Absolutely superb comment from Francis Melville on this post.
Well, the Democrats used to be the Victorian prudish ones during the whole Nineteenth Century and through Wilson, and remained so wherever their voting base was Catholic up to 1965 when the Vatican II Council turned the Catholic Church into a liberal thing on most issues that had to ally with liberal forces to get heard in the political arena.
After all, the moral base of the Democratic Party was established under Jackson, and it formed under the influence of the most Calvinistic and sectarian part of the American public opinion.
Up through Wilson, the Democratic Party was more clearly rightwing than the Republican on most issues, while the Republicans took pride in being centre of the road. Even when they came to be the party of Big Business, their principle was clear: separation between church and state and even more between bedroom and state.
They believed you were entitled to a religious life, however wacko, provided you kept it for yourself and never planned to use government to promote it, and you were therefore entitled to any kind of sex life, however un-American, provided you did not involve the Party institutions nor aggressed any non-consenting victim.
Sexual virtue signalling was a Democratic thing as everything populist in general has always been. The alignment changed during the 20th century with Prohibition and consequently progressive thinkers of European origin aligning themselves systematically with the Democratic Party, in particular when the main presenters of these progressive currents happened to be Jews.
But even during the 1950’s as the Catholic church had remained the last bulwark of anti-sexual moralism on the backdrop of a Protestant world which had then succumbed to Utilitarianism, most regressive laws passed by the state in sexual affairs were passed under a Democratic banner. Worse, the Catholic world, like also the Muslim and Hindu world of that time, having little to do with higher morality, was more open to homosexuality and pederasty than to any heterosexual romance, as the latter was deemed a far greater danger to family life.
The McCarthy Era was driven by Irish Catholicism, and Irish Catholics loved to present themselves as the only true representatives and saviors of American values.
Meanwhile, the Republicans were gradually morphing into the party of absolute egoism and negation of public good. Swingers as had been produced by the Sexual Revolution of late Sixties and early Seventies proved to be egoists to a supreme degree and chose to be Republicans Ayn Rand style, most contrary to the hope entertained by Marcuse and others that Sexual Liberation would be the first stepping stone out of capitalistic Puritanism into the Long March towards a more just society.
In general, sexually speaking, dominant males’ dream is not sexual free choice for all but for themselves only as a tiny group on the backdrop of a puritanical society guaranteeing them an endless supply of innocent female prey that will make an exception to the Puritanism only under economic duress and due to the prohibition of them being pursued by impoverished males.
Reagan Republicans’ alliance with Moral Majority is to be seen in that perspective, both inside the non-believing wing of the Republican Party and inside the Evangelist sects also, where the main preachers always copy the great polygamous Biblical patriarchs, while imposing Puritanism on the masses of their attendants that haven’t studied the Bible deeply enough to know and realize the game.
The fake Protestant Republicans made their show in pure contradiction with what the Republicans, even the very right-wing ones, had been through. Eisenhower embraced religion in pure contradiction with that party’s stance of refusal of any reference to religion in the political sphere.
Meanwhile, the Democrats were quietly reverting, under corporate donor pressure and especially under Zionist Jewish pressure, to what they had been in Dixie times – there is no need to look further. The Democratic Party never stopped being multicultural, and that included necessarily that religious identities of all sorts had never ceased to be the party of confusion between the political and the religious spheres.
Traditionally, it was the Catholic Church as a provider of militants from Irish and Latino backgrounds, but now that since Vatican II the Roman Church no longer wanted to play the same role as it used to, a Virtual Catholic Church has formed.
It is made up of an alliance of Whites claiming progressivism but practicing astrology and other occult sciences as to cater for their own spiritual needs and more colored people practicing non-Christian ultra-conservative religions such as Islam and Hinduism, and calling for the unification of the world under this undefined-but-more-totalitarian-than-ever faith.
Celts who leave Catholicism and revert back to some sort Druidism are always puritanical to the highest degree, as they equate sexual energy with ultimate financial capital and as always being against of any form of social justice scheme, since they believe in karma, not divine grace.
It must be first well-understood that contrary to what a superficial cultural cliché teaches about Germanic conqueror tribes enslaving peaceful Celtic ones, Germanic cultures have always fallen for hippie (long hair, self-indulgence, social redistribution in favor of workers and artists) values when left alone to themselves in small nations, and Celtic cultures for skinhead or Hell’s Angels values (shaven heads, androgynous look, food fascism under various pretexts, indifference to misery).
Israel actually gets a lot of support from out and out fascists, including some anti-Semites and people with Nazi links. I know that Richard Spencer has praised Israel as a model for the racist Whites-only state he wants to create. Kevin MacDonald has also written a nice article on Israel as a model. Israel is indeed a model for anyone wanting to create a racist ethnic nationalist state. There’s not a lot of difference between a racist Jews-only state and a racist Whites-only state.In this fascinating piece Judith Mirville discovers many more fascinating links between these two most unlikely allies. I will tell you why fanatical antisemites and Protocol-centric conspiracy theorists love Trump, the arch-neocon, the Jewiest among the Noahides: there is no incompatibility at all between being a Nazi White Aryan supremacist and an ultra-Zionist, no matter if you are a Likud car-carrying member Jew or a Jew-outjewing gentile neocon. You must first realize that first White supremacist theories sold to the Western World, especially most of the Anglo-Saxon ones, were pro-Jewish and justified themselves of Biblical Jewish origin: the most fanatical branch even claimed of descending, as all true White Anglo-Saxons, from the Biblical tribes of Judah and Israel. That form of racism which is responsible for the dehumanization of Irish, then of Negroes, then of Amerindians, then of East Indians, existed long before the more publicized one born in Central Europe and Germanic countries justifying itself of the Vedas, of the recent discovery of Sanskrit, and of the Aryan invasion theory of India and of Europe. British Anglo-Saxons in India snub natives and see themselves as Jews or would-be Jews having conquered yet another non-Biblical people – they would dominate it as true Veda-perfect Aryans of the kind there no longer was in India due to caste miscegenation only later on, and even then this was only ideological enrichment, not reconversion: most of the first White Indo-Aryan supremacy theorists postulated that the authors of the Vedas and of the Jewish sacred scriptures were the same people as they pushed for invasion of heathen lands. O ne very popular exponent of such a synthesis was Edouard Schuré, in his 1900-published semi-doc book The Great Initiates. The over the top rabid antisemitism of the Nazi party was a departure from, not a continuation of, the racist mainstream; actually it is rather the result of a late hurried electorally-tailored compromise of that ultra-right-wing party with the Austrian antisemitism of leaders such as Lueger who were clearly of the non-Marxist Left, not of the racist right, witness the fact the latter (and not the Marxist) had pushed for the most advanced social measures that were still being passed at municipal level in Vienna and around. Rabid antisemitism was the original Left ingredient put in the Nazi witches’ pot so as to seduce working masses into fighting with their own bosses against the Reds (and their own interests), and most bourgeois German Jews laughed of such a feat of cunning on Hitler’s part. To get an idea of that little-mentioned fact, read the book or view the film The Serpent’s Egg. Antisemitism has always been recuperated, not begotten, by the economic Right: I wouldn’t go as far as to say that antisemitism is a left-wing position, but it is not one of the Right neither, it is one that positions on the third axis of multi-factor analysis of the political spectrum. The first factor in factorial explanation power as an eigenvalue is always, be the right-left one, i.e. whether you identify with the common man and with the victims or with the privileged and the conquerors to define yourself, and whether you identify with more general or particular interests — even most of the American Left actually classifies as more right-wing than the rest according to that definition with all shades of pink in between. The second is authoritarian versus freedom-loving — the term Libertarian is now unusable for that meaning since most American so-called Libertarians are authoritarian personalities among other detestable traits. The third factor in factorial explanation power as an eigenvalue is localist (not nationalistic – it can be village-centred Sicilian Mafia or Basque anarchistic) versus globalist (not necessarily present-day globalist ideology, it can also be Marxist International or in favour of big social nation-states aiming at global reach) with all intermediate shades: Jews are globalist on that axis as we may expect, but nothing prevents a globalist from having right-wing egotistical and authoritarian personality. There is even less incompatibility between a Nazi-like antisemite and a perfect Adelson twin brother neocon like Trump in that most Nazi-like antisemites in the US exist thanks to the Zionist establishment as a social management tool, not as an indigenous formation. The KKK, despite a few lone wolves like D Duke, has always been pro-Jewish in theory and favoured by Southern Jews against the Blacks, as has always been the Southern antebellum paradigm, not counting the fact it is anti-Catholic and anti-Irish Presbyterian Scottish by mystical reference and therefore Biblical-Zionist as regards magical rituals. They are traditionally and most spectacularly used for Jewish-solidarity enhancing false flags, and they are also used by Jewish bosses to destroy worker solidarity so as to turn workers’ interest issues into racial ones. The Great Divide in the US, apart from the class and left-right divide which has always been the first in importance everywhere except in the virtual media world of a few very maligned countries, has always been White (or better said general privileged newcomer)/Amerindian/Black, since the country was founded by the act of killing Indians to make room for Negro or Irish slave plantations. There are the conquering ones (the Whites), the ones targeted for elimination (the Indians), and the imported slaves (the Blacks), or if you will the superiors, the rebellious inferiors (the Indians), and the exploitable inferiors (the Blacks). The superiors in America by tradition either are Jews, as was the case with the Southern plantation system where they were both the international traders in cotton and the educated professional elite, or fancy themselves as Biblical Jews of a more perfected kind. Antisemitism in the US only aims at renegade Jews, particularly those who harbour universalistic ideas or tendencies, which good Jews should never entertain under the pain of losing their status as such. All antisemites in the US go to great lengths to explain that the only Jews they inveigh against are false Jews like Eastern European Khazarians. This is a very stupid position, by the way, as the most rabidly supremacist Jews are traditionally the Sephardics and Mizrachis ones, especially those of recent North African origin. Contrary to East European ones, they were never subject to left-wing ideas, and they were always proud to be concentrated in parasitical, predatory sectors of activity and of having participated in various slave trades. On their own side, Jews have been most of the times White or pro-White racists of the grandest kind. Some say that Talmud-based Orthodox Judaism postulates that only Jews are actual real humans. That is not accurate or rather true by odor only. The traditional (and most widespread among North African Orthodox Jews (whom I know well) position is that most bipeds now peopling Earth not being humans but animals or rather natural-born biological robots in apparent human form, only a minority of those bipeds being descendants of Biblical Adam and deserving the title of human. There had been humanoids for hundreds of centuries before as modern archeology indicates, but humans as such existed only from the date Biblical fundamentalists agree upon to have been the beginning of the Jewish era. That is the way these Jews have always managed to conciliate Biblical literalism and archeological data. Sub-Saharan Blacks are clearly non-humans according to their view – they are not even simian but reptilian by nature, and their erstwhile most cunning leader was none other than the great Tempter of Eve mentioned in Genesis. Not all humans are Jews according to that view, but the first human, Adam, was intended to be a Jew and to breed the rest of humanity as a Jews. Non-Jewish humans, who would spontaneously serve the Jews by their own nature, were to be sired by Jewish lovers of non-human females, hence the fact that having a Jewish mother, not merely a father, makes one a Jew by default (a non-Jew can also desire to be a Jew or have a Jewish soul giving all the powers of a Jew). A Jew is defined as some human having been promised by his creator the reversal of the one big punishment for the Fall which was the loss of the power of human speech to force obedience upon all animals, non-human humanoids, and even inert mineral beings and elements such as wind and clouds as by robots. By obeying the Law in a letter-perfect way, a Jew is supposed to recover the dictatorial power of his word over everybody and everything else. That is the only point for those North Africans in being Jewish. Manifestly obeying the Law doesn’t make most of these Ultra-Orthodox Jews into people capable of granting all their wishes by merely uttering orders to every non-Jew and non-human being around. Many nevertheless try as if the thing were just normal. Don’t be surprised when so many of them speak to you as if you were their butler. They conclude that something is missing in their obedience to the Law that is the aspect of the Law for initiates only, that deals with magic: the Kabbalah. North-African Jews believe in Judaism as being ideally the supreme form of witchcraft – their thing is not a religion in the common sense. The North African Jews believe they are the only true Whites. Adam was the first White who appeared; other humanoids were coloured of various hues. The ancient Jews were nearly as white as milk, the other peoples of the Earth are White inasmuch as there is a greater percentage of Jewish blood running in their veins, that is to say a greater percentage of Jewish males having originally sired them. The reason why nowadays the best Jews are not so white is of course the partial degeneracy caused by their disobedience and lack of hard work in recuperating their magical powers as described by the Kabbalah. In addition, many North African Jewish groups and tribes are originally converts, not Hebrews, who are growing Whiter and Whiter with the generations passing as they manifest their virtues and powers. People who betray their Jewishness or Whiteness cease to be Jews and Whites, and sometimes their skin darkens pretty fast, as is said was the case with Ham, the father of Ethiopians (not all Blacks – most of them not being human at all), but in general that result is achieved by encouraging those fallen ex-Whites or ex-Jews to breed with darker non-humans. I for one see no incompatibility between Nazi-like antisemitism and Jewish supremacism, they actually strive to promote exactly the same people as they define them and to discriminate against the same people. It is two darshanas, two side-views of a same doctrine, and both fit in marvellously in greater caste-extolling Hinduism.
Most Mexicans are mestizos, but there are large minorities of more or less pure Europeans and Indians. He describes most of the significant White groups in Mexico and puts Whites at ~1
Although most Whites have Spanish roots, there are also significant French, Portuguese, German, Italians and Irish minorities. I met a young woman who is Mexican-American, but she is mostly Portuguese. The village she was born in in Mexico is made up of primarily Portuguese people! There are also quite a few Jews in Mexico.
More or less pure Indians make up ~1
Mestizos make up ~6
There are what he calls 3 occult roots in Mexico: Blacks, Asians and Arabs.
The first root, the Blacks, has its basis in African slaves who were brought to the east coast of Mexico. This affair did not last long as a slave who married a free Mexican had children who were free. So, slavery quickly went out and the Blacks disappeared via mixed breeding as slaves quickly took free, non-Black Mexicans as spouses.
The result was that pure Blacks nearly disappeared and the remainder are mostly mulattos, zambos (Indian-Black) and triracials. In addition, your average Mexican mestizo now is ~4-
The next root is Asians. In the early days, quite a few Filipinos came to Mexico when it was part of Spain via the colony of the Philippines. By this time, they are heavily mixed with other races in Mexico. In the early 20th Century, many Chinese came to Mexico. Unfortunately, most were tossed out in the 1930’s in a wave of nativism, but in Mexico city and Mexicali, there are still quite a few Chinese and part-Chinese, as the Chinese also married heavily into the mix.
The last root is Arabs. Most of these Arabs are Christians from Mesopotamia, the Levant and Egypt. They came in response to anti-Christian attacks waged by the Ottoman Empire at the end of WW1. Since they came from the Ottoman Empire, many Mexicans referred to them as “Turks.” Carlos Slim, Mexico’s richest man, is Lebanese, as is Salma Hayek.
All three of these occult roots each make up ~
There have been various studies of Mexico’s admixture, but they tend to come up with quite different results. I agree with the the author that the best studies show Mexico’s genome to be 5
Most self-identified Mexican Indians have some White in them, in addition to a bit of Black. Percentages range from
The author notes that Mexican-Americans have traditionally been a lot Whiter than Mexicans, because they tend to come from the Whiter regions of Northern Mexico. Southwest Mexicans have usually tested out at 6
A photo on his site of Chicano gangbangers shows that they are mostly White, something we have always known here.
Towards the end he makes up a list of racial categories of Mexicans, following my lead in this piece, even adopting my formulae and marking scheme.
He lists five major races in Mexico – Whites, Indians, Mestizos, Blacks and Asians.
No major disagreement there.
I have been regarded as a mad splitter in my piece above. One critic said that if Lindsay doesn’t stop soon, he’s going to have as many races as there are languages. This criticism, in addition to endless bashing by race deniers, hurt my feelings, as a result, I have made few new updates to my races of man post.
However, the author is much worse of a splitter than I have ever been, splitting off all sorts of groups that I probably would not have split off. Hence, his scheme is better seen as a view towards Mexican ethnies or ethnic groups than races per se. For instance, he divides Mexican mestizos and Mexican Whites into quite a few different races, on what basis I am not sure. Are they ethnies? Quite possibly. Races? Dunno about that.
In my scheme, I actually adopted a conservative scheme in which I tried not to split off new races unless I couldn’t help it. I wanted some significant genetic distance between a group or ethny before I would split them off. Hence, I lumped most Europeans into a single race because there isn’t much genetic distance between them. I am wondering if the author has any genetic data to back up splitting many of these groups into different races, because I only split based on hard genetic data.
At the end, I think we have two different schemes here. One is dividing races based on hard genetics and the other is splitting racers and also ethnies on the basis of partly genetics but also subjective factors. On the other hand, there probably is not much genetic data on the various different Mexican mestizos and Whites.
All in all, a very commendable piece, the fruit of long research. By the way, the photos are excellent. Make sure to check them out.
Repost from the old site. In the comments threads, James Schipper, one our fine commenters who usually has something brilliant to say, opines:
One of the most politically correct countries in the world is Sweden. How many Jews are there in Sweden? The Netherlands also used to be very PC, but its Jewish minority is not even 0.
I don’t think that we should confuse ethnocentricity with racism. An ethnic group is not a race. An ethnic group can be composed of several races and a race can be divided into many ethnic groups. The Brazilians are an ethnic group, but they aren’t one race. Europeans in 1950 were for practical purposes all white, but they were divided in numerous ethnic groups. Nobody in the British Isles, for instance, said: “We are all one ethnic group because we are all white. The French across the Channel are white too, so they are also part of our ethnic group.” It is only in the Americas and the colonies that Whites started to think racially and to confuse race and ethnicity. Remember, if two groups are racially different, they are usually also ethnically different.If that is the case, the ethnic rivalry will also acquire a racial coloration. If the French were black, the ethnic rivalry between the English and French would also have acquired a racial dimension, even though it is ethnic at bottom. It is inevitable that human beings will be ethnocentric to some extent, but it is not inevitable that this ethnocentricity will be expressed racially. If multiracial countries want to acquire cohesion, they should practice racially inclusive ethnocentricity. This is also why race-based rights such as affirmative action should be abolished. They undermine ethnic unity and promote racial solidarity instead of multiracial ethnic solidarity. Down with race and up with ethnicity.
He makes some very interesting comments. Growing up in California in the 1960’s and 1970’s, no one of us ever thought of ourselves as White. We more or less assimilated to a California culture, which, as I think back on it now, was largely a White culture. But I never realized it at the time. White culture was married with California or American culture to the point where one scarcely knew where one ended and the other began. No one even thought of themselves as White, and we had many friends who were non-Whites. I even dated non-Whites, in particular American Indians and Hispanics. The American Indians, NE Asians, Filipinos, Hispanics and Puerto Ricans were for all intents and purposes “White” because they didn’t really behave any differently from anyone else, mostly because they were not recent immigrants and were very well assimilated. Maybe they ate some ethnic food; maybe their parents spoke some of the old tongue. We were all just “Californians” and then “Americans”. I think what made Whites junk this and start seeing themselves as White was the mass immigration that flooded our state. In my city, it becomes obvious to me very quickly that I am a minority. Due to my UK, French and German heritage? No, because I am a “non-Hispanic White”. With a little bit of multiculturalism, national identity is still possible and can transcend ethnic identity. With overnight mass immigration, it becomes harder and harder. Mass immigration also forced many of us Whites to reminisce about the California we grew up in and how and why it is not like that anymore. It also reminds us that what we grew up with, now gone forever, was something of real value. What did we grow up with? Not so much a White California, but a California with a White culture that most others just de facto embraced. The reason it’s gone, and replaced with something inferior, is due to mass immigration transforming this state into Tijuana North. We never thought about Hispanics much before, but now the issue is so shoved in our faces 24-7 that we can scarcely ignore it. When a poor White neighborhood continues to be a better place to live than a poor Hispanic neighborhood, which in turn is a much better place to live than a poor Black neighborhood, it’s hard not to think of “White” as a race. Whatever it is, even if not a race, it’s something tangible and real, with hard reality consequences all the way down the line. James is correct that many ethnic Whites have only recently been taken into the White fold and have started to think of themselves as White, instead of Irish, Portuguese, Italian, Armenian or whatnot. That’s an interesting subject right there. How The Irish Became White is supposed to be a good book on that. Noel Ignatiev, a Harvard professor, is a difficult and disturbing thinker, but this looks like a good book. Anyway, Ignatiev’s position is similar to Schipper’s above. He doesn’t want to get rid of Whites physically. Like Schipper, he just wants to get rid of the whole notion and category of White people, which he says has no meaning. Ignatiev has aroused fury in White nationalist circles due to his publishing a journal called Race Traitor. Ignatiev is Jewish. The reviews at the link are very interesting.
A commenter suggests that Russians are the smartest Whites.
It’s not the case. Russians are not at all the smartest Whites. Here are some recent scores. There is a North-South cline, but it’s not perfect at all. Italian is a very much a Med state, and it’s IQ is very high. France is mostly a Northern state, and it’s IQ is not so hot. Spain is a Med state with a high IQ. Ireland is a Northern state with a lower IQ than the rest.
Notice I title this piece White Europeans, because as a Pan-Aryanist, I not only believe that most all Caucasoids of Europe are White, but I also believe that there are Whites outside of Europe who are just as White as those of Europe.
Denmark 99 (median)
Americans 98 (for comparison purposes)
Czech Republic 98
I don’t have much to say about these scores. If France can produce such a great nation with an IQ of 94, then others with similar scores can do well too. Bulgaria, Romania, Russia, Hungary and the Czech Republic should be able to create some fine modern societies. They are surely smart enough to. These others listed below are certainly intelligent enough to do well for themselves. IQ is certainly not holding them back at any rate.
UK East Indian 96
US Mexican-American (2nd generation) 95
US Filipino 94
Even Serbia has created an excellent modern society with an IQ of only 89. If you go to Belgrade, you would think you are in any modern US or European city. Even the countryside is not really backwards. Its health, education and development figures are excellent. There’s nothing inferior about the place other than their morals. If we take Serbia as the IQ at which one ought to be able to create a fine, modern, European-type society, things get a lot more interesting, and a lot more countries have the brains to do well.
Costa Rica 90
Bosnia and Herzegovina 90
Cook Islands 89
If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.
This is a great comment from an earlier piece I wrote, The Racial Makeup of Hispanics. It has attracted many an idiotic comment, especially from ignorant Hispanics. However, this comment was a nice one. It was written by a Spaniard in response to a stupid comment by a Nordicist claiming that ancient Greece and Rome were Nordic and that Mediterranean types were inferior non-Whites.
Spain a bastardized race? Britain is by far more bastardized.
Tacitus, a Roman historian made a clear description of how the Romans, Greeks, Celts, Germanics and Middle Eastern Scythians were.
First of all, Roman historical documents describe Carthaginian port towns as far as in Ireland. Carthaginian traders were originally from Phoenicia. These documents from around 300 B.C. clearly describe the phenotype differences of the Romans from other Barbaric tribes.
The Roman description of themselves is clearly the same as modern day Spanish person, Roman nose profiles resemble a Spanish nose profile. Romans describe themselves as having pale, easily tanned skin, dark hair and mostly having amber, light brown and more commonly hazel eyes.
The Celts, contrary to common ignorant beliefs, were described in 300 B.C. as having pale skin that could tan, dark hair and to a large degree, blue eyes.
Many Hibernians (Irish), however, were describe as having brown skin and dark eyes. Others as White with dark eyes and large noses. Ireland was then inhabited by a majority of Basques, some Celtic tribes and many Carthaginian traders.
The Germanic tribes were described as tall, blond and and light blue eyed, and reddish white skin.
Scythians originated in what today is Kazakhstan and were describe by Tacitus as tall, grey eyed and red haired.
These historical descriptions explain why Italians, Spaniards, Southern French, Portuguese, and to some degree Romanians look alike. Romans were never a Nordic race, nor did they ever have blue eyes. The Mediterranean people are not a result of a bastardized race.
The Roman Empire extended its influence to Britain, and many Roman Nobles moved in what is today known as Wales. As an obvious result, a great
Greeks thought that blue eyes were a sign of cowardice and uncivilized people.
Romans viewed Celtic, Germanic and other tribes, except Greeks, as inferior to them. Before the Roman conquest, technologically and culturally speaking, they were right; they possessed a poor writing system, did not have massive constructions and lacked a truly organized state. Germanic tribesmen rarely possessed any metal armor and fought naked. For Romans, Celtic or Nordic features were barbaric.
Ignorant people think mestizo people look like Indians or Arabs. I’ve been to Mexico and have some friends who are blond, blue eyed and both their parents look Indian; some others have green, hazel and grey eyes with white reddish skin, and some are even red haired with swarthy parents.
I’ve seen mixed people in Sweden (a great
Ignorant people think mixed races among European and non-European have to look non-White, which is really stupid.
Hungarians are also a mixed of Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, Magyar and Mongols. Many Russians absorbed Sami, Ugric and Mongoloid people for centuries. And Jews have also been mixing for almost a thousand years with some Europeans. If Jewish people hadn’t preserved their religion, they would be considered European. In Germany many blond Nordic looking folks were accepted in the Army even when their parents were Jewish.
The final point is that when mestizo populations are constantly absorbed by another group, over the centuries they become part of the culture that absorbed them. That is also the main reason why our languages constantly change; all Germanic languages used to be one but got mixed and changed. Same with Romance, Slavic and probably every single language in the world.
Some very nice comments here. First of all, my prejudices. I regard Nordicists as splitters who are trying to divide out great White race. Further, I like Med Whites a lot, and I surely consider at least all of the Meds in Europe as fully, 10
This comment makes clear that Meds and Spaniards are not some bastardized race, instead, they are simply the Meds, an ancient White people who are the direct ancestors of some of the greatest Whites that ever lived, the Romans and the Greeks.
Furthermore, the commenter notes that the British are quite mixed, with many Med types and Med features, especially among the Welsh. There is substantial Phoenician and Semitic (Middle Eastern Arab) blood in both the Irish and the British. Going back 2,300 years, the Irish were a dark haired and dark eyed people with heavy inputs from the dark Basques and Phoenicians and Celts.
Even the Celts, romanticized as uber-Nordics, are proven here to be have been dark haired with skin that tanned easily. They were very different from the Germanic types. Further, it is important to note a huge Celtic component in the Spaniards and Portuguese, especially in the north of Spain, in Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria, the Basque Country, Argaon and Catalonia. There is substantial Celtic input in northern Portugal in the Lusitania region.
Celts are considered to be uber-Nordics, but the Spaniards are heavily Celtic, so are the Spaniards Nordics or what? The whole Nord vs. Med debate starts to get absurd because there has been so much Nordic-Med mixing over the millenia.
I laughed when I read that the ancient Greeks and Romans thought that Germanic Nordic types and features were inferior and barbarian phenotypes and peoples. How the world has changed, but it goes to show that all this crap is pretty subjective and there’s not a lot of “science” going on in the intra-European fights.
Surely the Hungarians are part Asiatic. You can sometimes see it in their eyes. Definitely, Russians are part Asiatic, mostly Siberian, as are Swedes and Finns, who have considerable Sami in them.
And of course Hispanic mestizos look like everything under the sun. One or both parents can be quite dark and indigenous looking, while one or more of the kids can be quite light, and vice versa. In the Caribbean, it works the same way, but the mix is Black and White. A genetic approach to Whiteness is nonsensical when denying Whiteness to someone who looks and acts White.
Via this excellent, but very long, post at Daily Kos. The post is very long, but you might want to look through it. The liberals there are actually debating what role racism plays in the Teabaggers. It’s not an entirely unreasonable argument.
Honestly, it’s hard to say what role racism plays in the Teabaggers.
Sure, there is a Black Agenda and a White Agenda in the US. The Teabaggers are for the White Agenda and against the Black Agenda. They see this President as a “traitor” President. Not one of us – not an American, not a citizen, a Muslim, get it? Not one of us – he’s not White! However, most Teabaggers are more sophisticated than most White nationalists.
WN’s in general oppose Obama because he is, as they put it, “the latest outrage, a Negro President.” Most WN’s will not accept any Black as President, no matter his politics or agenda.
The Teabaggers in general are much more sophisticated than that. American White racism is subtle and hard to pick up on unless you are used to the code words.
The Teabaggers will use any Black who is anti-Black agenda and pro-White agenda. That is, Black traitors and sell-outs to Whitey are A-OK with most tea partiers. This is why the Teabaggers are so hard to figure out. The Teabaggers will gladly support any Black pol who backs their agenda and supports White America against his people.
So their opposition to Obama is not “based on the fact that he is Black.” He’s a Black who’s working for the Blacks, and in US White America, that’s called working for the enemy .
There is much discussion in the thread about whether or not Teabaggers have it in for poor Whites too. No one knows.
The Right in the US, from the KKK all the way down, always feared that low-income Whites would unite with low-income Blacks on class terms, and they’ve always sought to throw a wedge between that incipient alliance. They succeeded very well.
There is a good argument that Prohibition was a WASP project by WASP’s outraged at the drunkenness and Underclass behavior of “non-Whites” such as the Irish and the Italians. Prohibition was really a White Supremacy project.
When Prohibition ended, it was replaced immediately with marijuana prohibition. This was sold to frightened Whites on the basis that Underclass Mexicans and Blacks were smoking weed, getting horny and screwing White girls or killing White people. Worse, they were corrupting Whites with Underclass Black and Brown values. Marijuana Prohibition was a White Supremacy project.
Under FDR, Whites were adamant that they be allowed to discriminate for WPA jobs. And they did discriminate a lot. FDR tried to stop it by forcing WPA projects in the South to hire both Blacks and Whites, but it was a tough haul.
Notably, Social Security and other social protections were initially denied to farm workers and domestic workers . In the 1930’s, these classes of employees were for the most part Black. The sentiment at the time was the same as now – Whites saying, “I don’t want my tax dollars going to those people.” It was Tea Party 1934.
When Reagan came in, poverty was rewritten to mean “Black.” The phony and nonexistent welfare queen was created. I see this backlash as a reaction against the Civil Rights Liberation of the 1960’s. It was another Reconstruction reactionary backlash, the 2nd or 3rd Reconstruction if you will. Every time Blacks get some rights, there’s a White backlash to withdraw many of the rights newly granted.
There have always been plenty of White poor. Go to West Virginia sometime and look around. But for the last 30 years at least, poverty has been rewritten to mean “Black.” Poor = Black and increasingly Brown. When Teabaggers say that Obama is for the poor and against them, they mean he is for the Blacks and the Browns and against the Whites.
The problem in the US is that racism is all tied up in issues of class. Class and race are mingled in America for so long now that it’s hard to tell where one starts and the other ends. That’s why discussions about whether or not the Teabaggers are racist are ultimately futile. Until you understand the American race-class marriage and the decades-long use of code words for racialized projects, the discussion isn’t going anywhere.