Racial Anthropology

Inspired by this tweet: https://x.com/JohnnyMcIvor/status/2083759596213010889

In this thread I want to discuss some differences in behavior I’ve noticed between various races, whether these are cultural or genetic. Let’s start specifically with the way Asian American’s assimilate compared to other races. Asians feel a much stronger urge to conform to their surroundings, I believe this is genetic due to how prevalent it is, they have a very strong internal discomfort around feeling like they stick out or don’t belong, and are thus a very conformist people. This results in intense anxiety whenever they move to a white country where can’t not stand out due to not only cultural differences but also because they look very different.

There is also the matter of Asian societies viewing foreignness differently, I’ve heard many Asian Americans complain about the fact that when they travel to their ancestral homeland, their ethnic kin view them and treat them as foreigners. They are hyper sensitive to variation in behavior, language, and even gait. Some of these guys and girls have been told that they “walk different” by their ethnic kin in their homelands. Once you leave the nest, you carry the stench of foreignness on you and are permanently rejected.

The Arabs are the complete opposite of this. An Arab who moves to a different land never stops being an Arab, if he has children elsewhere and those children grow up among foreigners, they are still Arabs. This is why their culture is so big on pilgrimages, the purpose of going to that rock and circling around it is to remind yourself of who you really are. This is also the reason they are the race that is the most resistant to assimilation. Arabs and Africans are unique in their total disinterest in anything foreign to them. If it’s not theirs they don’t want to know about it. This is also reflected in the way they like to destroy historical artifacts, not just those of foreign cultures, but also their own. They disinterest in anything foreign even extends to their own past. A profoundly uncurious people.

Asians on the other hand are probably the best assimilators, the best example of this is how frequently they adopt white names. Though this is not always about assimilation, for example Koreans in Korea will sometimes adopt an English name in an English speaking work environment: https://www.koreajoongangdaily.com/kjd-special/why-why-do-koreans-create-a-new-identity-at-work-with-an-english-name/10373064

Asians seem to be much better than other races are manipulating their own identity. All Asian societies seem to have some variation of the concept of wearing a “mask”, meaning that they can easily remove one face and put on another to fit whatever social context they are currently in. This call comes back to their intense desire to fit in and fear of sticking out. None this however prevents them from being resentful of whitey, that appears to be universal to all races.

>Arabs and Africans are unique in their total disinterest in anything foreign to them. If it’s not theirs they don’t want to know about it.

The Arab part is true but I am not entirely sure about the African part.

95 percent of the Congo larps as Christian and so do a decent number of amerinogs.

I say “larps” because they do not act very Christian, which invalidates it in a way.

Granted, similar to the brown “Christians” of South America, I suspect they are only “Christian” due to being conquered by Christians.

Side note: IndigoWizard once tried to argue that Mormons are closer to Muslims because both allegedly view Jesus as a prophet, rather than a God. I disagreed on the grounds that, while the Qur’an surprisingly does mention Jesus, and in a positive light, zero Muslims in the present day like Jesus or even think about him at all, meanwhile Mormons love Jesus.

>If it’s not theirs they don’t want to know about it.

I wish Whites acted like this regarding foreign subversion.

The curiosity whites have toward the foreign is actually one of their biggest strengths imo. I’m talking about genuine curiosity, the type that led me to make this thread, not the shitlib larping variety.

The Christianization of Africa is entirely the consequence of colonialism.

Jim Penman is a really interesting character and the most sophisticated thinker I have ever seen on this topic. But, his takes are less genetically race-based and more about generational cycles of epigenetic factors.

“Biohistory is the only theory of history ever to have resulted in ten papers (and counting) in high ranked biomedical journals. Each chapter contains an example of proposed tests.”

He explains why the English had a surge of inventiveness and martial brotherhood that lead them to conquer all around the world. He explains why the Japanese were so primed to seize on foreign innovations, like rapidly reverse engineering Portuguese firearms. He categorizes the biology of child abuse at different age ranges and the cultural outcomes.

His book is one of those that completely reorients your view of the world, it’s so persuasive and so holistic that you have to contain the revelation, else it prematurely wash away good insight for contradicting it.

The main advantage of the right wing dissident is that he can consider hypotheses that society has a blindspot for because they are offensive. That doesn’t change even if the truth may be less offensive than we thought. You have to use every bit of your capability for unprecedented insight, and you have to balance that with aiming where the truth is most likely.

Interesting, I have not heard of him.