I find mostly ludicrous.

My interpretation is that Hispanics are not a race. You have two basic groups making up the Hispanic linguistic category : Mediterranean (Caucasoid) Spaniards and Mongoloid (i agree with the classification) Native Americans. The two mixed. You simply have to go by the individual. Some tend to have more native dna and some tend to have more Spanish dna. Unlike Americans, Mexicans practiced a lot of miscegenation, so you really have to go by the individual.

http://www.biodiversityforum.com/

I have more to say on the original blog entry later, but I should like first to clarify certain misconceptions concerning racial nomenclature.

To J Kent above:

“As I understand it, the racial groupings are Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid… anything else? There should be, I think.”

The term ‘Caucasoid’ originated in the erroneous belief that Europids in the Caucasus region (Russian Кавка́з , Kavkaz) are the most typical members of the Europid race, whereas they are in many ways the least typical. The West Punjabi people are more typically ‘Caucasoid’ than the people who inhabit the Caucasus region. ‘Caucasoid’ is a misnomer.

The best term for our race is Europid, for it is preferable to name a race after a large region in which many different subraces are represented. Among Europeans, four major subracial groups can be distinguished: the Nordid, the Mediterranid, the Alpinid, and the Osteuropid. ‘Whites’ are best thought of as people who belong to the four above mentioned subracial groups - groups which do not encompass the entirety of the Europid race.

Finally, it is a mistake to lump Mediterranids (e.g. Greeks) together with Orientalids (e.g. Arabs). Mediterranids and Orientalids differ too markedly in their physical characters, and the statistical distribution of their genes, to be regarded as members of the same subracial group. No serious scholar of race would consider Arabs as a linguistic subdivision within the Mediterranid subrace.

What scientific basis does the division of Europeans into Nordids and Alpinids and the rest have? Can you point to scientific studies of gene frequencies such as the ones performed by Luca Cavalli-Sforza that prove there is any real distinction?

The term ‘Caucasoid’ originated in the erroneous belief that Europids in the Caucasus region (Russian Кавка́з , Kavkaz) are the most typical members of the Europid race, whereas they are in many ways the least typical. The West Punjabi people are more typically ‘Caucasoid’ than the people who inhabit the Caucasus region. ‘Caucasoid’ is a misnomer.

That’s a strawman. You remind me of a previous poster I know, arguing more over the historical roots of words, and less over what they actually mean now. It doesn’t matter where the word comes from. It only matters what it means. One poster tried to tell me that the word “racialism” was invalid because of its roots.

The best term for our race is Europid

I disagree, because Caucasoids (or whatever you want to call it) are not limited to Europe. I also disagree with your attempts to break up the Mediterranean category. Typical of Euro nationalists.

What scientific basis does the division of Europeans into Nordids and Alpinids and the rest have? Can you point to scientific studies of gene frequencies such as the ones performed by Luca Cavalli-Sforza that prove there is any real distinction?

The evidence I see is more physical than phylogentic, but you can rest assured that there is genetic explanation for most all physical traits. However, if you look at the graph of Europe and the Middle-East, on the edge will be the Greeks, and on the other edge will be the Ashkenazi Jews. They will smoothly transition into each other, without a huge gap. After the Ashkenazi Jews will be most of the Arab countries, and then the North Africans. That there is evidence of the existence of a Mediterranean race that does, contrary to what the previous poster says, span multiple continents. One population from one continent fairly smoothly flows into the next continent, without a huge gap. The North African Gap is slightly bigger. The nordic countries will cluster fairly close to each other too, smoothly evolving out of the Mediterraneans. Afterall, nords are basically depigmented meds with little skeletal variation.

The alpine genetic cluster is a little bit harder to prove, but I’m sure it can be. There is almost always a genetic explanation to physical traits, and the alpine physical traits most certainly do exist disproportionately in certain populations over others.

Also, fairly smoothly, the meds transition into nords within Europe. That makes sense, because Nords are basically depigmented meds with little skeletal variation.

The alpine genetic cluster is a little bit more difficult to varify than nords and meds. But it is relatively certain that alpine skeletal traits and physical features (round face in relation to height) exist disproportionately in certain populations. When there is a physical difference, there is almost always a genetic explanation.

To Ian Jobling above:

“What scientific basis does the division of Europeans into Nordids and Alpinids and the rest have?”

The division of Europeans into Mediterranids and Nordids may be open to criticism, but the scientific basis for separating both of these groups from Alpinids is very strong. Nordids and Mediterranids are more closely related to each other than either group is related to Alpinids. The most obvious feature that distinguishes a Nordid from a Mediterranid is skin pigmentation (a feature upon which the zoologist places little emphasis); differences of gross structure are relatively slight (the Mediterranid is slightly more dolichocephalic than the Nordid, the nose less leptorrhine, the ears slightly smaller, the hips slightly wider in the female, etc.). And whereas Mediterranid and Nordid skulls may be easily confused, no one trained in physical anthroplogy would fail to distinguish an Alpinid from a Nordid/Mediterranid skull.

The precise physical characters that distinguish the Nordid from the Alpinid are well documented. The occiput is more projecting in the Nordid. The Alpinid skull is typically brachycranial, the Nordid dolichocranial. The cranial index of Alpinids averages 85, that of Nordids 74. Because the gyri and sulci tend to be differently situated in dolichocranial and brachycranial individuals, adapting to differently shaped skulls, it follows that Nordid and Alpinid brains are also of different shape. The Alpinid nose is in the mesorhine range (though approaching leptorrhyny), whereas the Nordid is typically leptorhhine. Alpinids have a much stronger tendency to prognathy than Nordids. The average Nordid measures 173 cm tall, the average Alpinid 164 cm. Nordids tends to be thin, Alpinids rather thick-set. The sexual organs are lower and more posteriorly situated in Nordids, and the prepuce slightly longer. This list of physical characters could be greatly extended.

To Daryl above:

“That’s a strawman. You remind me of a previous poster I know, arguing more over the historical roots of words, and less over what they actually mean now. It doesn’t matter where the word comes from. It only matters what it means. One poster tried to tell me that the word ‘racialism’ was invalid because of its roots.”

That is itself a strawman argument. I did not claim that the word ‘Caucasoid’ was invalid because of its origin, although I described its origin because it is historically interesting. Nevertheless, word origins are not an irrelevant consideration in scientific nomenclature. The fundamental rule of scientific nomenclature according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature is historical priority. ‘Caucasoid’ was never formally introduced as a subspecific name of Homo sapiens (i.e. Homo sapiens caucasia). On the other hand, Homo sapiens europeaus, of which the common name is ‘Europid’, was formally introduced by Linnaeus in 1758. As far as taxonomists are concerned, historical priority is no trivial matter.

Moreover, if we are to name an ethnic taxon after a specific geographical area, it is reasonable to choose a region where (a) several subraces are represented and (b) all or nearly all of the indigenous inhabitants belong to that taxon. Europe satisfies both of these conditions; the Caucasus region satisfies neither. Combine these considerations with the criterion of historical priority, and it is obvious that ‘Europid’ is a more suitable term than ‘Caucasoid’.

Daryl wrote:

“I disagree, because Caucasoids (or whatever you want to call it) are not limited to Europe.”

‘Europid’ does not imply that Europids are limited to Europe any more than ‘Caucasoid’ implies that ‘Caucasoids’ are limited to the Caucasus region. In like manner, plants of the species Japonica are not limited to Japan and actually originate in China; the fossile Homo rhodesiensis is so called even though the nation Rhodesia has since been changed to Zimbabwe. And so on.

>Euronation: As a resident of Newport Coast, I have witnessed first hand the hostility exhibited by Asian settlers. Unlike my white, Arab, and Persian neighbors, who are very affable…

In post 911 America, that comes as no surprise. Before unconditionally attributing such qualities to all of them, keep in mind that Arabs and Iranians are ethnocentric too at the core. Since you are resident of south Orange County, ever been to Wholesome Foods on Culver? Superficially looks like an independent mainstream market but, for example, they will carry no other DVDs than Iranian. I’ve seen Iranians, complete strangers, upon overhearing each other speaking Farsi, will introduce themselves and carry on like they have been lifelong friends without any evaluation than they are fellow Iranians. Euronation, there lurks something underneath that friendly smile. They are not pro-American given a hard choice.

>John PM: With Arabs and other Middle Easterners (particularly Persians) the better their former social status or background in the “old country,” the reverse is largely true. They tend to be the more affable, cordial, and assimilated. The opposite numbers from these groups, the goat herders and street sweepers, are the most vulgar and vilely ignorant beings…

Iranians are not homogenous. The word Iran is derived from Aryan. The region underwent successive invasions in its ancient history, one of which is like what happened in India. There is a wide range of appearances among Iranians attributable to the mix. A few Iranians are blond for example which is unusual in the region while other are distinctly semitic.

>John PM: My experiences with Indians, is that their arrogance is largely dependant (much like Arabs and other Middle Easterners) on their numbers and backgrounds.

>Cassiodorus: I got more than my fill of Indians in grad school. “Arrogant” doesn’t begin to do justice to their character. More puzzling was how incommensurate their attitudes were to their actual achievements.

>Joe Hamilton: Indians immigrants to the USA actually believe they are smarter and look down on the average white American.

>Coutney: As far as Indians go…they look down on white people in the South. They also make ridiculous statements like “every child in India is growing up to become an engineer”.

Concurs with my observations. The “engineers”, as incompetent as many are, seem to think they are a higher form of life. Perhaps in India, engineering is a highly prestigeous profession. With some reluctance, I’d rather have them than most others if mass immigration is unstoppable since it is one of the lesser of many evils.

http://www.biodiversityforum.com/showthread.php5?t=21277

This post here gives good insight. You’ll notice certain clusters appear in Southern Europe and the Middle-East + North Africa (Mediterranean), but not in Northern Europe (Nordic).

Haplogroup E3b is believed to have evolved in the Middle East. It expanded into the Mediterranean during the Pleistocene Neolithic expansion. It is currently distributed around the Mediterranean, southern Europe, and in north and east Africa.

Verus

Haplogroups I, I1, and I1a are nearly completely restricted to northwestern Europe. These would most likely have been common within Viking populations. One lineage of this group extends down into central Europe.

There are also some haplotypes that exist in both, but not in non-Caucasoids. So it shows that Meds and Nords are partially related, but not entirely related.

Haplogroup G may have originated in India or Pakistan, and has dispersed into central Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. The G2 branch of this lineage (containing the P15 mutation) is found most often in Europe and the Middle East.

Here is an alpine haplogroup. It turns out that original Indians in fact were Alpine, not Nordic has Hitler claimed.

to have originated in the Eurasian Steppes north of the Black and Caspian Seas. This lineage is believed to have originated in a population of the Kurgan culture, known for the domestication of the horse (approximately 3000 B.C.E.). These people were also believed to be the first speakers of the Indo-European language group. This lineage is currently found in central and western Asia, India, and in Slavic populations of Eastern Europe.

In short, I think studies of genetics and haplogroups prove that the European/non-European classification system is extremely basic and at times draws the line at the wrong place.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

“Love your neighbor as yourself”

No matter where we are born, no matter our race, nation, or creed, we all are born, live and die. How we live and treat each other is what matters - BE NICE!

Americans are insidiously being displaced and shunted into positions beneath their potential, thanks to these scumbag sell-out corporations who feel that particular groups, namely Asians and Indians are somehow genetically smarter than whites or blacks?. I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that aside from owning restaurants everyone of these these rice-eaters feels it is their birthright to waltz into America, acquire an MIT or Harvard degree, foist their ideals and abstruse languages upon us and live off the fat of the land?. Then if they don’t get their PHd, whip out the race card and initiate yet another discrimination investigation at the taxpayers expense. What is happening is real not a misconception. We are being hoodwinked by immigrants period, legal or illegal. We have to draw the line with this obliviousness and altruism. Other countries would not condone this tomfoolery then claim it’s boosting the economy, which is utter BS. We are handing away our best jobs faster than candy on Halloween people. So when you get in your car and go for a drive wether it be to work or the supermarket take a good look around and ask yourself. Is this what we want ourselves and future generations to have to live with permanently? :(