Aryans Compared with Melanochroi

Aryans Compared with Melanochroi

Thomas Allen

The two races, more correctly, species, of humans most commonly confused are Aryans and Melanochroi. Many people lump the two together as Caucasian, which makes Caucasian a poor racial name that leads to confusion.

Aryans are also known as Whites, White Caucasians, Europeans, and Homo albus. Aryan racial types include Nordics (a.k.a. Cymric, Aryans, Teutonics), East Baltics (a.k.a. East Europeans, Orientals), Alpines (a.k.a. Celts, Celto-Slavs, Ligurians, Arvernians, Cymric), Mediterraneans (a.k.a. Iberians), Dinarics (a.k.a. Adriatics, Illyrians), Armenians (a.k.a. Assyrians, Anatolians), Southern Mediterraneans (a.k.a. Northern Hamites, Libyans, Atlanteans, Libyo-Teutonics), Pamiri, Northern Semites (a.k.a. Northern Arabs, Chaldeans), Iranians (a.k.a. Irano-Mediterraneans), and Indo-Afghans. In the Eastern Hemisphere, Aryans are the predominant people in Europe, Lebanon, Syria, northern and central Iraq, Iran (except Khuzistan, the coastal regions, and Baluchistan), eastern Afghanistan, northern Pakistan, northwest India, western Kashmir, Maghreb coast, Tunis, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica.

Melanochroi are also known as Brown Caucasians and Homo brunus. Melanochroic racial types include Saharan-Hamites (a.k.a. Moors, Saharan-Berbers), Eastern-Hamites (a.k.a. Ethiopians), Egyptians, Orientals (a.k.a. Arabs, Southern Arabs), Indo-Iranians (a.k.a. Hindus), and Dravidians (a.k.a. Asiatic Negroes, Melano-Hindus). In the Eastern Hemisphere, Melanochroi are the predominate people in and around the Sahara Desert (central and southern Morocco, central and southern Algeria, Mauritania, northern Mali, Niger, northern Chad, and southern and central Libya), Egypt, eastern Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, the Arabian peninsula, southern Iraq, Khuzistan, the coastal regions of Iran, Baluchistan, central and southern Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka.

Physical Description

Skin color

Aryan: light with reddish or pinkish tones; reflectivity of 50–64 percent, Luschan’s Hautfarbentafel of 1–17 (except 4–6).

Melanochroi: light yellowish brown to reddish brown to dark brown; reflectivity of 23–41 percent, Luschan’s Hautfarbentafel of 18–29.

Hair color

Aryan: varying in color from dark brown to light brown, light chestnut, reddish brown, flaxen; relatively high frequency of blondness; grays early.

Melanochroi: dark brown to black.

Head hair

Aryan: soft; fine texture; wavy or straight, sometimes curly; elliptic cross-section; tendency to baldness.

Melanochroi: curly or fizzy in the Hamitic branch; straight or wavy in the Indian branch.

Facial hair

Aryan: often highly developed.

Melanochroi: moderate beard development; some full, some scant.

Body hair

Aryan: medium to strong development.

Melanochroi: usually scant.

Face

Aryan: orthognathous; middle region of the face projects rather strongly, but cheekbones and jaws are not prominent; relatively narrow with slight cheekbones and few or no angles; typically oval in outline.

Melanochroi: orthognathous; elongated, oval; jaws not projecting.

Forehead

Aryan: straight to slightly sloping; medium to high.

Melanochroi: high.

Eyes

Aryan: corners at one level.

Melanochroi: straight, almond-shaped.

Eye color

Aryan: brown, but many with green, grey, light blue, and dark blue.

Melanochroi: light brown to dark brown or black.

Eyelids

Aryan: fold of eyelid weakly developed; conjunctiva bluish to pearly white.

Melanochroi: —

Nose

Aryan: leptorrhine; narrow with fairly high bridge; long axes of the nostrils are placed in an almost straight line from back to front.

Melanochroi: generally prominent; straight or arched; round at the points; delicate nostrils.

Lips

Aryan: medium to thin; do not project.

Melanochroi: medium or thick; some thin; never protruding.

Mouth

Aryan: —

Melanochroi: moderate size.

Teeth

Aryan: microdont; small to medium; mildly and uniformly concave upper incisors on the lingual side.

Melanochroi: white; regular; a little projecting.

Chin

Aryan: medium to strongly developed.

Melanochroi: fairly prominent; often pointed.

Ears

Aryan: medium size; relatively narrow and long; lobule does not hang low.

Melanochroi: —

Head shape

Aryan: all three types (dolichocephalic, mesocephalic, and brachycephalic) are widespread.

Melanochroi: dolichocephalic, some mesocephalic; oblong; round-domed skull.

Body characteristics

Aryan: mesomorphy; upper arm and leg generally longer than lower arm and leg; legs and torso medium to long in length; legs shapely and full; in women legs stout and in apposition when standing; buttocks sometimes with a slight over-development of fat; long sitting height.

Melanochroi: ectomorphy; slender; symmetrical; legs shapely with calves well developed.

Female breast

Aryan: generally hemispherical; small areola.

Melanochroi: hemispherical.

Feet and hands

Aryan: feet small to large, well arched; hands small to large.

Melanochroi: feet small with high instep.

Stature

Aryan: average to tall.

Melanochroi: average to below average; some tall.

Reference

Allen, Thomas Coley. Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis. Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Company, 1999.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More anthropology articles

King on Pilgrimage to Nonviolence

King on Pilgrimage to Nonviolence

Thomas Allen

In “Pilgrimage to Nonviolence,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 155–164, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses liberal theology, neo-orthodoxy, existentialism, social gospel, Gandhi’s nonviolent tactics, and the influence that they had on him. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

King remarks that he was raised in a strict fundamental tradition. However, the theological seminary changed him. He states, “Liberalism provided me with an intellectual satisfaction that I had never found in fundamentalism.” (P. 155.) Thus, he fell in love with liberalism. He writes, “I was absolutely convinced of the natural goodness of man and the natural power of human reason.” (P. 155.)

Later, however, he began to question some theories associated with liberal theology. Nevertheless, the “contribution of liberalism to the philological-historical criticism of biblical literature has been of immeasurable value and should be defended with religious and scientific passion.” (P. 156.)

King “began to question the liberal doctrine of man.” (P. 156.) He “came to recognize the complexity of man’s social involvement and the glaring reality of collective evil.” (P. 156.) (Collective evil rises from the sinful nature of individuals.)

Another problem that King found with liberal theology was that it “overlooked the fact that reason is darkened by sin.” (P. 156.) He discovered that “sin encourages us to rationalize our actions.” (P. 156.) “Reason, devoid of the purifying power of faith, can never free itself from distortions and rationalizations.” (P. 156.) (Thus, King understood the flaws of liberal theology concerning human nature and its underrating sin.)

Although King “rejected some aspects of liberalism, . . . [he] never came to an all-out acceptance of neo-orthodoxy.” (P. 156.) He found liberalism to be too optimistic about human nature and neo-orthodoxy to be too pessimistic. A major problem with neo-orthodoxy is that it “went to the extreme of stressing a God who was hidden, unknown, and ‘wholly other.’” (P. 157.) Moreover, it “fell into a mood of antirationalism and semi-fundamentalism, stressing a narrow uncritical Biblicism.” (P. 157.)

For King, neither liberal theology nor neo-orthodoxy satisfactorily described the nature of man. “A large segment of Protestant liberalism defined man only in terms of his essential nature, his capacity for good; neo-orthodoxy tended to define man only in terms of his existential nature, his capacity for evil.” (P. 157.) King found the truth in a synthesis of the two “that reconciles the truths of both.” (P. 157.)

Then, King discusses his “appreciation for the philosophy of existentialism.” (P. 157.) He was “convinced that existentialism . . . had grasped certain basic truths about man and his condition. . . .” (P. 157.) Existentialism gave King an “understanding of the ‘finite freedom’ of man.” (P. 157.) Also, it gave him an understanding “of the anxiety and conflict produced in man’s personal and social life by the perilous and ambiguous structure of existence.” (P. 157.)

Continuing, King remarks that after entering the theological seminary, he began  “a serious intellectual quest for a method that would eliminate social evil.” (P. 158.) (That is, granting Negroes special privileges and benefits and discriminating against Whites.) He “was immediately influenced by the social gospel.” (P. 158.) (That is preaching socialism and communism instead of the gospel of Jesus and worshiping the state instead of the Father of Jesus.)

Then, King writes, “The gospel at its best deals with the whole man, not only his soul but also his body, not only his spiritual well-being but also his material well-being.” (P. 159.) He chastises religions that express concern for the soul but little concern “about the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them, and the social conditions that cripple them.” (P. 159.) These religions are spiritually moribund. (Today, most denominations have followed King’s advice and have focused on man’s economic and social conditions at the expense of focusing on the salvation of his soul and morality. As a result, they have become spiritually moribund.)

Next, King discusses his encounter with the teachings of Gandhi, which taught him about nonviolent resistance. (King was a poor student because nearly everywhere he went, he left a trail of blood and destruction. Basically, his nonviolent tactic was to create a situation that would cause a violent reaction from his opponent. Despite his denial, such a tactic is not nonviolent.) He concludes “that the Christian doctrine of love, operating through the Gandhian method of nonviolence, is one of the most potent weapons available to an oppressed people in their struggle for freedom.” (P. 159.) (Contrary to his assertions, King failed at merging love with nonviolence. Never did he show any love for segregationists and seldom for Southerners. Moreover, many of his protests were filled with violence. Most of the others threatened violence if Whites did not surrender unconditionally to King’s demands.)

Although the Montgomery protest was violent, King claimed that it convinced him of the power of nonviolence. (As most of his later protests were violent or threatened violence, he must have been convinced that nonviolence would not achieve his goals. His preaching of nonviolence was for propaganda purposes.) He declares, “Nonviolence became more than a method to which I gave intellectual assent; it became a commitment to a way of life.” (P. 160.) (Based on his action, King gave nonviolence only intellectual assent, but he never committed to it as a way of life — except in words.)

Next, King comments on his pilgrimage to India. He witnessed “the amazing results of a nonviolent struggle to achieve independence. The aftermath of hatred and bitterness that usually follows a violent campaign was found nowhere in India.” (P. 160.) Great Britain and India remained friendly within the British Commonwealth. (First, politically, the British left India. Although King may have wanted many Whites to have no political voice in the United States, he wanted to increase the political voice of Negroes. If India is an analogy for the United States, the Whites, who are the majority, would be the Indians, and the minority Negroes would be the British and, therefore, leave the country or at least eliminate their political influence. Second, King proved that his protests were violent because their aftermath left hatred and bitterness. Only the victors hated and were bitter. Even decades after the Negroes won everything that King fought for and more, the destructiveness of the “peaceful” demonstrations of Black Lives Matter revealed the hatred and bitterness that the victors had for the defeated.)

Then, King notes that following the Montgomery protest, many Southerners were bitter toward the Negro leaders “even though these leaders have sought to follow a way of love and nonviolence.” (P. 161.) (First, the Montgomery protest was violent. King and his followers had created a situation that they knew would result in violence. Second, many Southerners correctly saw that King had initiated a war to destroy the South and its society and culture and eventually to genocide Southerners. Love does not cause people to seek the destruction and genocide of an ethnicity. Since King sought to destroy the South, love did not guide him.)

Continuing, King asserts that the nonviolent approach gives people who are committed to it “new self-respect. It calls up resources of strength and courage that they did not know they had.” (P. 161.) Moreover, “it so stirs the conscience of the opponent that reconciliation becomes a reality.” (P. 161.) (Reconciliation never became a reality. King and other civil rights leaders forced Southerners and later the remainder of American Whites to surrender unconditionally.)

Next, King discusses using “the method of nonviolence in international relations.” (P. 161.) Once, he believed that war “might be preferable to surrender to a totalitarian system.” (P. 161.) However, he later changed his mind because of “the potential destructiveness of modern weapons.” (P. 161.) (How much did his Communist advisors have to do with King changing his mind? Further, when his association with Communists and his Communist training are considered, one must wonder if his definition of peace was a lack of violence or a lack of resisting Communism. Judging from his actions, one must conclude that he meant the latter.) Correctly, he asserts that “we must find an alternative to war and destruction.” (P. 161.) (Unfortunately, King did not find an alternative to war. He and his followers warred against the South and then the rest of the country. Moreover, King’s followers have continued to war against Whites long after Whites had surrendered unconditionally to the Negroes — as Black Lives Matter protests and riots illustrate.)

Correctly, King states that he is no doctrinarian pacifist. (He proved that he was not with his war against the South.) He contends that the church “must call for an end to the arms race.” (P. 161.)

Then, King discusses his sufferings and the lessons that they taught him. Instead of reacting with bitterness, he sought “to transform the suffering into a creative force.” (P. 162.) His suffering drew him closer to God. (Whether his God is Yahweh, the Father of Jesus, is debatable.) 

In closing, King rejoices in his coming victory. However, he errs when he writes, “Old systems of exploitation and oppression are passing away; new systems of justice and equality are being born.” (P. 163.) (Unfortunately, the old system of exploitation and oppression was replaced by a new system of exploitation and oppression. Nevertheless, more equality exists today than when he wrote. However, since equality requires exploitation and oppression, more exploitation and oppression exist today than then. As a result, less justice exists today — for example, sending innocent Whites, such as  Derek Chauvin, to prison. Nevertheless, King would have little objection to today’s exploitation and oppression because Negroes are exploiting and oppressing Whites.)

King has a good understanding of some of the flaws of liberal theology. With a good degree of accuracy, he discusses flaws of both liberal theology and neo-orthodoxy and how each fails to describe correctly the nature of man. Further, he discusses how existentialism influenced him and his journey down the road of the social gospel. Also, he discusses his use of Gandhi’s technique. However, he fails to discuss his Communist training, such as the training that he received at the Highlander Folk School run by Marxist Myles Horton.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Location of Eden

Location of Eden

Thomas Allen

8 And Jehovah God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. . . . 10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became four heads. 11 The name of the first is Pishon: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; 12 and the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. 13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Cush. 14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth in front of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. (Genesis, Chapter 2)

Where is Eden located? Several locations have been suggested. They include Palestine, Syria, Armenia, Mongolia, Kashmir, Australia, Mesopotamia, and the North Pole.

Havilah is noted for its gold and gemstones. Because it is noted for its high-quality gold, Havilah is often associated with India or Arabia. If it is in India, the Pishon is the Indus. If Havilah is Arabia, then the Pishon is the sea around the Arabian peninsula.

Many locate Cush in either Ethiopia or Central Asia. Thus, the Gihon is either the Nile (the Ethiopian location) or the Oxus, the Amu Darya (the Central Asian location).

According to the information given in Genesis 2:10-14, one river came out of Eden and divided into four. Because the Euphrates is mentioned as one of these rivers, most people assume that Eden was in Mesopotamia. Under this theory, the Tigris is the Hiddekel. There is much dispute about the two rivers corresponding to Pishon and Gihon. 

Upper Mesopotamia is perhaps the most popular location of Eden. According to proponents of this location, the Euphrates is the Euphrates of Mesopotamia and the Hiddekel is the Tigris. The identity of the Pishon and Gihon are uncertain. Some identify these two rivers with canals between the Euphrates and Tigris. Also, the Karun and Karkheh rivers have been identified as the other two rivers. Others identify them with various small rivers. 

Another popular location for Eden is the Armenian highlands at the headwaters of the Euphrates and Tigris. According to this theory, the Pishon is either the Phasis (Rioni) of Georgia or the Kura, a large tributary of the Araxes (Aras). The Gihon is identified as the Araxes. (For problems with this location, see Davis.)

Calvin and others have suggested that Eden was in the area where the Euphrates and Tigris empty into the Persian Gulf. Here, the two rivers come together and then divide into several mouths. Thus, the Pallakopas canal becomes the Pishon, and the Gihon corresponds with the Kahana or Guhana canal near Babylon. A problem with this theory is that the rivers come together instead of dividing.

Closely related to Calvin’s proposed location is that Eden is located at the head of the Persian Gulf. According to this theory, the four rivers are the Euphrates, Tigris, Kerkha, and Karun. A problem with this theory is that the rivers flow toward Eden instead of away from it.

At least, the two theories that place Eden near the mouths of the Euphrates and Tigris place Eden east of the writer of Genesis. However, they fail to satisfy the description of Havilah.

According to the Scriptures, the Adamic race originated in Eden. Most people erroneously place Eden in the Middle East. The location of Eden as described in Genesis 2:8, 10-14 places it in Central Asia. 

“And Jehovah God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put man [Adam] whom he had formed.” (Genesis 2:8) The garden in Eden was eastward or “in the east” (Moffatt’s translation) or “to the far east” (Ferrar Fenton’s translation). If Moses were the author of Genesis as the fundamentalists claim, then he, being a highly educated man, would have been knowledgeable of the Mesopotamian region. Would not he have said that Eden was in the land of Shinar or Mesopotamia if that is where it was? In Genesis 10:10, 11:2, 14:1, and 24:10, he calls this region Shinar or Mesopotamia. Moses identified Eden as being in the east because it was east of the area which he knew.

If various people who lived long after Moses wrote Genesis as many modernists and liberal theologians claim, then these authors certainly would have been familiar with the Mesopotamian region and would have referred to it by name rather than by a vague description of where Eden was located.

Also, Sargon's Chronicle identifies Eden as east of Mesopotamia. Thus, the inhabitants of Mesopotamia knew that they did not live where Eden was. Saint Ephraem’s Hymns to the True Paradise and Cosmas Indicopleusters’s Christian Topography placed Eden at the western edge of the world’s highest mountains. Hence, it was in the region of the Himalayan and adjacent mountains—although they may have thought of these mountains as near the North Pole. They certainly did not place it in Mesopotamia.

The geography of Mesopotamia does not fit the description of Eden given in Genesis. Only two major rivers are in Mesopotamia: the Euphrates and Tigris. They merge rather than divide. Eden must be found elsewhere.

“Euphrates” in Hebrew is perath and means “a river of the east” (Strongs O.T. #6578). For centuries the “Pishon” has been identified with the Indus or Ganges Rivers in India. In the ancient records, Havilah was equivalent to India. Because the Gihon was said to “compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia,” some Biblical scholars identify the Gihon with the Nile. The word “cush” originates in northern India. Here the Hindu Cush mountains still bear that name. The Hiddekel is often identified as the Tigris. If the Tigris were also called the Hiddekel, it, like the Euphrates, was named for the original river in Eden. Probably this is why Genesis 2:14 refers to it as the river that flows “toward the east of Assyria.” This modifier would prevent confusing it with the river of the same name that flows within Assyria. Except for the Indus River, the rivers commonly thought of as flowing out of Eden do not fit the Biblical description of these rivers.

One place does resemble the description of Eden given in the Bible. That place is the Pamir Plateau in Central Asia between the Hindu Cush on the south and the Tien Shan mountains on the north. Four great rivers flow from this plateau. These are the Indus, Jaxartes (Syr Darya), Oxus (Amu Darya, also called  Gihon), and Tarim. Corresponding to the Pishon is the Kumar (or Chitral) branch of the Indus. The Jaxartes is the original Euphrates. The Tarim (that is its northern branch, the Kashgar river) flows to the east and is probably the Hiddekel. Most likely, the country of Havilah corresponds to the country of Darada toward Chachmises, which is noted for its riches. Thus, the Pishon is the Kumar-Indus; the Gihon is the Oxus;  the Hiddekel is the Kashgar-Tarim; the Euphrates is the Jaraxrtes.

The Pamir Plateau is different from what it was ten thousand years ago. A catastrophe has altered it. Then the plateau was lower and the climate much milder. Today the Pamir Plateau is uninhabited. It covers an area of about 180 by 180 miles and rises 15,000 feet above sea level. Too inhospitable to be inhabited, it is a blank and mysterious place. It is now the “roof of the world.”

The Pamir Plateau matches the geographical description of Eden given in Genesis. It is the land in the east, and it has four great rivers flowing out of it.

However, if the people who claim that the Noachian Flood was global and nearly all, if not all, of the fossil-bearing sedimentary rock formations resulted from the Flood, then trying to locate a place from before the Flood with today’s geography is futile. Today’s geography would have no resemblance to pre-Flood geography. Consequently, the above discussion about the location of Eden is meaningless. 

References

Allen, Thomas Coley. Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man. Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Company, 1998.

Davis, John D. The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible. Revised by Henry Snyder Gehman. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1944.

Douglas, J.D. et al., editors. The New Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids: Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962. 

Haberman, Frederick. Tracing Our White Ancestors (White Roots). Second edition.  Phoenix, Arizona: America's Promise Lord's Covenant Church, 1962, reprinted 1979.

Jacobus, Melanchthon W., Edward E. Norse, and Andrew C. Zenos, editors. A New Standard Bible Dictionary. New York, New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1926.

Weisman, Charles A. The Origin of Race and Civilization as Studied and Verified from Science, History, and the Holy Scriptures. Third edition. Burnsville, Minnesota: Weisman Publications, 1990.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

People of the Indian Subcontinent

People of the Indian Subcontinent

Thomas Allen

   The Indian subcontinent is a crossroad where four races, or perhaps more correctly, species, of humans meet. Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka (Ceylon) comprise the Indian subcontinent. The four species of humans living on the Indian subcontinent are the Melanochroi (Homo brunus), Aryan (Homo albus), Indo-Australian (Homo australis), and Turanian (Homo luridus).

   The Melanochroi is the predominant species and consists of two racial types: the Dravidian and Indo-Iranian. Dravidians are predominately found in southern India and Sri Lanka. They are a principal type in much of southern India. Included among the Dravidians are the Brahuis of Baluchistan, Kanarese, Coorgs (Kodagu), Gonds, Kanaras, Khonds, Malayalis, Marathi, Nilgiris, Tamils, Telugus, Todas, and Tulus. Indo-Iranians (also called Aryo-Dravidians) are predominately found in southern Pakistan, northern India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka and are the principal type in these regions. Include among the Indo-Iranians are the Baluchi, Bengali, Dehwars, Gujarati, and Sinhalese.
    The Indo-Afghan (also called Indo-Aryan) is the primary racial type of Aryans found on the India subcontinent. They are predominately found in northwest India and northern Pakistan. They are a principal type in the Punjab and western Kashmir. Included among the Indo-Afghans are the Jats, Kashmiri, Punjabi, Pathans, and Sikhs.
    The Pre-Dravidian is the racial type of the Indo-Australian found on the India subcontinent. Pre-Dravidians are found predominately in India with lesser numbers in Sri Lanka. Included among the Pre-Dravidians are the Veddas of Sri Lanka; Bhils, Gondi, and Khonds (Kandhas) of north and central India; Bihors, Kolarians (Ho, Munda, Santals), and Oraons (Kurukhs) of Chota Nagpur; Badagas, Paniyas (Paniyans), Kadars (Kadirs), Uralis, Irulas, and Kurumbas of southern India.
    The primary racial type of the Turanian found on the Indian subcontinent is the Paraoean. Paraoeans are predominately found in Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, Manipur, the New Frontier Agency. Included among the Paraoeans are the Burushaski, Lahulis, Manchatis, and Kanawris, all living west of Nepal; the Dotials, Magars, Gurungs, Tamangs (Murmi), Tharus, Rais, and Limbus of Nepal; the Lepchas of Sikkim; the Totos of West Bengal; the Newars of the Katmandu Valley; the Bodo of West Bengal and Assam; and the Nagas.
    The following two tables describe the two racial types of Melanochroi and the racial types of Aryans, Indo-Australians, and Turanians found on the Indian subcontinent. The numeric skin color is from von Luschan's Hautfarbentafel scale used to measure skin color.

Table 1

Table 2

    As shown above, four species of humans live on the Indian subcontinent. They are the Melanochroi (Homo brunus), Aryan (Homo albus), Indo-Australian (Homo australis), and Turanian (Homo luridus). These four species subdivide into five racial types: Dravidian and Indo-Iranian of the Melanochroi, Indo-Afghan of the Aryans, Pre-Dravidian of the Indo-Australians, and the Paraoean of the Turanians.

References
Allen, Thomas Coley. Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis. Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Company, 1999.

Comas, Juan. Manual of Physical Anthropology. English edition. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1960.

Coon, Carleton S. and Edward E. Hunt, Jr. The Living Races of Man. New York, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965.

Deniker, J. The Races of Man: An Outline of Anthropology and Ethnography. London, England: Walter Scott, Limited, 1900.

Dixon, Roland B. The Racial History of Man. New York: New York: Charles Scriber’s Sons, 1923.

Haddon, A. C. The Races of Man and Their Distribution. New York, New York: The Macmillian Company, 1925.

Keane, A. H. Ethnology. Cambridge, England: The University Press, 1896.

Kroeber, A. L. Anthropology Today: An Encyclopedic Inventory. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1953.

Peschel, Oscar. The Races of Man, and Their Geographical Distribution. New York, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1885.

Risley, Herbert. The People of India. 2nd edition. Editor W. Crooke. Subhash Marg, Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corp., 1969.

Taylor, Griffith. Environment, Race, and Migration. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1937.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen

More articles on anthropology.

   

Ophir

Ophir

Thomas Allen

King Solomon built a fleet of ships at Ezion Geber, which is near Eloth on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom. And Hiram sent with the fleet his servants, seamen who were familiar with the sea, together with the servants of Solomon; and they went to Ophir, and brought from there gold, to the amount of four hundred and twenty talents; and they brought it to King Solomon. (1 Kings 9:26–28)

Ophir was famous for its gold: “. . . three thousand talents of gold, of the gold of Ophir . . .” (1 Chronicles 29:4) and, also, Isaiah 13:12, “I will make men more rare than fine gold, and mankind than the gold of Ophir.” Psalm 45:9 reads, “. . . at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.” Job 28:16 reads, “It cannot be valued in the gold of Ophir. . . .” Other verses mention Ophir concerning gold.
To voyage from Ezion-Geber to Ophir and back required three years: “For the king had a fleet of ships of Tarshish at sea with the fleet of Hiram. Once every three years the fleet of ships of Tarshish used to come bringing gold, silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks [or baboons]” (1 Kings 10:22). Ezion-Geber was a seaport of Edom (Idumaea) on the northern extremity of the Gulf of Aqaba near modern Aqaba and Eilat (Elat) and was part of Solomon’s kingdom.
Ophir must have been a port and located where ivory, apes, and peacocks (or baboons) were naturally available or could be imported. Several locations have been proposed for Ophir. They are the Arabian Peninsula, India, southern East Africa, Malaysia, and Peru.
1. The Arabian Peninsula is the most popular location, although people disagree where on the peninsula Ophir is located.
One possibility is the southwest coast along the Red Sea, where gold was once mined. Thus, Ophir was located in modern-day Yemen. According to Genesis 10:29, Ophir was adjacent to Havilah and Jobab and was associated with the Queen of Sheba (1 King 10:1–10), “the queen of the south” (Matthew 12:42). Ophir may have included part of the adjacent African coast. In ancient times, Yemen was known for its gold production. (To traverse the length of the Red Sea and return should have taken much less than three years. An excuse offered for taking three years is that the ships had to halt when the weather became excessively hot.) Unger, Fausset, Davis, and the Millers favor this location.
Another proposed location is southern Arabia (modern-day Oman) bordering the India Ocean. Smith favors this location.
Still, another possible location of Ophir is between Susa and the Persian Gulf. Because of the winds, a voyage from Ezion-Geber to this location and back might have taken three years. (If this was the location of Ophir, then overland caravans would have been quicker.) Thayer favors this location.
2. India offers several possibilities for the home of Ophir. Favoring India is the algum or almug tree, which is apparently sandalwood, a native of India. Also, the other products mentioned being obtained in Ophir are found in India.
One of the proposed locations of Ophir is the Malabar Coast near Goa. Another possible location is the east side of the Indus River delta. If this is the correct location, the gold of Ophir would have come from Kashmir. Josephus favors the Indus River delta.
3. Several locations along the east coast of Africa have been suggested. They range from the Red Sea to Mashonaland (a region in Zimbabwe). The ruins found in Zimbabwe have been offered as the location of Ophir. Gold has been mined in this area. However, Sofala, an old but now ruined port in Mozambique, which was once known for exporting gold, is a more logical location.
4. Mount Ophir in Johor, Malaysia, is a possible location. This area is known for producing gold. Three years may be needed to journey to here from Ezion-Geber and back.
5. Dankenbring presents the most speculative location of Ophir: Peru. In the evidence that he gives to support Peru is that hieroglyphs on tablets similar to those used in Solomon’s time have been found in Peru and Brazil. Moreover, gold was abundant in ancient Peru. Traveling from the northern part of the Red Sea to Peru and back certainly would have required three years.
Although the location of Ophir is not known and may never be known with certainty, many places have been offered as possible locations. They include Arabia, India, Africa, Malaysia, and Peru.

References
Dankenbring. William F. Beyond Star Wars. Omak, Washington: Triumph Prophetic Ministries 2009.

Davis. John D. A Dictionary of the Bible. Fourth Revised Edition. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1957.

Davis, John D. The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible. Revised by Henry Snyder Gehman. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1944.

Fausset, A.R. Fausset’s Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1949.

Miller, Madeleine S. and J. Lane Miller. Harper’s Bible Dictionary. 6th ed. New York, New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1959.

Smith, William. A Dictionary of the Bible. Revised and edited by F. N. and M. A. Peloubet. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1979.

Thayer, Charles S. “Ophir.” A New Standard Bible Dictionary. Melanchthon W, Jacobus, Edward E. Norse, and Andrew C. Zenos, editors. New York, New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1926.

Unger, Merrill F. Unger’s Bible Dictionary. 3rd edition. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1960.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

A Look at a Libertarian Theory on Economics and Immigration

A Look at a Libertarian Theory on Economics and Immigration

Thomas Allen

One reason that some libertarians give for supporting open borders and unrestricted immigration is that it results in an economic boom for the country receiving the immigrants. That massive unrestricted immigration is economically beneficial is questionable. Most of the time it benefits most of the immigrants until they become so numerous and diverse that they bring the country down. That unrestricted immigration benefits the natives is questionable. To the extent that it benefits the natives, its benefits are more on the macro-level (economics on the national and global level) than the micro-level (economics on the individual and family level). Ironically, libertarian economists generally prefer the micro-level while the statist and central planning economists generally prefer the macro-level.

Libertarians assert that unrestricted immigration of aliens is a great economic benefit for the United States. Is it a great benefit to the natives who are not hired because the aliens will work cheaper? Doubtfully, the natives who are not hired would consider it a great economic benefit.

When the employees of Disney had to train foreigners, who worked for less pay, to do their jobs or forgo severance pay, did they consider the importation of these foreigners an economic benefit? Doubtfully, any of them replaced considered it a great economic benefit.

Some workers do not receive a pay raise or even receive a pay cut because of the large supply of workers resulting from unrestricted immigration. Do they consider unrestricted immigration an economic benefit? Doubtfully, any of these native workers would consider the large influx of aliens as a great economic benefit. (Henry George, whom Edward Harwood, the founder of the American Institute of Economic Research, esteemed, argued that Chinese immigrants during the nineteenth century pushed wages down.)

(Objecting to the great economic boom resulting from massive immigration just proves that these native workers are racists [but who is going to call a Negro racist when he objects to a Mexican replacing him], short-sighted, and selfish. Yet, according to the Randian Objectivist libertarians, selfishness is a great virtue.)

To these objections, libertarians counter that a growing population leads to an increase in demand for goods and services, which results in driving up wages and the standard of living. If a country were an autarky, this argument may have merit. However, since most goods are imported into the United States and many services are outsourced, this argument is weak.

If the libertarian theory that a large and growing population equals economic prosperity and, thus, a large per capita income and per capita wealth, then China and India should have the largest per capita income and per capita wealth. Yet, they do not. Many countries with much smaller populations have much higher per capita income and per capita wealth. (To the common man, per capita income and per capita wealth are more important than the country’s absolute income and wealth.)

Also, if the libertarian theory that immigration equals economic prosperity is true, then the opposite must also be true: A declining population reduces the demand for goods and services and, thus, reduces wages and increases poverty. Yet, the Black Death, which killed 30 to 50 percent of the population of Europe, greatly reduced the workforce and cause wages to rise sharply instead of devastating wages. Wages rose so much that governments fixed maximum wages.

Based on its theory of immigration equaling economic prosperity, libertarians must hate third world countries because they want to transfer a large number of their people to the United States. As a result, these third world countries become ever more impoverished. (This is especially true if the immigrants are highly educated and skilled.) Based on the libertarian argument, if libertarians really cared about the economic well-being of third world countries, they would be at the forefront demanding the prohibition of third-world immigration.

If the libertarian assertion that immigrants are a great economic benefit for the country to which they migrate, and if they really cared about nonwhite countries, then libertarians should be in the forefront demanding that all nonwhites be deported and repatriated to the countries of their ancestors. This great influx of immigrants should greatly improve the economies of these countries. Moreover, if the libertarian assertion is true, the mass exit of people (about 40 percent of the population of the United States) would cause an economic collapse of the United States and, consequently, giving the despicable, evil Whites left behind their comeuppance. Such a mass exit of people from the United States would plunge the economy to such a low level that even Haiti would look like the land of prosperity as the United States become a fifth world country. Moreover, if nonwhites left the United States and other White countries, they could quarantine the horrible, debilitating disease of whitism and protect themselves from it while bringing White countries to economic ruin.

Libertarians are not the only ones who preach that unrestricted immigration is a great economic benefit for the United States. Neoconservatives also use this economic argument to support unrestricted immigration.

Liberals and progressives do not believe this libertarian malarkey about unrestricted immigration being economically beneficial. Unlike libertarians, they are well aware of its destructive effects, which is the primary reason that they support unrestricted immigration. Moreover, as a side benefit, liberals and progressives use these immigrants to enhance their political power — just as the Republicans used freedmen to enhance their political power. (For the most part, Blacks supported the Republican party until Franklin Roosevelt and, especially, Lyndon Johnson bought them with the welfare state and civil rights.)

Many libertarians object to political borders. Consequently, they are globalists at heart. Therefore, they support the objective of the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Bushes, the Clintons, Kissinger, Brzezinski, and other globalists to destroy political borders and, by that, reduce the world to one. However, libertarians do oppose the political and economic policies of these globalists.

Although many libertarians object to national borders, they do not object to all collectives controlling their borders. If one collective can take action to control its territory, then why cannot other collectives do likewise? Libertarians have no problems with corporations, which are governmentally created collectives, a fact that most libertarians like to ignore, taking action to prevent outsiders from entering their territory. Yet, most libertarians object to countries, which are also collectives, from taking action to prevent outsiders from entering their territory.

Addendum
Nearly all economists believe in the economic law of supply and demand: If supply increases faster than demand, prices decline. However, some economists make an exception with labor. They argue that as the supply of workers rises, wages, the price of labor, rises because workers are also consumers. These additional consumers increase the demand for goods and services and, by that, the prices of goods and services, which increases their supply. This increasing supply of goods and services leads to an increase in wages.

When labor is scarce, more capital is invested in machine to do the work of labor. Thus, productivity rises. With the rise of productivity, wages and the standard of living of workers rise.

When labor is plentiful, little incentive exists to substitute machines for labor. More labor is used to increase the supply of goods and services. To substitute machines for labor is not economical. Thus, wages and the standard of living stagnate. If wages do rise, they rise much more slowly. However, they are likely to decline because of the high competition for jobs resulting from the large supply of labor.

Consequently, a small labor pool or a decline in workers leads to a rise in wages and the standard of living of workers. Machines are substituted for labor, which increases productivity per unit of labor and, by that, increases the wages of labor. A large labor pool leads either to a decline in wages or to no increase in wages, and therefore, a decline or stagnation in the standard of living for workers. For example, where labor is plentiful, hiring more workers to dig a canal with shovels is more economical than paying a worker ten times as much as a man with a shovel and hiring his capital, a power shovel, to dig the canal. Yet, the power shovel operator may do the work of 100 or more workers with their shovels.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Allen.

More economic articles.

Immigrants or Colonists

Immigrants or Colonists

Thomas Allen

    It is often said that the United States are a country of immigrants. However, that is not exactly true. The early European arrivals did not come as immigrants. They came as colonists. They came to build a country with no intention to assimilate with the indigenous population. To the contrary, they came to supplant them.
    Only after the early nineteenth century did Europeans come as immigrants. By then, much of the country had been established. These Europeans came to add their labor and intellect to what was already built.
    Unfortunately, except for the Puritan-Yankee and their descendants, philosophically and biologically, the progressive, liberal democrat, the radicals of the failed Revolution of 1848 also came. Soon, they aligned themselves with the Puritan-Yankee to suppress Southern independence in Lincoln’s War. Radicalism and Marxism were their only contribution to the United States.
    Likewise, the Chinese and, later, the Japanese came as immigrants. However, their immigration became greatly restricted.
    In 1924, Congress enacted an immigration law to preserve the ethnic makeup of the United States. In 1965, Congress changed the immigration law to favor heavily anyone who was not European, i.e., of the White race, Aryan, Homo albus. As a result, non-Whites flooded the country.
    Most of the people who moved to the United States before1965 came as true immigrants. They sought to fit in. Consequently, they learned English and tried to assimilate.
    However, after 1965, most people who moved to the United States came as colonists. They came to make a new country. Many of them failed to learn English, and even fewer attempted to assimilate. Like the earlier colonists, these latter-day colonists came not to assimilate, but to supplant.[1]
    Nevertheless, these latter-day colonists differed greatly from the earlier colonists. Unlike the earlier colonists, who came to build a country, these colonists came to drain wealth from a well-established country. Thus, they were more like parasites.  As the parasite grows, the host shrivels and eventually dies. Will these new parasitic colonists survive their host and supplant it?
    Also, a major and highly important difference existed between the people who came to live in the United States before 1965 and after 1965. Before 1965, they were Europeans, except for East Asians whose immigration became highly restricted and Africans, whom the slave traders, of whom many were Yankees and none were Southerners, brought here. True Europeans are the same biological race, species: They are Aryans, Whites, Homo albus. Also, although they consisted of many nations or nationalities,[2] whose languages and customs differed, they were all from the same major culture of Western Civilization. For the most part, they were Christians, although their brand of Christianity differed. Consequently, they were more alike than different and, therefore, assimilation was much easier.
    After 1965, most of the people who came to settle in the United States were not Aryans. For the most part, they were Turanians, Homo luridus, from Asia and Turanians and mestizos from Latin America and Melanochroi, Homo brunus, from India, Pakistan, and the Horn of Africa. Being of a different biological race than the vast majority of the pre-1965 population, they could not truly and fully assimilate without destroying themselves biologically. Moreover, most were from alien cultures, which made assimilation more difficult. Also, except those from Latin America, few were Christian, if one could call Marxist Liberation Catholics Christians. Consequently, for them to assimilate truly and fully, they would have had to abandon much of their culture and convert to Christianity.
    However, since they came in such large numbers, they did not have to assimilate. They established colonies where they could live with people of their nationality, who shared their race, culture, religion, and language. Thus, they came as colonists and established colonists within the United States.
    Moreover, the Illuminists, who controlled the US government and, by that, the State governments, aided them in their alien colonization within the United States. With the welfare state, the Illuminists forced the Aryan taxpayers to support their own death by giving these alien colonists free or heavily subsidized schooling, medical care, housing, groceries, etc. (Illuminists are also known as the Establishment, Insiders, Globalists, and the Powers That Be.)
    What is the ultimate objective of flooding the United States with non-Whites with their alien cultures and religions? It is the Satanic goal to bring down and destroy the United States, and by that, to annihilate Western Civilization, to corrupt Christianity beyond repair, and to genocide the White race. (The same thing is occurring in Europe.) Even if this is not the goal, this is the result.

Endnotes
1. Mexicans have admitted that they come as colonists. They seek to overwhelm the States of the Southwest in such numbers that they will drive out the native Whites, Blacks, and other undesirables and joined the Southwest with Mexico. Thus, they seek to colonize and supplant the native population instead of assimilating.

2. A nation or nationality is a people of the same biological race (species) who have a common origin, culture, language, and history and who have common traditions and customs. A nation may or, more common, may not have its own country. Denmark is an example of a nation having its own country. Most nations have no country of their own. An example of a nation divided among several countries is the Alsatian, who resides in France, Switzerland, and Germany. Today, most countries consist of several nations. For example, Germany consists of the Bayuvar (Austro-Bavarian), Alsatian, Franconian (Upper German), German  (Middle German), Brandenburgian, and Plattdeutsch.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.