Salafi Jihadism: Part 1

Original here. This essay is very well-done, the best I have ever read on the subject.

This is the first of a two-part post on Salafi jihadism. Part 1 is intended to provide a definition of jihad, a look at the history of Salafism/Wahhabism, their similarities and differences and how they spread in the end of the 20th century.

Also before anyone thinks I’m targeting Salafis for an agenda, I intend to cover jihadism in each segment of Islam. I simply chose to begin with Salafi jihadism due to its greater relevance and attention in the world today.

Definition of Jihad: The Arabic word Jihad is derived from the verb Jahada – meaning to strive or struggle. In Islamic terminology it means to make an effort, to endeavor and to strive for a noble cause. The word is generally used to describe any type of striving in the cause of Allah (God). According to Islamic teachings there are three main types of Jihad as explained below:

i) Jihad-e-Akbar, i.e jihad of the highest order. This is the jihad (struggle) for self-reformation. The struggle is against our own temptations such as greed, lust and other worldly temptations. This type of jihad is obligatory on every Muslim throughout his life.

ii) Jihad-e-Kabir, i.e major jihad. This is the jihad of propagation of the truth, the message of Qur’an. The Qur’an also instructs us to spread this message with wisdom, tolerance and respect to others and their beliefs and prohibits the use of any coercion or force. According to the Qur’an anyone who devotes his time, effort, wealth or knowledge to the cause of righteousness is practicing Jihad-e-Kabir. This is also obligatory on all Muslims.

iii) Jihad-e-Asghar, i.e jihad of the lower order. This is the jihad of a defensive battle. The Qur’an has clearly restricted this type of jihad to certain conditions while forbidding transgression of any sort. The conflict must of a defensive nature for the Muslim community, Muslims must have been prevented from freely practicing their religion and beliefs, and they must have been driven from their homes.

Another requirement for the declaration of this type of jihad is the existence of an Islamic State and a Muslim leader to declare it; without this condition, Muslims are allowed to defend themselves in case of being attacked or persecuted but not to declare and prosecute an official jihad. Once a jihad has been declared, the Muslim army is bound by a set of regulations to observe while on campaign, some of which are listed here.[1][2]

It is critical to understand that the aim of jihad is not the conversion of non-Muslim populations. Most scholars agree upon the concept of jihad being a defensive measure; some modern Islamic revivalists such as Sayyid Qutb and Abdullah Azzam argued for the use of jihad as an offensive measure but for the expansion of Muslim territory and Islamic ideals rather than the religious conversion of the local peoples, forced or otherwise, to Islam. As a result, jihad is similar to the Christian concept of a crusade but differs in this critical matter among others. However, jihad is a hotly debated topic in jurisprudence, and a look at the opinions of various scholars can be found here.[3]

History of Salafism/Wahhabism: Salafism is a conservative, orthodox movement within Sunni Islam that seeks to return the practice of Islam to its fundamentals. As such, it emphasizes emulation of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and the Salaf as Saliheen (Pious Predecessors) which comprise the first three generations of Muslims (Companions, Successors and Successors of the Successors), and it rejects any rituals or beliefs not practiced by them; as a result, they are against any innovations, or bidah.

In legal jurisprudence, Salafis are divided among those that remain faithful to the four Sunni maddhabs (schools of law) and those that reject them in favour of ijtihad (independent legal judgement).

In terms of politics, Salafis are generally divided into three categories.

The largest category consists of the quietists, those who believe in remaining indifferent to politics and repression in favour of being closer to God.

The next largest category is the activists, that comprises those who participate in politics to advocate for Islamist agendas and religious legislation.

The smallest category by far is the jihadists, which are the most well known category worldwide but are a tiny minority.

The central tenets of Salafism have existed since the earlier days of Islam, with scholars such as Ibn Taymiyyah referring to and emphasizing adherence to the model of the Salaf. However, Salafism did not spread widely until the 18th century when Muhammad Abdul Wahhab started preaching in the Najd area of Arabia. Abdul Wahhab believed that the practices of the society around him, including venerating the tombs of the Companions, or making invocations to holy men, were similar to the practices during the pre-Islamic Jahiliya (Age of Ignorance).

Thus, he wished to return to a more puritan and conservative form of Islam free of any supposed innovations or bidah and similar to how he believed Islam was practiced in its earliest days. He also believed that those who professed themselves to be Muslim but participated in bidah were beyond the pale of Islam. He began preaching in the town of Unayna, but his actions and ideals were unpopular with the nobility of the era, with Abdul Wahhab being expelled from his town due to pressure applied by a powerful chief, Sulaiman ibn Muhammad ibn Ghurayr.

However, he managed to find refuge with the ruler of the town of Diriyah, Muhammad ibn Saud. In 1744, they formed a pact whereby ibn Saud would protect and propagate the doctrines espoused by Abdul Wahhab by military action, while the latter would religiously legitimize the former’s military conquests and allow the imposition of Islamic taxation, which would net the Al Sauds more income than at the current rates.

Hence began a period of conquest over multiple generations that expanded the Al Sauds’ holdings to much of Arabia, created the First Saudi State and the propagation of Abdul Wahhab’s teachings, pejoratively termed Wahhabism by its critics, outside of Najd. This is also where Abdul Wahhab broke with traditional Salafist thinking; unlike traditional Salafists, Abdul Wahhab was willing to use force and coercion to spread his teachings and was willing to participate in politics and political agreements to achieve that goal.

Scholars are disputed over the degree of brutality sanctioned by Abdul Wahhab, but it is clear that in successive generations, the Wahhabis have become more and more radical, ultimately adopting ibn Taymiyyah’s ideas of takfir (excommunication); this allowed them to brand Muslims living in violation of Islamic law to be non-Muslims and thus justified their fighting against other Muslims. They also adopted a ‘convert or die’ approach to their enemies.

This increasing ruthlessness was the cause of the Al Saud’s downfall. In 1802, the Wahhabis attacked Karbala, slaughtering much of the population and desecrating the shrine of Imam Hussain, and launched a similar assault on Taif in 1803, slaughtering the male population and enslaving women and children.

Ultimately, the Ottoman Empire, which controlled Arabia at the time, had enough and dispatched an army in 1818 that destroyed the First Saudi State, killing the Al Saud ruler, razing Diriyah and doing their best to stamp out both the House of Saud and the Wahhabi movement. However, the remoteness of the Najd prevented either from happening, and a Second Saudi State resulted in that region; consequently, by the end of the 19th century, most of the townspeople in the area were Wahhabis.

Many of the new members were former Bedouins who abandoned nomadic life for settlements on the insistence of Wahhabi religious scholars who declared that a nomadic lifestyle was incompatible with Islam. The newly settled Bedouins served well as soldiers for the Wahhabi religious leaders.

Although alive, Wahhabism remained mostly confined to the Najd till the end of the First World War. During the war, the reigning head of the Al Saud family, Abdulaziz ibn Saud, aided the Allies by revolting against the Ottomans. Although his campaign to rule Arabia had begun in 1901, he was unable to assert his authority over Hijaz until 1923, when the British removed their support for the Sharifs of Makkah.

In 1927, Abdulaziz signed a treaty with the British, who recognized his independence from the former Ottoman territories in exchange for letting go of Transjordan, Iraq, Kuwait and other British protectorates. However, Abdulaziz faced an internal rebellion among his troops. During his campaigns, he made use of the Ikhwan, a militia of radical Wahhabi Bedouin warriors. When he signed the treaty with the British, the Ikhwan refused to obey and raided Transjordan.

Unwilling to risk British ire, Abdulaziz fought the Ikhwan and defeated them in 1929 with British support. The survivors of the Ikhwan were then organized in various militias which would later form the core of the Saudi Arabian National Guard. Although defeated, the Ikhwan left their mark on Arabian society by uprooting the old cultural norms and supplanting them with radical Wahhabi ideology as part of their campaign on behalf of the Al Sauds.

In addition, Wahhabi ideology spread to the cities of Makkah and Madinah and gained control of the religious apparatus in the land. Although the Wahhabi religious establishment was given much latitude with respect to religious observance and teaching, in many cases Abdulaziz overruled the ulema, allowing the driving of automobiles and the attendance of Shia pilgrims at the annual Hajj. In addition, most of Abdulaziz’s consolidation of power and dealings with Western powers kept him at odds with the ulema.

Although Salafism/Wahhabism inspired offshoots such as the Ahl-e-Hadith and Deoband movements in South Asia, the reach of these two ideologies was quite low during most of the 20th century. Even within Saudi Arabia, the implementation of Islamic law was relatively relaxed compared to today.

This changed in 1979, when two things happened. First the Iranian Revolution occurred, toppling the Shah there and sending shockwaves through the monarchies in the region. Second, the Grand Mosque in Makkah was taken over by Islamic extremists who called for the stricter implementation of Islamic doctrines and the fall of the Al Saud family.

In the aftermath of these events, the Saudi government became stricter in religious matters. Due to the huge increase in oil income since the 1973 oil crisis, the government had lavished funding on religious literature, scholarships and hundreds of new Islamic schools, universities and mosques. In order to counter any threat of an Iranian-style revolution by the Shia population of the country and to satisfy disgruntled conservative clerics, this funding was further increased.

The beginning of the Afghan War provided an opportunity to export troublesome clerics to Pakistan, Afghanistan and other countries. This achieved two aims; first, it allowed the Sauds to embed a Wahhabi religious establishment of their choice, and secondly, the export of Wahhabi ideology served as a bulwark against the revolutionary doctrines that Iran was beginning to propagate in the Middle East. Since the Afghan War attracted volunteers from all over the Muslim world, almost all of whom spent time in the Saudi-sponsored religious schools, the spread of Salafism was assured.[4]

Due to the financial support that Salafism/Wahhabism enjoys from the Gulf, it has received attention and commands influence disproportionate to its size. There are roughly 50 million Salafists in the world, a tiny fraction of the total Muslim population.[5] Yet, Salafi scholars such as Zakir Naik from India are some of the most recognizable in the Muslim world, having instant name recognition even amongst many non-Salafis.

The Salafi movement is described as the fastest growing Islamic movement in the world, according to a report by the BND, the German domestic intelligence service.[6] This is especially true for regions such as Europe and North America, which have no native Islamic traditions of their own and thus are more susceptible to supplanting than historically Muslim areas.

Although Salafis have historically been peaceful and apolitical, believing in using persuasion rather than force, modern Salafism is often considered indistinguishable from Wahhabism and in many cases, conflict has arisen when Salafis have tried to propagate their doctrines. For instance in Pakistan, there is much animosity between followers of the Deoband movement, inspired by Salafism, and the Barelvi movement, inspired by the Sufi traditions of the subcontinent.

Moreover, in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, more and more Salafists are becoming part of the activist category, joining politics to propagate their beliefs. One example of such a movement is the Nour Party in Egypt, which gained a quarter of the seats in the 2011-12 elections.

In normal circumstances, one might consider the engagement of conservative Islamists in democratic politics to be a positive sign; however, the failure of the Arab Spring to bring meaningful change to the lives of people in most of the affected countries has disillusioned many democratic Salafis, many of whom have shifted to the jihadist category of Salafism, thinking military action to be the last feasible route.[7]

Sources:

1 http://islamicfaq.org/jihad/

2 http://www.islamhelpline.net/node/441

3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad#Current_usage

4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement#cite_note-123

6 http://www.aina.org/news/20120416150547.htm

7 http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21656189-islams-most-conservative-adherents-are-finding-politics-hard-it-beats

Most Caucasian Populations Have Significant Non-Caucasian Elements

I received this comment today. I deleted the comment and banned the poster because he insulted me, but his comments are interesting nonetheless. His position is that most Caucasian populations are significantly admixed with non-Caucasian, and I am afraid he is right. There are probably few if any pure Whites or pure Caucasians.

The guy appears to be some sort of a Hindu nationalist type and he seems to be making a big deal out of the fact that Indians are mostly White, especially high caste ones of which he seems to be a part. He is quite offended by the idea that Indians are part-Australoid, but that is how they show up on some charts.

He says the Australoid component is more similiar to SE Asians such as Thai people. However, this Asian component also looks something like the Asian part of the Ancient Northeast Asian group. The Asian part of the ANE’s has been called different things, but to me they look Ainuid. So the Asian part of Indians looks like Ainuids/Thais. I think he may really be onto something here. It is a good hypothesis.

He is just wrong about some things below. ANE did not originate in Amerindians (How did that happen? Did it move back from the Americas to Asia?); instead, Amerindians are obviously partly derived from ANE from Northeast Asia itself. The Karitiana of Brazil have the highest ANE ever found. They may be the remains of some of the earliest settlers to the Americans.

The Chukchi are probably also heavily ANE somehow because these very Asian-looking Eskimo like people actually plot Caucasian on some charts! So in Far Northeastern Asia, early Caucasoids and early Asians have been mixing it up for some time. He also notes that Berbers have a lot of Black blood. This is correct. In fact, on some charts, Berbers plot outside of Caucasian altogether and end up slightly into the the Black or African quadrant.

He also says that Ashkenazi Jews have a lot of Asian and Black in them. Asian maybe (ancient Asian). Black, no way. I have seen charts showing that Ashkenazi Jews and other people of the Caucasus have the least amount of Black of any White group on Earth. How hilarious for Stormfronters that Jews are the most pure of all the Whites. Australoids are absolutely not archaic Whites or archaic Caucasians.

This is an interesting blog. What I’d like to point out, however, is that there is quite a bit of misinformation regarding the genetic makeup/ancestry of races and ethnic groups/castes found in India on this blog. I noticed you implied in some of your posts here that Indians are hybrid population between two groups, one most similar to present-day non-White Caucasoids, and one most similar to Australian Aboriginals.

Let me explain what the genetic/latest research has actually shown, as far as India’s demographics and the genetic composition of its castes is concerned. What follows is a detailed explanation of South Asian genetics and therefore, I must warn you, it is a long wall of text but completely accurate and supported by the latest research, despite containing a lot of jargon that may give you a headache. Bear with me here.

Indians are composed of two composite groups: ANI or the Ancestral North Indians, a group which itself is a composite of two or more different Caucasoid populations, that are on average, closest to present-day Georgians in genetic makeup, and ASI, or the Ancestral South Indians, a group which is also a composite of two or more different populations, at least half of which is Caucasoid in nature, with the other half varying in composition from one ethnic group to another.

In other words, while ANI is completely Caucasoid in nature, ASI is 50-60% Caucasoid in nature depending on the caste in question, and the remainder of ASI ancestry is either composed of Mongoloid, proto-Mongoloid, proto-Caucasoid or in exceptionally rare, isolated cases like the Paniya tribe of South India, of proto-Australoid-like ancestry which still isn’t the same as having Australoid ancestry. Keep in mind that Australoids themselves are at least 80% Mongoloid in genetic makeup and are considered to be archaic Whites themselves.

They are also the furthest group genetically on Earth, from the Negroids/Congoids/Bantuids of Sub-Saharan Africa. So, apart from a minority of untouchables of South India and parts of East India who are not even a part of the caste system to begin with, no other group in South Asia has any proto-Australoid-like admixture to speak of. And Indians are predominantly Caucasoid and group with other Caucasoids according to every genetic test/anthropometric study since the dawn of time. More information here.

It is crucial to remember that Indians have nothing to do with Australoids – those people are completely different apart from a very few isolated tribes in India that have real proto-Australoid-like admixture due to their status and extreme isolation. And this admixture has nothing to do with ASI admixture – ASI is just like the paleolithic ANE influence in Europeans, and half of it is Caucasian (at least half, if not more, it varies for different people in India) and it is a composite just like ANI is with different components for different people/castes in India.

The Reich et al paper even pointed out that the Onge were at best a poor proxy to get something without ANI admixture and little ASI admixture, and even then, it was a worse proxy than the Han Chinese. In other words, East Asians were a better proxy than the Onge themselves.

The reason they picked the Onge as a (poor) proxy was because they were the only group they could find in that region without ANI admixture and because they are such an old population that has been isolated and separated from mainland populations for a very long period of time. They also have very few individuals left, so owing to the problems of genetic drift, they assume ownership of a component, and the admixture program tries to force the Onge component in an admixture model of South Asians.

In more recent papers, this has been clarified further and it has been stated that they were simply making a poor guess when using the Onge as a proxy in the model.

Furthermore, to illustrate just how poor of a guess it was, they pointed out that ASI is massively separated from the Onge. In fact, ASI is just as far from the Onge as the Utah Whites (a group of random Euro-descent samples from Utah in the States) are from the Onge, indicating that ASI is as related to Onge as Utah Whites are.

Papuans and Onge have no relation to India at all – the Onge are in SE Asia. Han are a much better proxy. In addition, Indians lack Denisovan admixture and other crucial haplogroups found commonly in the Onge as well.

It must also be said that if Indians are erroneously assumed to have proto-Australoid-like ancestry, so are Europeans.

You might be under the false assumption that Europeans are somehow a “pure” Caucasoid population, when in fact that couldn’t be further from the truth. The latest genetic research conclusively shown that Europeans are all admixed to different degrees between at least four main populations of people: West European Hunter-Gatherer (WHG), Early European Farmer (EEF), Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherer (SHG), and Ancient North Eurasian (ANE).

It has also conclusively shown that all populations of Europeans and other “White” Caucasoids have significant to huge amounts of non-Caucasoid ancestry due to the fact that the ANE/Ancient North Eurasian component is at least 45% East Asian/Mongoloid in ancestry. The ANE component is based on the genome of the infamous Mal’ta boy or MA-1.

In Europe today, it peaks among Estonians at just over 18%, and intriguingly, reaches a similar level among Scots. Finns, Russians and Mordovians also carry very high ANE in addition to very high amounts of much more recent Siberian admixture. What’s even more interesting is that this ANE influence is the very influence found among South Asians, albeit in a slightly different variety known as ASI.

What the aforementioned information means is the following: Indians are not a hybrid population between Caucasoids and Australoids. In reality, the vast majority of Indians are an admixed population between Caucasoids and Mongoloids – except in this case, the Mongoloids are most similar in phenotype and genotype to SE Asians like the Thai.

According to the latest research, the average Indian is at least 75% Caucasian and 25% Asian – these figures have been substantiated by multiple reports including the National Geographic Project’s Geno 2.0 DNA ancestry test samples, the 23andme test samples, and even the Reich et. al paper published in the highly-cited/high impact factor scientific journal Nature.

It has been conclusively proven that South Asians/Indians range from 5-10% Asian to 35% Asian or in other words from 65% Caucasian to 95% Caucasian. The most Caucasian people in the region are from the northwest of the Indian subcontinent, and the least Caucasian people are from the east and south. Only one person broke the magic 35% barrier, and he was a Bangladeshi (38%).

If you’d like a layman’s interpretation of the data in the aforementioned sources, check out this article by Razib Khan, one of the pioneers in the field of population genetics, particularly as it pertains to the archaeogenetics of South Asia as a whole – he writes articles for Discover Magazine, which is a well respected source. He is also a PhD student at UC Davis. Here is a post describing the general findings of genetic research into South Asian populations

In addition to the Reich et. al paper and other landmark papers in this field, the Harappa Ancestry Project, which is helmed by a genetic expert and is working in combination with Reich’s data is also another landmark study into the archaeogenetics of South Asia. It has conclusively proven and further substantiated the results I aforementioned.

According to the samples collected by the project, there is a sharp correlation between caste/location and Caucasian ancestry in India, with the upper castes in all parts of India being significantly more Caucasian than the lower castes, and the North-West Indian/South Asian upper castes being the most Caucasian of all – up to 95%.

All of the Northwest Indian/Pakistani/Nepali/Afghani upper castes are between 5-18% admixed with East Eurasians/Mongoloids; in other words all of them are between 82-95% Caucasian. These castes would include the Rajputs, Jatts, Khatris, Gujjars, Sindhis, Brahmins, Bhumihars, Balochis, Brahuis, and certain upper caste Punjabis, and Pathans. Note that this is only applicable to the upper castes aforementioned that are in the North and North-West of India as well as Pakistan and Nepal.

As for the rest of India (and Bangladesh/Sri Lanka), as I mentioned earlier, the average South Asian is 75% Caucasian and 25% Asian, so a good amount of South Asians are more Caucasian than 75%, and a good amount are less Caucasian.

For instance, the average Tamil (from South India, and well represented in the diaspora in the USA as the “typical Indian” stereotype) is 33-34% non-Caucasian, and the average Bengali/Bangaladeshi is closer to 55-60% Caucasian. The dalits of Tamil Nadu or the lowest caste Tamils (also well represented in the States), are at least 40% non-Caucasian. The lowest castes of India, the Chamars, who are found all over India (also in the States) are also in the 50-60% Caucasian range. Upper caste Indians in the rest of India (apart from the Northwest) tend to be 70-80% Caucasian.

If you’d like to see the data for yourself, here is the link to the spreadsheet.

For reference, the “South Indian” component is 50-60% Caucasian, and the ANE/NE Asian component is 45% non-Caucasian. The SE Asian, Siberian, Papuan, American and Beringian components are all Mongoloid, and the E. African, San, Pygmy and W. African components are all Negroid. Keep in mind that the data here is accurate only for South Asians, other regions are too under-sampled in the project.

Now you might be wondering, if South Asians, particularly the upper castes in the North and Northwest, are between 5-18% admixed, are they alone in this predicament? As I alluded to earlier, they are anything but alone.

Let’s start with Middle Easterners and Northern Africans. Egyptians, Moroccans, Libyans, and other North Africans are on average 15% Black/Negroid admixed. In fact, according to the latest research, the average North African is 15-16% black, and individual countries like Egypt and Tunisia are 18-21% Black on average, so some would be more than 21% black, some less.

The highest admixture is found among Moroccans and Berbers, who can be up to 30% Black/Negroid admixed on average. As far as the Middle East goes, Yemeni people have been shown to be 18-19% black on average, and the Bedouin tribes have been shown to be 16-18% Black on average as well. Qataris are 12-16% Black, and Saudi Arabians range from 14-18% black as well, on average. Jews, particularly the Ashkenazim, have also been shown to be 16.5% admixed with Mongoloid and Black/Negroid on average.

So on average, MENA people are 75-85% Caucasoid and 15-25% Black/Negroid admixed, therefore its safe to say that MENA people are Caucasoid-Negroid hybrids, with some groups being more and others less Negroid. All these figures have been collected by National Geographic and many other researchers.

As far as West Asians/Central Asians are concerned, they show significant amounts of Mongoloid admixture on average.Tajiks have 15% Mongoloid admixture on average, while Turkmen have 16% Mongoloid admixture on average.

However, some groups of Turkmen average 27% Mongoloid, and some are 35-56% Mongoloid. Southern Turkmen on average are only 1/8 to 1/3 Mongoloid or better said 13-31% Mongoloid. However in some parts of Turkmenistan like the northern and eastern parts, the Mongoloid DNA reaches 33-55%. Other parts of Turkmenistan are 33-55% Mongoloid.

Even many Turkish people are 10-20% Mongoloid and 15% Mongoloid on average. Iranians are also Mongoloid admixed – up to 10% on average, with the Azeris of Iran being even more admixed. Tatars are 16% Mongoloid admixed on average.

So, its safe to say that most West Asian groups are a hybrid of Mongoloids and Caucasoids, being on average 80-85% Caucasian and 15-20% Mongoloid, with some groups being much less Caucasian and much more Mongoloid.

Now, lets look at the European data. All non-Sardinian Europeans have been shown to have significant amounts of ANE ancestry due to the Malt’a boy mentioned earlier, and this ANE ancestry is related to/is the same as ASI ancestry in South Asians, relating Europeans to Amerindians and East Asians.

The ANE component is composed of 45% Mongoloid and Australoid-like ancestry (similar to the distant relation that some South Asians have to proto-Australoids), and the Malt’a boy also has a proto-Australoid ASE component on the order of 10%.

This ANE component peaks in the Karitiana Indians of South America

More info about ANE’s relationship to ASI is available at this link which itself references this landmark paper:

It is also pertinent to point out the fact that ANE ancestry in all Europeans with the exception of Sardinians (who have very minor ANE ancestry) is mostly (45-55%) non-Caucasoid in nature, and does not include separate additional East Asian ancestry that is due to much more recent admixture with Mongoloids from the Golden Horde and other admixture events.

ANE or NE Asian is best thought of as very ancient Asian admixture, while the recent admixture is added separately. A recent landmark paper definitively showed a clear signal of admixture in Northern Europe, represented by the ANE/NE Asian component. Here is the link to the paper and here is a link to the layman’s explanation of it.

What this paper definitively shows (as do successive papers recently released after it) is that Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, have huge amounts of NE Asian, also known as ANE, admixture. This is because they are descended in part from an Amerindian population.

What is the actual amount? Well, remember that ANE or NE Asian is made up of two components – one is Caucasian and related to Levantine ancestry and the other is related to NE Asia/Siberians and the American Indians, peaking in the Karitiana Indians of South America.

Therefore, according to the research data in the latest papers, Northern Europeans are 5-18% admixed with Mongoloids, or in other words, Northern Europeans are 5-18% Non-Caucasoid, and the authors pointed out that this is actually a conservative estimate, one that is lower than what the actual value is likely to be – which is purported to be even higher than the 5-18% range, easily crossing over into the 10-20%+ non-Caucasoid range.

Keeping in mind that in the Near East among Lezgins, Chechens and Ossetians, ANE is in the 23-27%+ range. This means that other Eastern Europeans not residing in Northern Europe are also heavily admixed with non-Caucasian ANE ancestry as well. The ANE ancestry is 45% East Asian/Amerindian in composition and 10% SE Asian in ancestry, so 55% non-Caucasian and ANE ancestry ranges from 8-21%+ in almost all Europeans except Sardinians.

A table with ANE scores from a recent paper. Remember how I mentioned earlier that this ANE non-Caucasoid ancestry did not include additional, more recent, non-Caucasoid East Asian ancestry?

Well, lets take a look at that data as well. Russians and Finns are 80-88% Caucasian depending on the person (not including non-Caucasoid ANE admixture which would make them even less Caucasoid) because of much more recent East Asian admixture with the areas with the higher non-Caucasian mixture in the 12-20% range around Leningrad.

Finnish people, according to the latest genetic study, are at least 13-17% East Asian, and Russians, according to the latest genetic study, are 12-18% East Asian. More info here.

Lithuanians and Swedes are at least 10%-20% admixed with recent East/Mongoloid mixture. If we add this recent Mongoloid admixture to the more ancient ANE ancestry in Europeans, we get the following numbers: Russians, Finns and Swedes are 17-30% Mongoloid/Non-Caucasoid and 70-83% Caucasoid. Because of this, Finns have been found to be distinct from other Europeans and don’t cluster as close to them. Russians in the North are much the same way.

Therefore we can sum up the above with the following three sentences:

  • Proto West Eurasians + ANE/ASI-like = Europeans and Latin Americans
  • Proto West Eurasians + ASI/ANE-like = South Asians and Central and West Asians
  • Proto West Eurasians + African = Middle Easterners and Northern Africans

And since everyone in these regions can be as much as 30% non-Caucasoid due to either Mongoloid or Negroid ancestry, (but closer to 20-25% non-Caucasoid), Indians are definitely not alone in being admixed Caucasoids on this planet. They are actually part of the norm, being on average, 75% Caucasian and 25% Asian,

The data clearly shows that Indians are as admixed as other Caucasian groups throughout the world, and in some causes, purer, particularly in the case of the upper caste North and North-West Indians, who are at most 18% admixed or less and thus 82-95% Caucasian.

We Don’t Respect You

The post will deal with the extent to which Whites respect one race or another.

First of all, an anecdote to start it off. I received a link from Stormfront linking to one of my articles about genetics and race. There was a chart there (see below), that, if interpreted in one particular way, could show that Amerindians are the closest large race to Caucasians, or Whites (this assuming that Whites are closely related to all other Caucasians, which they are). The competition was Africans, Amerindians, Siberians, NE Asians, SE Asians, Oceanians and Australoids. Of these groups, Amerinds appear to be the closest to Caucasians.

The question of the closest race to Whites or Caucasians is an interesting one. First of all we need to leave out some groups that are on the border between races.

Berbers and Bedouins are two groups of Whites that are quite close to Blacks. Bedouins and North Africans in general lump Caucasian though.

Ethiopians, Somalis, etc. are, I believe more and more, an intermediate large race in between Caucasians and Blacks. Nevertheless, on most charts they lump African so we will deal with them as Africans here.

Hispanics are a recent mixed race people that is left off most charts.

There is an axis extending from Turkey to Chukotka that I call the Asian-Caucasian Axis. On some charts, many of these groups are pretty much on the border between Asians and Caucasians and some are damned hard to put in one category or another. This includes Turks, Jews, Armenians, Iranians, Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Pakistanis, South Indians, Nepalese, Kazakhs, Turkmen, Kirghiz, Altai, Shor and associated North Turkic Siberians, Buryats, Mongolians, North Chinese, Koreans and the Chukchi. It also includes all associated groups.

The Chukchi are fascinating as they are an obviously Asiatic people that actually lump Caucasian on some charts.

We will leave all of these separate groups out of the analysis since on major charts, they are just lumped into Caucasians or North Asians.

However, on these same major charts, it does look like Amerindians are the closest major race to Whites.

Here is the chart in question. As you can see, the cluster of NE Asian - Siberian/Eskimo - Amerindian is the closest major race to Whites (Caucasians). According to my reading, which may be in error, the Amerindians seem to be closer to us than the others. There are other charts that also show Amerindians as very close to Caucasians.

The commenter on Stormfront noted this and commented on it, saying that he had often felt that they were the closest race to Whites. He said that when you look at them, it’s like looking in the mirror at what we used to be thousands of years ago and we could become again. In addition, he noted that he respected them as a race.

This got me to thinking. In the US anyway, Whites respect Amerindians as a race. They didn’t used to, but even in the old days, there was massive intermarriage. There is something about an Indian woman and a White man that is hard to stop. The Latin American Whites have been trying to stop White men from breeding with mestizas and Indias for centuries, and it’s a futile cause. And I respect Indians as a race too. Sure, they’ve got their problems, but they are mostly just their own problems – drugs, alcohol, self-destruction.

Even in Latin America, Indians are not so much despised, really, or not as much as Blacks. At any rate, they are not regarded as very troublesome. They are seen as potentially verbally violent, and sometimes physically, but this is not a real problem. As one White Latin American said, “Give an Indian a handful of tortillas and a six pack and he’s good for the night and won’t give you any trouble.”

This got me to thinking about whether or not we Whites respect other races. As I said, we respect the Indian. We also respect Hispanics. Since most here have a very large amount of White in them anyway, this just makes them even easier to respect. One thing you notice very quickly is that Whites don’t really hate Hispanics all that much. It’s hard to get even redneck Whites interested in hating Hispanics. We have too much common with them, and they have too much White in them. They are similar to us genetically and culturally.

Whites marry Hispanics very readily, and the usual format is White man – Hispanic woman. Hispanic women are seen as more submissive (= feminine) than White women, so it’s a natural match. A similar principle is working with White men and Indian women and White men and Asian women. A possible reason for these similarities is that Indians originate in Asian and are still quite Asian-like.

Anyway, finally getting around to the title of the post, it then occurred to me: Whites do not respect Blacks! We flat out do not respect you. Period. Exclamation point. In what way do we not respect you?

In the deepest way possible. Whites do not respect Blacks at their very difficult to change essence. We don’t respect you as a race.

As a White man who has lived his whole life in White culture, this is painfully and obviously true for the majority of Whites.

Now, the White racists will say that Blacks do not deserve to be respected for a variety of reasons, particularly behavioral ones. Let us just leave that question aside for a moment. Regardless of whether Blacks deserve it or not, we just flat out don’t respect them at their very racial essence, and that’s the only point to consider right now.

Why do I bring this up? Because really, this is at the root of a lot of the problems between Whites and Blacks in the US. We don’t respect you. And in many ways, a whole lot of other stuff just flows right out from that. Now, if Whites respected Blacks as a race, I’m convinced that race relations would be a lot different in this society.

Just a mental snack for you to chew on tonight…