From 1915-1923, a few massacres were committed against the Christians of Anatolia. There were three genocides: an Armenian genocide, an Assyrian genocide, and a Greek genocide.
I just did a significant amount of research on the events and numbers around these events. I did it because Turks on the Internet were claiming that Armenians started the fighting by slaughtering Turks.
There were also posts from Turks talking how if things got bad in Turkey, Armenians and Greeks would start slaughtering Turks. I work in mental health, and this is clear and naked projection. They’re accusing Armenians and Greeks of doing to Turks everything the Turks did to the Armenians and Greeks. Most Turks on the Net absolutely hate Armenians and use the word “Armenian” to mean something like “the worst enemies of the Turkish people ever.”
So I did some basic research on the events. I was especially confused by the Turkish claims that these events started when Armenians in Anatolia started massacring Turks, and Turks were just fighting back. Were they right? Of course I had always believed the Armenian side of the story, but what if they were wrong and the Turks were right? As I am extremely open-minded person (far more open-minded than most people), I had to find out.
First, the numbers. They’re wrong. Way off, all of them. The official figures run from 700,000 to 1.8 million. Simply by adding up all of the totals listed on Wikipedia, I got 2.5 million Armenian victims of the Turks in this period.
Now, I did include some massacres that occurred before the actual genocide because I felt that they were all part of some larger event, a slo-mo Armenian genocide that lasted from 1880-1923. I believe there was a slaughter of 300,000 in the 1880’s amidst similar Turkish recriminations as I outlined above: “The Armenians were killing our people, so we had to fight back.” And possibly another with 25,000 number of victims around 1908. And the killings absolutely extended to into the 1920’s until 1923.
I had previously thought that there were 40,000 Turkish civilians killed by Armenians in retaliation, but now I cannot find that data. What I did find what that Russian Cossaks killed 45,000 Turkish civilians in a Turkish river valley in 1916.
2.5 million Armenian civilians killed by Turks (as aggression).
0? Turkish civilians killed by Armenians (as retaliation).
I also checked on the Turkish claim that Armenians started it. No, they didn’t. Incidentally, it seems like most of the genocide occurred in maybe a couple of years – 1915-1916. The rest of the years were more like window dressing.
The Turks claimed that Armenians killed Turkish soldiers when Russia invaded Turkey in the east in 1914. This is correct. There were quite a few Armenians in that force. These were Armenian volunteer battalions that also included Assyrians and Greeks. They numbered 40,000.
They had been treated terribly by the Ottomans over centuries of land, food, and business theft, beatings, jailings, tortures, murders, pogroms, and massacres. So these were Christians living in Russia who were out for some paybacks due to Ottoman crimes. I had previously thought that Turkish civilians were killed in this battle, but now I can’t find any data.
This was during a battle in late 1914 in which the Turks were beaten badly by a Russian invading force in the East. The Turks blamed the Armenians for their loss in the battle, but the real cause was that the Turks fought the battle very poorly, and the Russians fought it in a much smarter way. It was a fair fight.
The loss of this battle was humiliating for the Turks, and they quickly accused Armenians in Anatolia of stabbing them in the back and causing their defeat.
This is exactly what Hitler said about Jews that set off the Holocaust – that German Jews had stabbed Germany in the back, causing it to lose the war. It wasn’t true and neither was the Turkish claim, but it worked. Turks quickly demonized Armenians and other Christians in Turkey and scapegoated them. Which is once again exactly what the Nazis did to Jews.
The Turks used the paranoia set off by this event to set off the genocide of the Armenians (and Assyrians and Greeks) in Anatolia on the grounds that they were some sort of infidel 5th Column in wartime and hence were dangerous traitors. There’s not a lot of evidence that this was true.
These massacres were committed by the Russian Army, not the Armenians of Turkey, and neither is there evidence that the Armenians sympathized with the invaders. Interestingly, around this time, many Turkish Armenians became patriots and either joined or tried to join the Turkish Army to fight the invaders. This is left out of many accounts.
I also looked into the Greek genocide and got a figure of 715,000, larger than most estimates. Greek retaliation killings were only 15,000, and all occurred years after the initial slaughter of the Greeks.
715,000 Greeks killed by Turks (as aggression).
15,000 Turkish civilians killed by Greeks (in retaliation).
Which number is bigger? Which represents the much larger crime?
I haven’t gotten to the Assyrian genocide yet, figures of which seem to be between the Greek and Armenian numbers.
Polar Bear: Women like the “winners,” from slave owners to invading NS Germans. We can’t un-close those legs. My point is being on top matters to women. This is a universal truth. When White women are invaded or conquered, it’s the same. To the victor go the spoils.
That may be so, PB, but the latest thinking is that for a variety of reasons, there was not a whole lot of slavemaster-slave sex going on, and what was going on was mostly with the house slaves. Even radical antiracist Black ultra-SJW’s are saying this, and if they’re saying it, it’s probably true because they’d be the last people on Earth to say that.
In truth, after the First Liberation (1865), 80% of Blacks were pure Black. No White genes at all. And the latest thinking is that a lot of the White genes that they did have went in during the last 20-30 years prior to the Civil War. You see, around 1830-1840, the plantation owners basically ran out of slaves. The slave trade itself was illegal and had ended ~1810, so they couldn’t import new ones.
What’s a slave owner to do? Simple, hire a bunch of those idle poor White men over there to work in the fields alongside the Blacks. And from 1835-1861, there were many Whites, almost all men, working in the fields alongside Blacks of both sexes.
A lot of these men were not married, and being dirt poor, they were not particularly racist. They got along quite well with the Black slaves. There was probably this attitude of, “Hey, we’re all fucked. We White men are fucked, and these Blacks slaves are fucked. None of us has a thing. Screw it.” There was a considerable amount of interracial sex between White men and Black women during this period.
If you consider that 80% of Blacks had no White in them in 1865, and almost 100% of true US Blacks now have an average of ~25% White in them, it’s quite obvious that there was a Hell of a lot of interracial sex going on from 1865 to the present day.
In fact, Blacks were already heavily Whitened by the Second Liberation in 1964. And this was a period in which Blacks in the South lived under Jim Crow, and even Blacks and West in the north lived under a lot of racial restrictions such as housing covenants, more or less legal if not mandatory discrimination in all sorts of ways, and sundown towns.
We had many sundown towns here in California. There are reportedly still a few sundown towns in the South. They are all-White towns of ~3,000 people in rural Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, etc. Apparently not a whole lot of Blacks are even keen on moving into those towns, so the sundown feature is not challenged.
Considering the extreme oppression that Blacks lived under in the South and to some extent elsewhere, it is quite amazing how much interracial sex went on in the century after the Civil War. And keep in mind that much of this sex was illegal, as miscegenation was against the law in many states.
Getting back to the original question, honestly, those slaves probably saw the slavemaster as more of an oppressor than a winner.
How many Jewish women got with Nazis? How many Palestinian women fuck Jewish men and vice versa? How many Kurdish women screw Turkish men? How many Hutu women got with Tutsi men? How many Carib women got with Columbus’ men? How many German women got with Russian men after 1945? How many Russian women got with German men after 1942?
People don’t dig genocide. They’re not into getting genocided. Sure, women get with conquerors in the modern era if the conquerors are relatively nice, especially if the war ends and the hostilities are all over. Most conquered women don’t get with genocidal killers of the other race.
Yes, a lot of German and Japanese women got with American men after the war, but we were not genocidal against Germans and Japanese. Especially after the war was over, there was not a whole lot of killing going on. There was some in Germany all right, in the camps where we put German POW’s, but those were soldiers, not everyday civilians.
Yes, some Frenchwomen got with Nazis, but the Nazis were not genocidal towards the French.
Indian women got with White men, but we were actually not genocidal towards their people, despite what you read. Most of the Indians died of disease, like at least 95% of them. The number of Indians killed by Whites was something like 7,000 in the whole history of the Indian wars.
Many Indian women in Latin America got with Spanish and Portuguese men, but the Spaniards were typically not genocidal. There was prejudice and discrimination but there was none at first when a lot of the genes went in.
Zamfir: If we say Whites are basically people derived from indigenous European populations, or the Euro branch of the Caucasian race, then lots of Southern Italians are borderline cases. Same for many Jews, possibly Berbers, etc.
A few things.
Spaniards and Portuguese are very White. The most Southern Portuguese are 4-5% Black. That doesn’t count.
Sicilians are ~5% Black. That doesn’t count either.
White Berbers are very White.
Jews are some of the purest Whites of them all.
My position is that Arabs are Whites.
Everyone in Turkey, the Caucasus and most of European Russia is White.
All native Europeans including Samis are White.
Iranians, Afghans, Pakistanis, and Northern Indians are more or less White people.
Many Latin Americans are White. Latin Americans up to ~25% White are considered White in Latin America. The rest are mulattoes, mestizos or zambos, or maybe people more properly called mixed race people of some type.
White-non-White mixes too mixed to Be Considered Whites, Maybe Best Called Part-Whites
Some Arabs and Berbers might have so much Black in them that we can’t call them White anymore. It’s hard to call Prince Bandar a White man. Neither are Southern Egyptians or the Blacker Berbers White.
A lot of Indians have so much South Indian in them that they are not really White anymore.
Many people in Eastern India and Nepal are too Asiatic to be called White. Quite a few are pure East Asians.
The peoples of the Stans, Siberia, and East Turkestan are properly seen as mixed race people, but some are White enough to be seen as Whites. Some people of the Urals are also too mixed to be White.
A lot of these people are more properly seen as mixed race people. Many are Asiatic-White mixes who might be more properly called Eurasians as a mix of Europoids and East Asians.
Many Indians are a different mix altogether, more of a White-Australoid mix for which there is no racial name.
Obviously many Black-White mixes are more properly seen as some form of mulatto.
Many White-Indian mixes in Latin America are best seen as mestizos.
With a lot of these folks, it boils down to more of a case by case basis to determine whether a given Kazakh, Saudi, Mari, Yemeni, Moroccan, Egyptian, Uighur, Egyptian or certainly Latin American is White or is too mixed to be considered properly White. Generally most people with up to 20% Black in them look and act White enough to be considered White. This is probably true for Asian mix. Once you start getting over 20%, things get a lot dicier.
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%.
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 separateadditional 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.
Pretty much all Ukie nationalists are Nazis. It is simply a National Socialist movement. What is odd is that some of these Nazis are Jews! The presence of Jews is odd but not extremely unusual. I have always said that Israel was a National Socialist country. National Socialism can unfold in any country. Anyone is susceptible to it, and National Socialism need not be anti-Semitic though it often is. As we can see, in Israel we have a wildly philosemitic National Socialist movement. In the place of the Jews are the Arabs. More than an anti-Semitic movement, this Ukie nationalism is more of an anti-Russian National Socialist movement, with the Russians substituted for Jews.
There are indeed some liberal-Leftists in Ukraine, but their failure has been profound. They are not necessarily Nazis themselves, but they are also extremely Russophobic, and they support the Nazis by not criticizing them. They support them with their silence. The Trotskyite sectarians, of course, refuse to discuss Ukrainian Nazism at all, and instead focus all of their rage on their favorite enemy – the “Stalinists.”
The Libertarian-anarchist grouping has not been much better. Many marched in the Nazi Euromaidan protests, and a number of anarchists have even joined overtly Nazi battalions like the Azov Battalion to fight in the Donbass. Many Libertarians have lent strong support to the new Nazi government.
This represents a scene we see all to often – the utter collapse of the Left in the face of an extremely popular ultranationalist movement in their land. This is truly pitiful. The Ukrainian Left have a lot to be ashamed of. I will exempt the Communist Party of the Ukraine from my criticism. They have suffered greatly during this war, many comrades have been killed, arrested, beaten or tortured. Party headquarters have been burned down and otherwise destroyed. The party itself has recently been outlawed. Of course this shows the regime’s true colors. The first thing fascist movements do when they take power is attack and outlaw the CP. History has proven this well.
Just like their Nazi forefathers, the Ukie Nazis are engaging in the Lebensraum strategy. We have long theorized that the Nazis were ethnically cleansing the cities of Novorussia. Now we have solid proof.
A Novorussian man returned to Slavyansk after being lied to be the Nazi government who said that it was safe to go home and 60% of residents had gone home. He was shocked at what he found. Most places were abandoned. He reclaimed his apartment, but he soon noticed that he did not recognize a lot of his neighbors. He asked a neighbor to identify himself and the man said he was a relative of the man who lived there (he gave the name of the family who lived there).
Soon the man noticed that there were strange people everywhere, all claiming to be relatives of certain named persons who had resided in the city. The new people spoke in an odd dialect which he soon realized was pure Ukrainian. They could not speak Russian very well. When they tried to speak Russian, they spoke it with a heavy West Ukrainian accent.
The city was now filled with new residents from Western Ukraine – settlers who were colonizing the land. The Nazis drove out the natives by killing them or making them flee, and then the Nazis moved in their Nazi civilians to settle the land which is apparently the lebensraum for the Western Ukrainian people.
This is also similar to classical settler-colonialism practiced by many peoples, most notoriously and publicly by the Israelis. Note the similarities to what the Nazis are doing in the Ukraine with what the Israelis do. The Israelis:
Invade Arab land with an army.
Force the Arabs to flee by killing them, terrorizing them or driving them out.
Steal the Arabs’ land.
Settle Arab land with Jewish colonists.
The Ukie Nazis:
Invade Russian land with an army
Force the Russians to flee by killing them, terrorizing them or driving them out.
Steal the Russians’ land.
Settle stolen Russian land with Ukrainian colonists in the name of lebensraum.
My name is Egor Prosvirnin, I am the chief editor of the Russian site sputnikipogrom.com which advocates European values. I’ve heard that one of the aspects of life that Europeans and Germans especially cherish is history. If we were to recall recent history, we would remember that a vast army of 300,000 Soviet troops along with 5,000 tanks, 1,500 aircraft and 10,000 artillery pieces (including tactical nuclear weapons) simply left the then just-united Germany without firing a shot.
It was an operation unprecedented in scope and brevity, when the entire Soviet army withdrew literally to open fields. Tens of thousands of Soviet officers, obeying the orders of the supreme command, went from their warm barracks to live in moldy tents set up in the middle of sodden snow-covered fields. In many instances along with their families.
For hope. Hope that the dark pages of history between our two countries were finally and forever past. Hope that we no longer have to keep armies of tanks in the center of Europe, and that Europe would respect and consider our interests. Hope that in a united Germany we would have a good friend and ally, with whom Russia would fulfill the dream of Charles de Gaulle of a united Europe stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok.
When our armies were leaving Germany, our soldiers were told that Germany had recognized and redeemed its mistakes of the past, there were no undecided issues with Germany, and that we would no longer hear German voices calling for retribution against Russia, therefore we did not need our Army of tanks positioned in the middle of Europe.
From that moment, Russians and Germans were friends, and friends have no need for vast armadas of armor and tanks. Russians should cease being afraid of a united Germany and disarm.
And we disarmed. And for 20 years we felt that we did the right thing, that the past is forgotten forever, and that the Germans appreciated how readily we closed all the bases and brought all the troops home (although there are American bases in Germany to date).
In good times our friends know us; in troubled times we come to know our friends; and troubled times did come via the Ukrainian crisis. It became clear that the Germans do not remember the good. It turned out that the Germans did not learn the lessons of history, it seems that the Germans viewed the voluntary dismantling and withdrawal of our war machine not as humanism and goodwill, but weakness.
It turns out that when the Americans spoke loudly and sharply with the German chancellor, whom they for all these years have kept under surveillance like some sticky-fingered housemaid, the entire German society leaped up like a submissive dog running obediently to its American master…. even when the conflict with Russia goes against German economic and political interests.
It seems therefore that if one blunts their sword, removes their armor, ceases the Soviet-era preparations for World War III, and is reaching out to the Germans, the Germans will spit in your extended hand at the first opportunity.
It turns out that Russians are yet again “Untermensch”, who can be savaged with impunity on the pages of the German press and punitive sanctions demanded from the rostrum of the Bundestag, while disallowing an opportunity for Russia to openly and equitably argue its case.
It turns out, however, that the Ukrainian government can without any liability prohibit the Russian language, jail Russian activists, target residential neighborhoods with volleys of artillery, kill thousands of civilians who happen to be mostly Russian – and that’s OK. It is OK because it’s a “democracy”, and it suits Germany because Russians are “Untermensch”, because Russians are Jews whose blood for Germans is worth nothing.
And what’s more, for trying to defend themselves, for attempting to return fire against the Ukrainian armed forces, Russians should be punished, publicly harassed, their will to resist broken, and then forced into an international Russian ghetto.
Then burn that ghetto, as the Trade Unions building in Odessa was burned with 49 pro-Russian protesters inside. Do you know how the Ukrainian social networks responded to this holocaust? By referring to the dead as “Colorado Shishkebabs”(*) – this is what tens of thousands of people in the Ukrainian social networks wrote, including indecent sayings copied into photos of the charred bodies.
We are again the subhumans, we are again nothing but animals that Ukrainian Nazis may kill with impunity, creating a “Russian-frei Ukraina”.
According to the data collected by Human Rights Watch, only during this past July the Ukrainians killed one thousand one hundred fifty peaceful Russians in the eastern part of the country, and these killings continue daily. Where are your protests, Germany? Where are your sanctions against Ukraine? Where is your vaunted humanism that you profess to have learned since 1945 by recognizing the errors from your past?
Saur-Mogila, which is located on strategic heights and is a memorial to Russian soldiers who died there 70 years ago during a fierce battle with the Wehrmacht, has once again been stormed. This time by the Ukrainian battalion “Azov” wearing their Wolfsangel patches, a symbol of the 2nd, 4th and 34th SS divisions, and you are silent!
Russian militia are ducking behind the granite statues of Soviet soldiers from neo-Nazi bullets fired by “the National Guard” of Ukraine, and you dare to agree with the American nonsense about “Russian aggression”! Ukrainians shoot cities with ballistic missiles, leaving craters in places homes once stood, and you impose sanctions not against Ukraine but against Russia!
Again, troops are killing unarmed Russian civilians, and you are debating whether it is time to start delivering weapons to these murderers so that they can kill more Russians? All of your vaunted “politics of memory” and “learning from the past” is simply a pile of dog shit, as again before your eyes unarmed civilians are butchered, and you applaud this and promise these Ukrainian murderers fresh financing.
You have not learned humanism, you Germans. You have not learned responsibility. You have not learned to resist Evil and tell that Evil clearly to its face, “No, you are the killer, I will not help you, you must stop the killing immediately.” You have not learned to be a responsible, independent, free people, who are capable of giving good in return for good.
You are slaves who think good is a weakness.
In 1934, Hitler drove you like sheep, and in 2014 Obama is your shepherd. If tomorrow in Germany, the Americans open a concentration camp for Russians, half of you will immediately submit their curriculum vitae for jobs as operators of the gas chambers, and your press will start to explain how this camp is patriotic and good for the German economy. It would then follow that killing these Russian “Untermensch”, crafting lampshades out of their skin for daring to resist, and sending this nicely packaged to Washington to please your American ally.
Germans have failed their test. When Evil has returned again to Europe, you do not even attempt to resist it, and immediately fall prostrate at its feet like a slave after the eagerly-awaited, long delayed return of your master. Serve Evil, impose sanctions, support the murder of Russians, supply weapons to the killers of Russians, justify this genocide – the end of your story will be familiar, because Evil cannot win.
I will conclude this text with a popular quote from the famous American stateswoman Ms. Victoria Nuland, who obviously makes the decisions in Ukraine instead of your Chancellor:
“Fuck the EU”.
Like it or not, but admit that the Americans are a smart people capable of accurately determining the “price” of a united Germany and a united Europe.
Look at the map above. Much of the mostly-Russian speaking area is in rebellion. Lugansk and Donetsk Oblasts are at the far right. Those along with Kharkiv and Zaporozhye Oblasts, also have significant populations that not only speak Russian but are actually ethnically Russian. Lugansk and Donetsk are in open revolt, and in the past week, guerrilla actions have spread to Kharkiv, where sabotage has been going on for some time. Just now guerrilla activities are being reported in Zaporozhye, the furthest to the south and west of the four yellow-brown striped regions. Between Zaporozhye and Crimea, which is mostly in brown is Kherson Oblast, where guerrilla activities have also begun this week.
To the far southwest is Transcarpathia, in red stripes with green on the border. The red stripes are Rusyns, who have gotten sick and tired of this new Ukrainian ethnostate. I also understand that there is a lot of unrest by Hungarians in Transcarpathia (in green). Slovaks in that state (not shown, but presumably next to Slovakia to the northwest of Transcarpathia, are also quite unhappy.
Although the region declared its independence around the same time that Donetsk and Lugansk did, about half of the regions in Transcarpathia are now in open armed rebellion. Checkpoints have been set up all over these rebellious regions and gunmen guard them, only letting people they know come through. Today, Ukrainian troops have been ordered into Transcarpathia to deal with the armed revolt there. What will happen? Will there be another region embroiled in civil war as in the east?
You can see that Odessa is also majority Russian-speaking. This of course is the scene of the Nazi massacre of a large number of unarmed pro-federalist protestors in the Labor Ministry of the capital city. Conceivably, armed actions could also spread to Odessa. There are also Romanians, Moldovans and Bulgarians in this part of the Ukraine. There was a recent video out of the Romanian part of Bukovina (the area in red in the southwest with grey creeping up into the red). They were very unhappy about their sons being drafted to fight in the East. Many were burning their family draft call-up papers.
However, guerrilla activities have not yet spread to Odessa and Bukovina.
To the west of Odessa is a region called Transdniestria, on the far east of Moldova. The Russian majority here has been in armed rebellion since 1991 when they ceded away from Moldova. There is a significant Russian force there, and the region has its own significant militia along with quite a bit of military hardware. There are calls by the same idiots who started this mess for Moldova to go in with its military and reconquer this rebellious area.
Lets face it, those Russian separatists are probably a lot more Nazi sympathetic than those Ukrainians. Ukrainians are just USA-EU puppets not Nazis. Most of those Russian separatist leaders have Nazi connections.
I don’t believe it, sorry. Those are our pet Nazis. We have pet Nazis, pet fascists and pet Al Qaedas that we unleash on our enemies. These are some of our Nazi proxies.
The Russian separatists are simply those Ukrainian ethnic Russians who live in the Donbass. That’s all they are. The Russians in the Donbass do not have any Nazi connections at all.
Although I would say that the Ukrainians are fascists, not necessarily Nazi-type fascists. For instance, there is evidence that some of them might be pro-Jewish. One of the leaders of the junta is Jewish and supposedly 37% of the oligarchs in Ukraine are Jewish. A man named Kolomoisky from Dnepropetrovsk is a Jewish oligarch who has given speeches talking about the need to kill all of the Novorussians. He has his own militia that is a very fascist-like group of people. The behavior of the regime people resembles fascism to a great deal.
They are Russiaphobic fascists. But they main hero is a guy named Bandera, who was a Nazi. In WW2, the ancestors of the people in the East fought the Nazis and the ancestors of the people in the West sided with the Nazis and worked alongside them. Both sides are unrepentant about this behavior to this day. One of the main reason the Donbass took up arms against the Ukies was because they thought they were Nazis. Their ancestors had fought to the death against these people and many had died fighting them, so they are not pro-Nazi at all.
The Jews in the West tend to be fascist-like and support the regime. The Jews in the East tend to support the separatists. The Russian Jews tend to support the Novorussians. They think the Ukie regime are Nazis, and this worries them a lot. Israel is sitting out the war more or less. Rightwing Israelis and the Israeli mass media are with the fascists, as is all the West.
In the Ukrainian conflict pitting the Nazi Ukrainian regime against Novorussian antifa separatist self-defense forces in the East, all of the West is has lined up with the Nazis, oddly enough. This is really a re-run of the times right after WW2, when much of the West supported the Banderist Ukrainian nationalist Nazis fighting the USSR in the Ukraine. The Nazi nationalist forest fighters of the Baltic states such as Latvia and Estonia also received a lot of Western support, as did the rightwing death squad regime in Greece.
It didn’t take long after the Nazis were defeated that the West rallied with their old Nazi pals. Many Nazis were spirited away from the prison cells that loomed before them to South America and even to the United States. The US helped many of these Nazis escape because the CIA realized that Nazis were some of the most savage anti-Communists of all, and the CIA wanted to use these Nazis in order to fight the USSR.
In the early days of Hitler’s regime around 1933, many in the West were quite smitten with Adolf. The Jewish-owned New York Times even ran long articles lauding the Fuhrer for his staunch anti-Communism. This shows that the rich Jews will always side with Capital no matter what form it takes, even when Capital is against the Jewish people. Big Money Jews will choose Mammon over Israel any day of the week and will sell out the tribe for the price of a piece of silver with barely the blink of an eye. The US of course is fanatically pro-Nazi. Opinion polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans are supporting the Nazis in this conflict. Is there a reason for this except that US foreign policy has always supported rightwingers? The UK is also extremely pro-Nazi now. What is the reason for this? Why would the UK be supporting the Nazis in this conflict? The truth here may be that the UK is an “Atlanticist” state. Atlanticism is a political philosophy popular in Western Europe for a while now. Atlanticist European states line up with the US on every foreign policy issue due to some unfracturable alliance. They don’t even think of the morals of the issue at stake – they simply do whatever Uncle Sam does. It’s follow the leader. It is considered to be an unbreakable alliance, and the Atlanticist states simply cannot refuse to do whatever the US does. A case of ideology trumping sense. Spain is very pro-Nazi, but the Spanish ruling class never abandoned fascism, and further they are worried about secessionism in their own land. After the fall of Franco, the fascists never went away. Instead, they slowly folded into the ranks of the Conservative Party which has ruled Spain for more than a few years lately. Although that party is not actively fascist, at the very base of the party is deeply connected to movements with fascist roots. The party is not so much fascist as fascist-allied, and even that is mostly covered up in an ivy of subterfuge.
The Spanish state ran a fascist “anti-terrorism” group that assassinated figures in the Basque guerrilla movement for a number of years. This group operated outside of the military or the police purportedly as another illegal armed group, albeit a rightwing one, even though they were controlled by the security forces. This was for all intents and purposes similar to the CIA’s rightwing death squads of Latin America. Germany is strongly pro-Nazi now. This makes sense in a lot of ways. Merkel is a Christian Democrat, and that is a party with deep fascist roots. At the end of WW2 although a de-Nazification was said to take place, it never really happened. A few Nazis were removed and even tried, but mostly the whole charade was over in a few years.
The reasons are painful. In order to do a true de-Nazification, you would have to had to imprison or sanction almost the entirety of German society. Nearly everyone was guilty at some level.
In East Germany, they did a much better job of this, and although the East German regime ended up being staunchly antifascist, this transformation never happened in the West.
Many former Nazis simply recycled their way into political parties, and the conservative Christian Democrats were the party of choice as the Social Democrats were anathema. The problem was even worse in industry and finance, where sanctions and prison sentences were few, and the German junkers, industrialists and banksters simply cycled their way back into power at the throne of German industry. The West German elite has been heavily former-Nazi for decades now. It’s a dirty little secret, one hardly anyone but Gunter Grass dares talk about. The Netherlands is one of the most pro-Nazi states of all in Europe. I don’t get this, except that the Netherlands is one of the strongest Atlanticist states of them all. The tail on the American dog. They follow American orders. France is taking a less pro-Nazi line than the rest. Most Frenchmen still hate the Vichy Regime, and all forms of Nazism and fascism are seen as repellent and against the moral values of the Republic. Italy seems to be very much pro-Nazi. I am not sure if I get it, but an Italian friend told me that fascism is still popular among the Italian rich, especially in certain cities such as Rome. The young men of the Italian upper class are especially prone to this deviation. My friend said that fascism simply never went away in Italy. Indeed, some suggest that Berlusconi may have fascist ties.
The Strategy of Tension during the Days of Lead in the 1970’s was a terrorist campaign run by fascist gangs who were supported by the Italian state, the military and the rich. These gangs set off bombs all over Italy, focusing especially on places where large numbers of civilians gathered. The state and state-controlled press always blamed the armed Left (which was small but active) for the bombings, but they never carried out even one of them. Every one of these attacks was documented as a false flag attack. The purpose was simply to create chaos and terror so that the people would feel that they had nowhere to turn but to the state to protect them. Then the state put in increasingly authoritarian laws. Norway is coming out very strongly for the Nazis, both the press and the vast majority of the people who are apparently brainwashed. I do not get this one either, but Norway surrendered immediately when attacked by Germany, and they promptly put in an ass-kisser named Quisling whose name has gone down in infamy. At the time though, nobody much minded him. What this less that spirited defense says about the Norwegian people, I am not sure. Australian media is incredibly pro-Nazi. The Australians are part of the Anglosphere which consists of the US, the UK, Canada and Australia. All are now run by fairly rightwing governments. This is considered to be a de facto alliance based on common language and culture originating in the UK. Another case of Ideology Uber Alles.
In Poland, the elite is very much pro-Nazi (Poland and Lithuania are the most pro-Nazi states in Europe) because they have aligned themselves very tightly with US neocons, much to their own detriment. Somehow they think that aligning themselves with the US and with the neocons in particular is the way to the gravy train, but I think they are wrong.
A case of overreaction to their Soviet experience. They hated Communism so much that in reaction, they idiotically moved 180 degrees in the opposite rightwing direction to show how anti-Communist they were. Their hatred for Communism was so great that they lined up with the wildest anti-Communist governments of them all.
However, many of the Polish people are supporting the Novorussian antifas for some reason. This is probably because hatred for Nazism and fascism in general is still probably quite strong among ordinary Poles due to past experience.
Many East European regimes also adopted horrible neoliberal policies once again in an overreaction to Communism. In this case, they chose the most polar opposite economics of all to Communism, which would be neoliberalism/Libertarianism/cowboy capitalism.
Most East European countries who reacted in this stupid way have been seriously damaged. Latvia and Estonia have been nearly destroyed. 1/3 of the labor force of these countries has immigrated due to a financial collapse related to an utterly unregulated financial sector.
After the crash, the neoliberal regimes imposed frightening “austerity” nonsense which did nothing but kick the working people and spit on them while they lay in the gutter. Estonia actually passed laws cutting wages by 1/3. Surely the Estonian rich thought that was a great idea. Social services were eviscerated. It was like 1933 America in Tallinn the past few years. Logically, working people reacted to this extreme abuse by the rich, the capitalists and the political elite of their nations by voting with their feet. Lithuania and Latvia issued pro-Nazi statements, but they had fascist governments when they were independent between world wars, and after independence, both Lithuanian and Latvian nationalism have had deep pro-Nazi roots. The Nazi-installed regimes in the 1940’s are regarded as the pinnacle of Baltic nationalism, and pro-Nazi fighters fought in the forests for years after the War against the USSR which had usurped their lands. Lithuania and Poland are the most pro-Nazi countries in all of Europe. They are absolutely determined to bring the Nazis into NATO. If they succeed, maybe we will have to change the name of it to Nazi Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Upon independence, all statues from the Soviet era were destroyed, Soviet street names were obliterated, and many new monuments were constructed to heroes of the Lithuanian and Latvian nationalist movements of the 1940’s and 1950’s who were deeply pro-Nazi.
Bigoted laws were imposed on the Russian minority in these countries, demanding that they learn to speak Latvian if they wanted to vote or claim benefits. Now a large percentage of the Latvian electorate, the Russian speakers, are disenfranchised and cannot vote in elections. Nevertheless, Latvia is very worried about the Russian minority in their country writhing under the Latvians’ own boot heels. There are rumblings of a secessionist movement among these Russians, but no one knows how serious it is. Austria, Portugal,Sweden, Finland, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Denmark, Slovakia, Ireland, Czech Republic, Romania and New Zealand – Their positions are unknown. Slovakia and Romania might want a bite out of a disintegrating Ukraine themselves. Romanian Bessarabia was annexed to the USSR in the 1940’s by Stalin. Greece, Macedonia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, and Serbia may well be lining up against the Nazis and with the Russian antifas due to a common culture they share with Orthodox Russia. A large contingent of Serbian antifa fighters have gone to Novorussia to fight the Nazis.
I have known this for quite some time now. Many of the Maidan terrorists, particularly the Right Sector Nazis, were trained at a special institute in Poland months before the Maidan riots and the subsequent coup. NATO and the US knew about this and may have been involved in it. This is more evidence that the Maidan riots and the subsequent Nazi coup have been planned for some time.
Poland is a logical source for cooperation with the Ukrainians. Poles hate Russians as much as Ukrainians or Georgians do. This goes back to ancient feuds in this part of the world. There have been Catholic-Orthodox wars on the western border of Russia since the early 1600’s. The Russians see the Western border as the place where the Catholic West keeps trying to attack Russia. The West sees the Catholic nations on Russia’s Western flank as jeopardized by an expansive Russian imperialism.
There were more wars later on. Much of this region then came under the influence of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Germany. Before and during World War 1, there was great deal of fighting between the West and Russia, particularly in the region of Ukraine and Ruthenia. These regions have been home to “anti-Russians” (Catholics who look to the West) and pro-Russians for a long time now. The pro-Russians often call themselves Russians (see the names “Rusyn” and “Ruthenia” – the name “Rusyn” was adopted by a Russianizing group of these people who speak a language closely related to Ukrainian but who hate Ukrainians. Ukrainians say that Ruthenians do not exist and Rusyn is a Ukrainian dialect, not a language. They say that Ruthenia is a part of the Ukraine.
During World War 1, Ukrainians and Ruthenians working with the Austro-Hungarian Empire arrested many “Russianizers” and put them in a camp in Southeastern Europe. This was for all intents and purposes a concentration camp, and conditions were so poor that many of the men sent there died.
Western Ukraine, particularly Galicia and Lvov, have traditionally been part of Poland, Lithuania, Poland-Lithuania, or Austria-Hungary. All of these are Western and Westernizing Catholic entities who look to Rome. Russian Orthodox call these people Papists and hate them. The Catholics in this region tend to hate and fear the Russians whom they regard as the 800 pound gorilla in the room.
This hatred has been going on forever and shows no signs of abating anytime soon. It is from this rancid soil that Zbigniew Brezhinski, who, as a man, an influence and a theory, is really the brains behind the current “Destroy Russia Now” project in the Ukraine. Brezhinski is the hardest of the hardcore Russian-haters. As you might expect, he is a Pole. He is also one of the highest ranking agents of US imperialism and an important theorist of US imperial policy (read his books). Brezhinski’s father was an official in the fascist government that held power in the interwar period in Poland.
In 1918, a virulently anti-Russian ideology was hatched in Poland. This hate and fear driven ideology saw Russia as the main threat to the existence of Poland. The project, a true conspiracy, involved working with minorities in Russia to chop Russia up into as many pieces as possible, thereby delivering the death by a thousand cuts and rendering Russia harmless and impotent.
This same ideology has since been taken up by various Georgian regimes and is the main ideology behind the Ukrainian Nazi government.
As you can see at the link, the former security adviser to the government of Poland was photographed outside of Slaviansk talking to the current Nazi President of the Ukraine.
This man, a virulent Russia-hater, has been trained as an anti-Russia agent by the US government State Department in Israel, Germany, France and the US.
I read that the ancestors of modern day Aboriginal Canadians/Americans still live in parts of Siberia but they are fading away linguistically and culturally due to Russian culture, do you know anything about this? I know that the indigenous people of Russia were all Mongoloid and Siberia was all Mongoloid type people before the Russians came. So how is it that Russia is not causing harm to these cultures?
Russia has a pretty progressive attitude towards these folks. None of them are separatists, so there is not much to worry about. Russia doesn’t settle it with Russians because no Russian wants to go live in Siberia. I suspect they might even let some of these groups separate because I am not sure how much Russia cares about all these frozen wastes.
I just wrote a huge paper on these groups that will appear soon in a new book.
Russia lets all of these groups use their languages as much as they want to. They can study them in schools, or they can even use them as a medium for instruction as long as kids end up fluent in Russian too. They can declare one or more of their languages as official state languages alongside Russian. They can use the language alongside Russian in government and universities. They can have newspapers, magazines, TV and radio in their languages. The USSR supported language rights, and the new Russia has more or less inherited that mindset.
Quite a few of even the small groups related to Amerindians still speak their languages. For instance, the Altai languages are still widely spoken. Children are still being raised as native speakers in some of these languages. However, many are on their way out with most speakers age 40+. Some languages have only elderly speakers and are moribund.
Speakers of these languages often suffer from lack of funds for learning materials in the schools, and their media productions either lack funding or tend to get shut down due to financial issues.
Via the fantastic Vineyard of the Saker blog. He does regular updates on the situation in the Ukraine. This report is 100% factual, and it tells you all you need to know about what is going on over there. Note that the facts are actually 100% contrary to the lying narrative that the US and the West of the West are pushing. It’s the Big Lie.
I think that we can all agree that the situation in the Ukraine is one of total chaos.
Renat Akhmetov, the local oligarch-mobster, had declared that his companies will go on a “warning strike” for 3 hours per day because Akhmetov was angered that the authorities of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) had taken over the control of the railways which resulted in losses for his company.
One of the officials of the DRP reacted to Akhmetov’s threat by declaring that the DRP authorities have begun the process of nationalization of the companies located on the territory of the DRP, in other words, Akhmetov’s holdings.
The military forces of the neo-Nazi junta have begun shelling several cities in the eastern Ukraine destroying several buildings
The military commander of the DRP forces, Igor Strelkov, has made a poignant and blunt appeal for a much bigger mobilization of men, especially officers, in the volunteer forces defending the DRP against the junta’s military.
Ukrainian death-squads have, yet again, kidnapped a team of Russian reporters, this time of the TV station LifeNews, accusing them of being the “information-component” of a terrorist movement.
The Russian government has indicated that the military forces which had been on maneuvers had returned to their bases. NATO denied that.
The Russian military has completed the building a network of pipelines which are now fully supplying Crimea with fresh water.
The leader of the Ukie Nazis, Iarosh, has announced that if he is elected he would launched a guerrilla war in Crimea.
So what is really going on?
I think that while it is premature to make grand conclusions and predictions, we can begin by agreeing on a number of basic facts.
First, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the junta in Kiev is clearly provoking Moscow in every possible way. If one could maybe see some marginal and far-fetched military rationale for the kind of random artillery strikes the Ukies are unleashing on Slavianks, Kramatorsk and other cities, the arrest of the LifeNews news-crew makes no sense at all. They were put on their knees, beat up, held with their faces to the ground – all on video which was then “leaked” to Youtube as if the death squads were provoking the Kremlin with a “what are you gonna do about it?” message/
Second, I believe that the appointment of Biden’s son to the board of directors of the main Ukie energy company whose concessions are all in the eastern Ukraine is also a way of further provoking the Kremlin.
So why would the junta do all this?
First, I think that it is reasonable to accept as an axiom that the freaks in Kiev don’t “decide” anything at all. They just take orders from the USA and execute them. We saw that clearly during Biden’s recent trip to Kiev when he had a meeting with the junta’s “government” which he – Biden – “chaired” sitting at the head of the table (yet another deliberate in-your-face provocation).
Second, the US knows that the eastern Ukraine is lost, and they are absolutely correct. Even if we fully believe what Strelkov says (more about that later), there is no doubt that the vast majority of the folks in the Donbass hate the neo-Nazi freaks in Kiev and that they do not want a common future with the rabid Galicians from the western Ukraine.
So if plan ‘A’ was to seize all of the Ukraine, put a pro-US neo-Nazi and hysterically Russophobic regime in power, and take over Crimea for the US/NATO, plan ‘B’ is simpler: provoke Russia into a military intervention in the eastern Ukraine. While the Russian military could easily take under control all of the Donbass and even all the lands to the Dniepr river as the proverbial hot knife through butter, the political benefits for the Anglo-Zionist Empire would be immense:
1) A new Cold War with Russia justifying the existence of NATO.
2) Cutting-off Russia from the EU market (including energy).
3) Blaming Russia for the Ukie economic collapse.
4) Justifying a major surge in US/EU military budgets to “protect Europe”.
5) Isolating Russia internationally, especially at the UN.
6) Declare Putin a “new Hitler” (what else?) and allocate billions for regime change in Russia.
7) Use the crisis to bring Europe to heel to the Anglo-Zionist “master”
8) Impose Iran-like sanctions on Russia to try to hurt it economically
9) Justify a US/NATO move into western Ukraine and the creation of a new Korean-style demarcation line along the Dniepr with the free and civilized “West” on one side, and the “freedom hating and imperialist dictatorial Russian Asiatic hordes” on the other.
10)Blame the EU economic collapse on the ‘Russian threat’
I would argue that for the Anglo-Zionists plan ‘B’ is almost better than plan ‘A’. For one thing, plan ‘B’ makes it possible to blame Russia for anything and everything conceivable on Russia. We have already seen this tendency in the absolutely ludicrous warning that should the Presidential elections next Sunday in the Ukraine fail – Russia would be sanctioned for it. Next I propose to slap some major sanctions on Russia if there is an earthquake in San Fransisco or if there are riots in Paraguay…
Also, while plan ‘A’ was really a very long shot, plan ‘B’ is already working. Let me give you an example: the Russian media.
For those who cannot follow the Russian media, especially the Russian TV, it is hard to image the degree of openly expressed *rage* at the developments in the Ukraine. Some folks who are naturally inclined to see the “hand of CIA” in everything are even arguing that the “US-controlled” Russian media has been tasked by Langley to stir up Russian public opinion to such a degree as to force Putin to agree to an intervention in the Ukraine.
According to this thesis, if Putin does not order a Russian military intervention, he will face a major crisis and his popularity will crumble under the waves of outrage from the Russian population. This is a neat and elegant theory. It is also wrong (thank God!). The fact is that Putin’s popularity has soared over his handling over the Ukrainian crisis as shown by the screenshot of a recent TV report.
January 2014 – May 2014
Here we are dealing with a huge cultural difference between Russians and western people, especially Anglos: Russians are *very* weary of war. They will accept it and they will even accept to die in a war, but only one in which the moral issue is really clear-cut like during the 2nd Chechen war, 08.08.08 or the Russian intervention in Crimea. In all three of these cases the first and foremost consideration to support or oppose the Russian military intervention was a *moral* one.
While public opinion is gradually shifting towards a support for a Russian military intervention in the Ukraine (most public opinion polls suggest that Russian would back one), the military itself and even the Kremlin are weary of falling into the Anglo-Zionist trap of plan ‘B’.
Emotions are strong, but emotions should not decide of war and peace issues. In the 2nd Chechen war, in 08.08.08 and in Crimea emotions were sky-high, but the decision to use military force was taken on pragmatic, rational and carefully measured reasons, not just an surge of outrage. As I said it many times, when threatened, Russians to not get angry, they concentrate. This is what is happening now.
Coming back to the media, another very interesting phenomenon is taking place: high visibility Russian Jews are clearly in the lead of the movement to take action (though not necessarily a military one) against the Junta. Very well-known Jewish personalities like Vladimir Soloviev, Alexander Gordon, Roman Ratner (current head of the Alia battalion, an Israeli special forces battalion compose of Russian Jews), Avigdor Eskin and many others. While rabid Jew-haters will dismiss this under the usual list of pretexts having to do with Jewish hypocrisy, playing both sides, etc.
I personally believe that this is truly an expression of the loathing that Russian Jews have for Ukrainian neo-Nazis. I would add that it is pretty clear to me that most Russian nationalists also believe in the sincerity of these Jews and welcome them in a struggle against a common enemy. Does that mean that from now on there will be a long and uninterrupted “love fest” between Russian and Jewish patriots?
Most definitely not. The list of outstanding issues of very strong disagreement and even opposition is huge, but this is an interesting “temporary cease-fire” if you want, a typically Russian (and Jewish!) way of keeping priorities straight and agreeing to a temporary tactical alliance against a common foe. Furthermore, there are a lot of Russian Jews who have always felt a sincere and strong love for Russia and the Russian people (if only because a lot of them came from mixed marriages) and who welcome the opportunity to not have to chose between both sides and to be both patriotic Jews and patriotic Russians.
I know, to some this sill sound extremely naive. But I personally have known many such Russian Jews, in Israel, Europe and Russia, who really did have a double-loyalty, but one which openly *added* two sincerely loyalties. Of course, some felt more Jewish than Russian, but others felt more Russian than Jewish. These matters are subtle and complex, not as black and white as some knee-jerk Jew-haters would want them to be. As the Russian expressions goes “the East is a subtle realm” and both Russians and Jews are first and foremost folks of the East, not of the West.
Coming back to what I call the Anglo-Zionist plan ‘B’, we now can understand the Russian stance: not to be pulled in or, if that is impossible, to be pulled in as last as possible. Why? For a few basic reasons:
1) To have as clear-cut a moral case as possible.
2) To give time to world public opinion to realize that it is being lied to by the western corporate media (that already seems to be taking place, if slowly).
3) To maximize the support for such an intervention in the eastern Ukraine.
4) Because time is very much on the Russian side, to give every opportunity to the junta freaks to further commit blunders.
5) Because a victory of the DRP forces is still possible
At this point I want to get the the military balance on the ground in the Donbass. To sum things up.
A very large Ukrainian force is currently deployed in the eastern Ukraine. It is opposed by a very small force of volunteers. There are two reasons why this conflict has not been settled in 24 hours. First, the vast majority of the Ukrainian military personnel does not want to fight. Second, the threat of a Russian military intervention is real and, I would add, has nothing to do with the forces allegedly deployed at the Russian-Ukrainian border. Let me explain this as the corporate media is completely missing this. Let me give you an example of what could happen.
Let’s us assume that a few multiple-rocket launcher batteries around, say, Slaviansk suddenly decided to get serious and open up with a sustained artillery barrage similar to the one the Georgians unleashed on Tskhinval in the first hours of the 08.08.08 war. In response to that, Russia would not need to send armor and troops across the border. Putin could order missile and air-strikes which could literally obliterate the offending Ukrainian artillery units in a matter of *minutes* (one single Iskander missile armed with a fragmentation or fuel-air explosive warhead could do the job!).
Unlike the western reporters (which is a misnomer, they should be called “parroters” because they parrot the government lies), the Ukrainian military commanders all fully realize that they are all very much within reach of enough Russian firepower to send them all the a better world in minutes. Would you want to obey orders to shell Slaviansk while knowing that there is a bulls-eye painted on our exact position by many Iskander missile operators and that if the Russians fire it, you will neither see, nor hear it coming (not even on radar)?
All the reports on the ground concur to say that while the various Ukrainian death squads (the “National Guard”, the Dniepr and Dniester battalions, the various oligarch-owned death squads, etc.) are extremely hostile and even shoot civilians for fun, the Ukrainian military is mostly shy or even pretty friendly to the locals. Here is what is happening really:
Ukrainian death squads are far more busy dealing with the Ukrainian military than with the Donbass forces. For one thing, this is easier and safer for them (like all death squads, they are staffed with lunatics, perverts and cowards): why risk your life fighting some pretty motivated folks when you can instead bully regular military commanders to do the fighting for you? As for the Ukrainians, they cannot openly defy these orders, but they can make darn sure that they are minimally executed.
Furthermore, by all accounts, the death squads get all the support while the regular military forces are under or not paid at all, they are under fed, under equipped, they have little or not medical support and the logistics are plain horrible.
In fact, Igor Strelkov admits this in his address. His concern is that with the gradual escalation the already small forces of volunteers is having to shoulder am immense effort while hundred of thousands of men, including military trained ones, are sitting at home and sipping beer. Is that really true?
I believe that this is indeed very true. There are many reasons for this state of affairs.
To begin, an entire generation of Ukrainians have been raised in abject passivity. “Work, shut up and mind your business while we fleece you” was the order of the day under the various oligarch-controlled regimes of the “independent Ukraine”. Second, there are not one or two but at least THREE local powers in the Donbass right now: the local mobsters, the Kiev junta and the local resistance. This creates a huge confusion were many people are both afraid and do not want to get burned. Third, most people clearly that Russia will solve the problem for them and think “we will vote for sovereignty, and the Russians will come to liberate us sooner or later”.
And never forget that that there are death squads operating all over the Ukraine right now. The purpose of massacres like the one in Odessa or Mariupol is to terrify the locals by showing how ruthless and murderous you are and it works (death squads are of the most time honored traditions of the Empire!). So it is all well to sit in the safety of my house in sunny Florida and wish that the folks in the Donbass would take up arms, except for my wife and family are not threatened. My house will (probably) not get assaulted at night by man in black, and I am unlikely to be disappeared, tortured and murdered. This also applies to most of the readers of this blog.
Of course, Strelkov clearly sees where all this is heading (escalation) and he is concerned that the currently small resistance will not be able to cope with a constantly growing junta escalation: it all began with baseball bats, the they switched to Molotov cocktails, then handguns, assault-rifles and machine guns. Now they have already used mortar and artillery fire. We have confirmed reports of helicopter-fired unguided missile attacks and this morning I got a report of a Sukhoi attack. Add to this oligarch-paid death squads and you clearly will see what has Strelkov so worried and, let’s face it, disgusted with the passivity of the locals.
But keep in mind that even if his appeal is not heeded, and even if the key cities are re-taken, the Donbass is already lost. In fact, the latest report out of Kiev says the Ukie rump-Rada has adopted a memorandum stating that “Ukrainian troops deployed in the country’s east should immediately return to their bases”. Now, I am not holding my breath (Uncle Sam will never agree), but who knows what might happen (maybe the Germans are getting involved now?). I believe that nobody really knows.
There are simply too many variables to confidently state that this or that will happen. Heck, we are not even sure of what has already happened! This is an extremely chaotic situation in which most unpredictable things could happen (for example, an oligarch could e bought by Moscow or a resistance figure could be bought by the USA – it really could go either way). The fact is that with the notable exception of true believers (on both sides), the vast majority of Ukrainians are still in the “what is in it for me?” mode.
Again, this is in no way different form the position of most Russians in 1917, 1991 or 1993. While this kind of apparent passivity has nothing to do with some “lack of democratic culture in the past of these societies which only recently were feudal” and all the rest of the garden variety western racism supremacist, it is a direct result of a profound alienation with, and suspicion of, the elites. These folks just so Yanukovich hand power to neo-Nazis and run abroad! They have been burned over and over again. And, this is crucial, there is no Ukrainian Putin to follow.
When Putin came to power in Russia it took less than a month for the armed forces to feel that “this guy has got our backs”. It took the rest of the population a little longer, but now the vast majority of Russians actually trust Putin. Whom should they trust in the Ukraine or even in the Donbass. Figure which appeared just a few weeks ago and which nobody really knows or figures which are known for decades for being thief, crooks and pathological liars?
Whom would you trust if you were living in Donetsk or Lugansk?
Would you risk your life and the life of your family on such a choice?
So while I understand the frustration of Strelkov (and most of us!) with seeing a territory with millions of people defended by only a few hundred courageous men, and while I also catch myself getting enraged in discussed with the news out of the Ukraine and day-dreaming about Polite Armed Men in Green obliterating the Ukie death-squads, I also understand why this has been and will continue to be a slow process: it is simply too fluid and too rapidly shifting to take any premature or rash decisions.
The Anglo-Zionists are desperately trying to trigger an over Russian intervention, and there is a pretty good chance that they might succeed, no doubt, but the good news is that time is running out fast, very fast, soon the economic crisis is going to start really biting and the unrest will spread far beyond the Donbass.
As for the Presidential elections next Sunday, they are going to be such a mega-farce that it serve no other purpose than to maybe give NATO a justification to move forces into the western Ukraine at the “request” of the new President. Will the West recognize this election? You betcha it will! As Vladimir Soloviev put it on Sunday, “even if there will be only one candidate and one person voting, the West will call these elections free and fair“.
But for the people of the Ukraine this will be a self-evident farce which will only alienate them further, including the neo-Nazis. In fact, Yulia Timoshenko (who, by the way, seems to have gone completely insane) has even declared that if the billionaire oligarch Poroshenko is elected (as all polls seem to suggest) she will launch yet another revolution with Maidan and all.
Following the example of the Ukraine, not it is “Banderastan” which is committing national suicide and that entire house of cards will be coming down soon (unless a last minute effort by Germany helps delay or stop this, but I am not holding my breath). We all need to show some patience now.
Sorry for the very long SITREP, but I have to cover a lot of ground.
Many thanks and kind regards,
This is a truly ridiculous video. A man is dressed in women’s underwear and pantyhose in a square in Russia. Another man comes up to him and apparently insults him. The wussy boy gets up and thrashes the macho man! Trannies FTW!
mott69: Everyone in this discussion should agree that all blonde or red hair and blue eyes originates from Norse/Viking blood in the past. So, a lot of Russians, Slavs, Baltics and others have at least some Nordic blood, but not enough to change their racial sub-category.
Wade in MO: I don’t agree. Do you have any proof? How do you know that it didn’t evolve in non-Nordic regions like Finland and North western Russia? Do blonde aborigines have viking blood? Also, how do you know that blonde hair developed after the region became Germanic? Are you saying that the pre-indo European population was not blonde? Also, non northern Europeans have been know tho have red hair. I remember reading an ancient Greek account of the Scythians that said that they typically had red hair.
Actually, red hair comes from Finland 9,000 years ago. From there it spread out to Scandinavia and apparently much of the rest of the world, including Pashtuns, etc.
Yes the Bolshevik coup was a western backed mass Jewish bloodletting given the overwhelming evidence which even Jews themselves admitted at the time.If Stalin had not come to power Trotsky and these other international Jewish white supremacist racists would have significantly eliminate the Russian majority population.
It was under Stalin’s orders that many historical Russian churches and buildings were preserved and off course major infrastructure projects.
How exactly is Solzhenitsyn a fascist or an anti-Semite?
I don’t follow his return to the Old Believers pre-Peter the Great idea but it is a fact the Jews were behind, created and ran the Communist system in Russia and became the new elite and that negative reactions towards Jews in the Russian empire was largely due to their group behavior be it economic, criminal or political.
I have never read Solzhenitsyn putting any racial connotations towards Jews.
Of course Solzhenitsyn is an anti-Semite. All the Russian Right is anti-Semitic because they all say “Communism is Jewish” and they believe in “Judeo-Bolshevism.” The line you repeat above about Bolshevism being a Western backed bloodthirsty Jewish coup against Gentiles in anti-Semitic. Stalin surely did not subscribe to that.
AS is also a fascist. He never met a fascist he did not love. He has particular love for Franco of Spain, AS’ hero. He supported all postwar radical rightwing fascist death squad type regimes also.
He’s also a liar. Russians don’t hate Jews due to “Judeo-Bolshevism.” The anti-Communist Russian Right does, sure, especially Czarists like AS, but those are a minority. Most Russians don’t hate Communism and don’t hate the USSR. Russians are anti-Semites, it’s true, but they’ve always been that way and Communism has nothing to do with it.
Or anywhere else in Russia for that matter? That’s what I want to know. John UK supports the Russian Nationalist Nazis for some unfathomable reason. John UK said many a crazy thing in this comment, but it’s standard Russian nationalist Nazi nonsense:
Wade: Russians have no right to attack Tatars, Buryats, Chechens, etcJohn UK: Funny I thought Moscow and St Petersburg were Russian lands.
Russians don’t have a problem with Tatars only with Central Asian and North Caucasus Muslims who come to Russian regions for work because they have fucked up there own regions are hyper aggressive, extremely violent and openly hostile to ethnic Russians.
Chechens are occupying Russian land that was never an independent country and repeatedly fought on behalf of foreign powers who have expanded there territory the North of Chechnya resulting in ethnic cleansing historically and traditionally Terek Cossack territory.
Saying that Moscow and St Petersburg are Russian lands is like saying that New York City and Chicago are White lands, and no non-Whites can move there. It’s nuts.
This is like people in New York claiming they own the place and no one from California can move there. Anyone can move anywhere they want to in the US. Anyone can move anywhere they want to in Russia. It’s all the same. The Russia for Russians Movement is somewhat insane. I am trying to think of a good analogy, but it would be something like America For Whites Movement.
Of course Chechens are not occupying Russian lands. Chechens were there first. It’s like saying that Comanches and Cherokees are occupying American lands. Doesn’t that sound ridiculous?
It matters not if Caucasians are committing crimes. Suppose Californians committed tons of crime. They moved to other states and still committed lots of crime there. Other states would not be able to stop Californians from moving to South Carolina, Oregon or New York for that reason. Californians can move anywhere they want in the US, Chechens, etc. can move anywhere they want in the US.
A recent comment from a Ukrainian Banderist (Ukrainian nationalist) type exemplifies their anti-Semitism. Their anti-Semitism is particularly vicious, and in fact it looks a lot like Nazism.
This particular variety plays into the standard anti-Semitism of most anti-Semites: opposition to Communism since Communism is a Jewish plot; Communism is a Jewish plot to “exterminate Whites;” 100 million “Russian Christians” were deliberately murdered by Communist Jews; Jews are Khazars, not real Hebrews; the USSR, even as late as 1932, was 100% Jewish-run; Communism was a Jewish plot to steal all the money from Russian Whites and give it to Commie Jews so the Jews could get rich; Jews run the media; Communist Jews continued to run the USSR, even as late as 1946-1986, etc. etc.
Truth is that you will hear almost all US anti-Semites move over to this position at some point in the development of their anti-Semitism, it’s a logical development as one’s anti-Semitism matures and becomes more virulent.
There is a major problem with this anti-Semitic line laid out above: it’s straight up Nazism 100 proof! So, as an anti-Semites’ anti-Semitism grows and matures to full bloom, he tends to go all the way to the ultimate anti-Semitism, Nazism itself. We see this increasingly even in the pro-Palestine movement, which is increasingly adopting the overtly Nazi argument above, and some Arabs are adopting it also.
The Holodomor was a very true event. Here in Chicago, when growing up with immigrant Ukrainian nationals, they all said the same thing: “The Bolshevik Jews from the Kremlin came done and did it!” Why do you think Ukrainians joined the Germans in wiping out communism/Jewish control of the Ukraine?
Why do you think the Ukrainians have resentment toward the Jews? The Holodomor! The Communist/Bolshevik (mostly Khazar Jews) leadership deliberately starved millions of Ukrainian kulaks because they would not submit to collectivization and agricultural wealth transfer to the Jewish communists (and many cases lining their own pockets).
The Ukrainian leaders/politicians were rounded up and shot by the Jewish run NKVD and the rest of the populace starved out of existence. Hunger was so bad that mothers ate unborn fetuses. Mao Tse Dong did this in china in the 50’s, learning from Jewish commissars sent there in the 50’s.
Same events like this happened in African nations; starving African nigs into starvation; deliberately. Some of the graves of murdered Ukrainian nationals and leaders discovered years later during and after WW2 were blamed on the “Nazis’ by the Jewish run media (shit like Katyn forest lie hyped by the Jews saying “Nazis did it!”). We know now the Jews controlling the media lied (Katyn)to us for 50-60 years.
This Lindsay guy who runs this website is obviously a Jew who is protecting his tribes’ crimes during that era. He is a “Holodomor Denier!” His facts in Holodomor denial supporting sound factual, but many are slanted/ are easily disproven.
Their was no widespread wheat rust in the 30’s, some happened in the early 20’s. Farm animals were killed because of pending stealing/confiscation by the Bolsheviks How many starved? Hard to say because of poor records. 3-7 million. Some estimates as high as 10 million. Remember, Communist Jewry and their tyranny in USSR killed almost 50 million Russians/Christians from 1917-1986.
Almost none of this is true.
It’s true, I suppose, that 1/2 of the livestock in the USSR were killed by the kulaks because they were about to be confiscated or collectivized. But the fact is that the kulaks’ killing 50% of the livestock in the country is one of the things that led to the famine! Horses were used to plow the fields in those days. It’s not true that there was no wheat rust. It’s looking more and more like much of the famine was natural – a wheat rust epidemic.
The epidemic was worst in the Eastern Ukraine and the Cossack Lower Volga region to the east. All of these areas were strong supporters of the USSR. This is also where the famine was worst. The famine was worst in the Ukraine because that is where the harvest failure was worst.
Why did the USSR starve worst of all their supporters in the Eastern Ukraine and the ethnic Russians in the Lower Volga if their intent was solely to kill Ukrainians? Why did they kill so many other Russians, including 1 million in Siberia, if they were only trying to kill Ukrainians? The Holodomor narrative makes no sense at all. The USSR was not run by Jews in 1932. The Jewish era ended in 1927 at the latest. There were a lot of Jews in the NKVD for some reason, but they were not the majority, and by 1936 (before the Great Terror) they were gone. It’s probably true that Stalin executed Ukrainian leaders. Stalin killed 390,000 Ukrainians in dekulakization. If you want to call that a genocide, you are welcome to, but the famine was no genocide. The Holodomor narrative depends on a number of lies. One is that there was a bumper crop in the Ukraine in 1932, but in the midst of the dekulakization campaign, the Soviets confiscated all of it, herded the Ukrainians into internment camps, refused to let them leave, and did not allow them any food, so they starved. None of this is true. The central claim, one of a bumper crop, is false. The harvest completely collapsed in 1932 for a variety of reasons. One was wheat rust, another was the chaos and civil war surrounding the too rapid development of collectivization whereby the old system was ended before the new one was set up yet. Killing 1/2 the farm animals in the country played a role.
Kulaks destroyed a tremendous amount of the crop by setting it on fire in fields and in their own stores, harvesting it and piling it in fields to be destroyed by rain, armed attacks on collective farms where they set fire to fields and grain stores. This was why the USSR confiscated most of the crop – the kulaks were destroying it.
In return, the Ukrainians were given rations, but rations were very tight that year. Few died of actual famine. Instead, most died of disease epidemics often related to poor sanitation and lack of modern medicine to treat the diseases. There was no deliberate withholding of food. Instead, there were tight rations. Ukrainians were not herded into concentration camps. Instead, they were put on collective farms. It is not possible for a mother to eat her unborn fetus. Please explain how this is possible. Mao did not learn his lesson from the Bolsheviks and perpetrate a deliberate famine during the Great Leap. Anyway, not many died. In only one year during the Great Leap was the death rate higher than 1949-prior. That year was 1959, when there were 4.5 million excess. Mao saved and prolonged more lives than anyone in human history.
There have been no deliberate famines in Africa that I am aware of other than during wartime.
Notice that this Ukrainian Nazi also hates Blacks, as he casually calls them nigs. It’s a fact that almost all Nazis, Ukrainians or otherwise, hate Blacks. Black people ought to become more aware of the menace posed by these people.
As far as why Ukrainian nationals in Chicago insist en masse in believing in something that apparently did not occur, I do not know.
Venezuela is certainly not better than much of Latin America. Russia is probably better off now than it was with communism. The Soviet Union killed way more people than recent alcoholism. I see no reason to romanticize the USSR whatsoever; it was infernal. The nuclear meltdown alone may have killed 1 million people.
Actually, Venezuela does look good compared to the rest of the region. More importantly, when Chavez took power, about 80% of the population was in poverty. They’d been that way since independence, and the ruling class had never done jack shit for them despite plenty of oil wealth in recent years. All of the oil wealth was siphoned off by this small elite while the majority festered in horrific shantytowns that lacked even basic services. Chavez has dramatically improved the lives of that 80% who were in poverty in 1992, and that’s why they love him and keep electing him. The economy has also seen explosive growth under Chavez, much higher than under previous regimes.
Venezuela, with the exception of a few tiny islands in the Caribbean, is the wealthiest country in Latin America! So Erranter is wrong, Venezuela is indeed better off than the rest of Latin America.
Per Capita Income
Country PCI in US$
Costa Rica 7,000
As you can see, the Venezuelan opposition is totally correct, Hugo Chavez’ socialism has destroyed Venezuela.
Is Russia better off under capitalism? It’s hard to say, because they still have a heavily socialist system, much more socialist than the US. Let’s ask the Russian people. ~1/3 say things were better in the USSR, ~1/3 say things are better now, and ~1/3 say it’s a wash. So Russians don’t agree with Erranter, and they live there.
Should we ask Russians in the US? As with other former and present Communist states, most Russians who moved to the US are reactionaries. Same with Laotians, Vietnamese, Chinese, Cubans, Venezuelans and Nicaraguans. The ones that were happy with the system stayed there. The reactionaries all come to US, the greatest anti-socialist state on Earth. It’s even true with British immigrants to the US. Most British immigrants to the US seem to be hard Tory Thatcherites. The Laborites don’t want to come here. So we get a distortion if we ask immigrants.
The move to capitalism in Russia was planned by monster criminals in the US, Russia and Israel, a very high percentage of them Jewish. Many were neoliberal Milton Friedmanites out of US universities. The US government was deeply involved.
To sum it up, the wealth of Russia was stripped, the country was robbed blind, and much of the stolen patrimony was shifted out of the country to accounts on Wall Street, in London and in Tel Aviv. To their shame, the Russian Jews were heavily involved in what was for all intents and purposes an act of vengeful war on their Russian countrymen, who they hated.
Russia now has one of the largest concentrations of billionaires on Earth. They run private armies that control local governments and act as their death squad-thug type enforcers, Latin American style.
Putin is for all intents and purposes a fascist.
Racism has exploded, where it barely existed in the USSR. Russia now has the worst White Supremacist gangster problem on Earth. The movement is homicidal and is supported by a majority of the population, police and politicians.
The environment has been devastated as out of control timber operations have ruined vast tracts of land. Animal populations have collapsed as game enforcement laws lapsed, game wardens vanished, and organized crime gangs ransacked wildlife populations, similar to the early days of the US.
A frankly genocidal and fascist war was launched on the Chechen people. Out of a population of 1 million, 200,000, 20% of them, were killed. Not even Stalin launched monstrous hot wars like that against his own people.
Organized crime, via the oligarchs, still runs the Russian state, and the billionaires and other organized crime types run private armies that periodically shoot it out with each other and at anyone who gets too nosy. It’s a Hellhole.
Period Time/Yrs Number
USSR 1921-1953 32 8.1 million* min.
Russia 1991-2006 15 15 million
*Includes the famine of 1932.
No way did Chernobyl kill 1 million people in 20 years, but even if it did, the tolls are still lower than under capitalism. After 1991, life expectancy actually collapsed, whereas it either rose every year or was flat in the USSR.
In the last 20 years or so of the USSR, the system was scarcely killing a soul.
The best you can say is that both systems sucked in their own way, but it’s a really tough case to say that things are better now, and anyway, the system is still pretty socialist, so comparisons are hard to do between the two eras.
Commenters on a recent post are asking about Nazi racial science. The science was actually pretty good in its cynical terms. Nazi race science was subsumed to political aims. It was all about figuring out who was a Jew and who was not. There was earlier, excellent work done by proto-Nazis on European racial types – Nordics, Meds, Dinarics, Norics, Alpines, etc.
Hitler decided that Slavs were a slave race for obscure reasons, possibly because they had allowed themselves to be enslaved by Jews, but also probably dating back in time to the ancient Russian forest people’s habit of melting into the woods and not fighting the enemy and just allowing their cities to be conquered, as in the case of the Scandinavian invasions. This hiding, retreat and secrecy was the secret of their survival, and as such it was adaptive.
The Scandinavians who settled the pre-Rus simply threw up their hands and blew off chasing the secretive Russians into the woods, set up some cities, and taxed the Russians.
Robert, did the Nazis include the Jews in the Med race?
That is a actually a damn good question.
In fact, how did Middle Easterners in general fit into the Nazi view of “race.” Obviously Arabs are Semitic, and I know that Hitler was fermenting the then Shah of Iran’s favor rather aggressively, with the whole “Aryan” angle and all. The Germans and Turks have had close relations going back to the 19th century. Strange bedfellows they have been all this time.
The Nazis declared that the Amir Husseini of Palestine was an “Aryan.” If you read their race science, it’s pretty cynical. They simply do not talk much about the Arabids. The Arabids were against the Jews, so they are racially OK.
The Nazis didn’t even say much about Blacks. The few references we have say that they didn’t think much of them as a race, but they just didn’t talk about it much. In the Nazi years, Blacks were not allowed to marry German women, but in general, they were not killed. The Nazis persecuted them to some extent, but they did not kill them. And yes, there were a few Blacks in Germany. The Nazi attitude was the less said about Blacks, the better.
Hitler also thought that Amerindians were an inferior race, and he liked the way that Whites conquered the Indians and he thought it was a model for racial genocides – the stronger races should conquer the lesser races.
The Nazis felt that the NE Asians were a very highly evolved race. Whether they were better than Nordics, they did not discuss that.
150,000 partial Jews (many half-Jews) served in the Nazi Army, even in the SS. There is an old German saying: “There is a little Jew in every German.” There is a truth to this, and the Nazis were hip to it, so they were cynical. To kill everyone with a trace of Jew would be to exterminate the German people. And, in killing the German Jews, the Nazis were also killing themselves. The German-Jew thing was very much a family affair.
The Nazis just did not dig Jews. They thought they were a degenerate, fucked up, evil race all of their own. They did not tie them in with Meds or Arabids or Armenids or any of that. They just singled them out as Jews, said they were fucked up for whatever reason, and said we’re going to be rid of them. Jews period were just no good.
They did not go after relatives of the Jews (Turks, Armenians, Arabs) at all. In fact, in some cases, they spared Jews who they felt were not racially or culturally Jewish, as in the Caucasus. Though they were scumbags, the Nazi race scientists were scientists.
There was a lot of controversy in the Caucasus over who was a Jew and who was not.
The Nazi anthropologists said some were Jews, and they were wiped out totally. Others they said were not Jews. The Nazis were literally getting ready to kill them in 1944, when the Nazi leadership said, “Wait a minute! Call in the scientists!” The anthros said that most of that group were not Jewish in Nazi terms, hence most of them were spared. So the Nazi race scientists actually saved some Jewish lives.
I forget the name of the peoples involved, but they are obscure Jewish groups down by the Crimea/Caucasus. Karaim is the name of one of them.
The Nazis were also quite clear that Turks, Bulgarians, Italians, Armenians, Georgians and the Caucasus were Whites of some sort or another. Many of these folks fought in the Nazi Army, and the Nazis said nothing about their purported racial nature – it was just not discussed.
You have to understand that these guys were totally cynical about all their race stuff – all science was subsumed to politics.
Here is a recent comment on the Peopling of India post by an Indian commenter. I will answer his questions later on in the post:
Please try to answer all of this long winded set of questions, thanks. Firstly, you seem interested in this topic and well educated on it say as much as me (love your theories they make sense based on my previous online research and discussion with other people of Indian and indo-Iranian+Near Eastern origin), in fact even more, but how are you valid, are you an anthropologist, scientist of some sort, or do you at least have sources (no offence)?
Can you pleases check out these genetic findings on this website: does this data not contradict yours? Is it valid?
Also Pakistanis are not genetically distinct, correct, and I heard Iranians, Indians, and All Aryan(Indo-Iranian) are closely related genetically as are all Aryans, including Europeans, is this true?
Dravidians are essentially just darker Mediterranean (a phenotype not really from the Mediterranean) Caucasians with a distinct language and culture?
Tribals seem like non-Caucasians that have adapted some local languages but kept their own.
So essentially you are saying Europe, the Middle East and Caucasus were likely inhabited by Australoids from East Africa who became Caucasians in India and outside of India?
So the Australoids would have been the first race to diverge off of Negroids, and if I am right, according to recent research, they would have mixed with Neanderthals who mixed with everyone who was not Negroid?
One more are, Veddoids, Tamils/Elamites, and Kalash intermediates or something else, and aren’t Nagas Mongoloid?
What are Andamans and Negritos racially?
Firstly, you seem interested in this topic and well educated on it say as much as me (love your theories they make sense based on my previous online research and discussion with other people of Indian and indo-Iranian+Near Eastern origin), in fact even more, but how are you valid, are you an anthropologist, scientist of some sort, or do you at least have sources (no offence)?
I am just a journalist who has researched the subject for a few years now. I have no formal credentials whatsoever.
Can you pleases check out these genetic findings on this website: does this data not contradict yours? Is it valid?
That data is very interesting. I think it claims that the Indians are very old and consist of two stocks, North Indian and South Indian. North going back 40,000 YBP and South going back 70,000 YBP. Problem is that if you go back that far, all Indians looked something like Aborigines. Indeed the Aborigines were partly created by an infusion of proto-South Indian stock (Carpenterians) 12,000 YBP went by boats to Australia.
Also Pakistanis are not genetically distinct, correct, and I heard Iranians, Indians, and All Aryan(Indo-Iranian) are closely related genetically as are all Aryans, including Europeans, is this true?
Pakistanis are pretty hard to tell apart from the rest of Indians, yes. But it does appear to be a separate small race amid the Indids.
All of the Indo-Aryans are indeed pretty closely related nowadays, even archaic types like Tamil types. The archaic types are so close to the rest probably through mass interbreeding. All people on the subcontinent are close genetically. The Iranians are fairly close to the Indians, but they are somewhat more distant. The Iranians are the link between the Europeans and the Indians via the Italians. It works like this:
Italians -> Iranians -> Indians
Groups separated by only one arrow are fairly closely related. By two arrows, not so close.
So you see the Iranians are the link between the Caucasians of the East and West.
All Europeans are not that closely related. The groups in the Caucasus are very distant from the rest, as are Turks, Russians, Jews, Orkney Islanders, Sardinians, Basques and Sami at the very least. At lesser distance, but still far from the rest are Yugoslavians and Greeks.
Dravidians are essentially just darker Mediterranean (a phenotype not really from the Mediterranean) Caucasians with a distinct language and culture?
No one knows what the Dravidians are. At the least they seem to be the basic cross between the ancient Australoids of India with the more modern Aryan types from the steppes in the north. There is also evidence of an infusion of ancient Caucasoid stock moving into India 12-17,000 YBP from the area between Lebanon and the coast of Iran. These people may have been related to the ancient Elamites, and Dravidian languages may be related to Elamite. Genetically, this stock looked like Arabs. So the Dravidians may be in part ancient proto-Arabs or proto-Iranians.
Tribals seem like non-Caucasians that have adapted some local languages but kept their own.
Tribals at this time are genetic Caucasians but have skulls that are Australoid.
So essentially you are saying Europe, the Middle East and Caucasus were likely inhabited by Australoids from East Africa who became Caucasians in India and outside of India?
No, it is not correct that Europe, Caucasus, and the Middle East were initially inhabited by Australoids. The Caucasus and the Middle East were originally inhabited by Africans. Europe was originally inhabited by proto-Caucasians, but they did not look much like White people. They may have still looked like East Africans or Masai. Later on, they looked a lot like Amerindians from the US Northwest.
The original Australoids did come out of East Africa as Africans, but they turned into Australoids. And the Australoids were the first race out of Africa, correct. The survivors of this first group are people like the Andaman Islanders and the Mani.
However, the Caucasian race has a different provenance. They came out of East Africa as Africans too, but more recently, only 42,000 YBP. So Caucasians are a more recent split from Blacks. The proto-Caucasian stock may have resembled the Masai, but no one really knows. They moved into the Middle East and then to the Caucasus and South Russia. There, they met with migrating proto-Chinese types (maybe resembling Ainu). From a mixture 2/3 Ainuid and 1/3 Masai type, the Caucasians were born. The Asiatic eyefold was somehow lost.
In Asia, the Australoids progress into modern Asiatics by evolution. The progression occurs first in NE Asia and later in SE Asia. Ancient SE Asians look like Melanesians.
So the Australoids would have been the first race to diverge off of Negroids, and if I am right, according to recent research, they would have mixed with Neanderthals who mixed with everyone who was not Negroid?
Yes, everyone outside of Africa mixed with Neandertals, maybe in the Middle East first, then later in Europe.
One more are, Veddoids, Tamils/Elamites, and Kalash intermediates or something else, and aren’t Nagas Mongoloid?
Kalash are a completely separate race of Caucasians. Caucasians are split into two races – Kalash and Non-Kalash.
Veddoids, Tamils, tribals, etc, are Caucasians by genes and Australoids by skulls.
Nagas, etc. in the Northeast are Mongoloids.
What are Andamans and Negritos racially?
Based on genes, I think that they are some sort of Asiatics. I do not know about the Andamans. The Andaman genes are very distinct, but how distinct I am not sure.
The Mani in Thailand have genes that look Thai.
The Aeta in the Philippines have genes that look Filipino.
However, if you do race by skull type, all Negritos are members of the Australoid race, as are Tamil types and others that look like Tamils in India.
Genetically, the Australoid Race only has Aborigines and Papuans in it.
By skulls, it consists of Ainus, Melanesians, Aborigines, Papuans, Negritos, Tamils, Veddoids, tribals and similar South Indian types and Fuegian Amerindians.
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 % of Welsh people have hazel eyes, Roman nose profiles and Mediterranean skin, perhaps paler due to the fact that Britain is located in a Northern region. Some might even still look Basque. The only reason Carthaginian or Semite phenotypes became uncommon is because of a constant absorption by other ethnicities.
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 % of population) who come from Sami parents (who came from Siberian Mongoloid tribes) and are light blond haired and light blue eyed. The same in Finland and even in Greenland. This mix happened thousands of years before the Viking invasion, so DNA tests prove that English people have Sami blood to a certain extent too – they just lack the phenotype.
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, 100% White, whatever their petty genetics may look like. If you look White and act White, you’re White. Real simple. As far as Extended Mediterraneans in North Africa, the Middle East, etc., it’s a much more mixed bag, but I think there are a lot of White Berbers and White Arabs too. It probably mostly boils down to individual phenotype.
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.
Average cranial capacities of indigenous populations, sex-combined means. Black: 1450 cc. and over; checkerboard: 1400-1449; crosshatching: 1350-1399; horizontal striping: 1300-1349; diagonal striping: 1250-1299; dots: 1200-1249. From Beals et al., 1984.
Click to enlarge.
White racists like to make a big deal about the supposed correlation between head size and intelligence and race. A nice little chart showing the basically dishonest portrayal they attempt based on cherry-picking data is below. I’ve already dealt with this before, but it’s time to add some new evidence to the theory.
As you can see, in the Americas, there is no good evidence whatsoever for head size and IQ. I am not aware that Amerindian IQ varies in the Americas. The average is apparently 87 across the continent. If anyone can show me that it varies by latitude, please do.
The biggest heads of all are in Northern Chinese (Manchurians), Eskimos, Alaskan natives, Siberians and Mongolians. The Northern Chinese IQ is 105, the Mongolian IQ is 100, the Eskimo IQ is 91, the Alaska native IQ is 87 and the Siberian native IQ is not known.
Note that Amerindians in Canada, Alaska, Mexico (!) and Tierra Del Fuego have larger heads (1400-1449 cc.) than any Europeans, yet Europeans have higher IQ’s than any of these Amerindians, who have IQ’s of 87. In addition, Uralics and Northeast Asians also have very large heads. Northeast Asians have median IQ’s of 105, Uralics have IQ’s of 96 and Amerindians have IQ’s of 87.
Amerindians in most of the US and in most of Latin America, Egyptians, Ugandans and Oceanians (Polynesians, Melanesians and Micronesians) have the same sized heads (1350-1399 cc.) as Northern and Central Europeans.
Some Amerindians, North Africans and Sahelians, Central Indians and Arabs, SE Asian Islanders (Indonesians, Bruneians, Malays and Filipinos), South Africans, New Guineans, and Middle Easterners have the same head sizes (1300-1349 cc.) as Southern Europeans.
It is true that most Africans have small heads, at 1250-1299 cc. However, southern Indians and some Amerindians have the same sized heads. These Africans have median IQ’s of 68.5, the Indians have IQ’s of 81.5 and the Amerindians have IQ’s of 87.
The smallest heads in the world (1200-1249 cc.) are actually not found in Africa. They are found in SE Asia and South India and Sri Lanka (we will also include the Seychelles and the Comoros). South Indians have a median IQ of 81 and SE Asians have median IQ’s of 90.
Does any of this make much sense? Not really.
Race realists, for the most part Northern European racists, often use a subset of these figures to demonstrate a link between IQ and head size. The subset looks something like this.
Misleading Racist Head Size/IQ Chart
Asians Europeans Africans
Largest Intermediate Smallest
1400-1449cc. 1350-1399 cc. 1250-1299 cc.
Asians Europeans Africans
106 100 67
This is misleading. Let’s do it the right way.
Proper Head Size/IQ Chart
Largest heads 1450 cc.+
North Chinese* 105
Large heads 1400-1449 cc.
NE Asians* 105
*incl. S. Chinese
**Canada, Alaska, Mexico, Fuegians
Medium-large heads 1350-1399 cc.
Nor./Cent. Europeans 98
**Polynesia, Micronesia, Melanesia
Medium-small heads 1300-1349 cc.
S. Europeans 93
SE Asian Islanders* 89.5
Middle Easterners*** 83.5
Central Asians**** 82
South Africans 70.5
Sahelians/W. Africans 67.5
*Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines
***Arabs, North Africans and SW Asians
****Incl. Central Indians
Small heads 1250-1299 cc.
South Indians 81.5
Smallest heads 1200-1249 cc.
SE Asians 90
Far South Indians* 81
*Incl. Sri Lanka, Seychelles, Comoros
This looks like a complete wreck to me. There’s just not much there, once you sit down and really do the map.
People with large heads have very high (Several European countries = 101) and very low IQ’s (Ugandans = 73). Some people with the smallest heads have very high IQ’s (Vietnamese = 99.5). There’s sort of a general trend, but the data is all over the place, like a drunk throwing darts at a dartboard.
I wish people would quit talking about this race = head size = IQ thing already.
Beals, K.L., Smith, C.L. & Dodd, S.M. 1984. Brain Size, Cranial Morphology, Climate, and Time Machines. Current Anthropology, 25:301-330.
Here we have two maps, one for what I am going to call blond hair, though they are calling it light hair here. The other is for what I call blue eyes, but they are calling them light eyes here.
These are of course the Aryan Prize Jewels. What is funny is that the centers of Blondness and Blueness seem to be in some cases outside of the Land of Odin and Thor.
For instance, the lower half of Finland, plus central Sweden and Norway, are Ground Zero for blonds. You can hardly spit in any direction around there without hitting a wolverine, a caribou, or some blond and blue hottie. If it wasn’t too cold to fuck, the place would be a sexual paradise!
What is interesting about this is that the your true Nazis always held that the Finns are “Asiatics,” and therefore not really White. What’s wrong with almond eyes and submissive, slender women, I’ll never know, but the Mighty Whiteys think this Chinky stuff is no good. Better a strong German woman who looks like she could shot put you across the room I guess. Sometimes Nazis are hard to figure.
Anyway, we see that Russia, in particular far northwestern Russia, is also a Hot Zone for major breakouts of blond and blue, especially for the blue eyes.
In fact, the center for azure isises seems to be around Estonia or a bit east of there in the Ingrian region, a bit south and further east than the Almogordo of the blonds, noted above as central Scandinavia. Once again, the Nazi types insist that these centers of Aryanism are fatally contaminated with them dirty Asiatic genes.
I would say that these are markers of mutations. One, for blond hair, in central Scandinavia, around 9,000 years ago, and the other, for blue eyes, in Estonia around the same time.
Why they persisted is a mystery, as they add little Darwinian fitness. I assume that the blond and blue chicks were in hot demand by the fur-draped fellows up there. They all jumped on the blond and blue chicks, and the early Neolithic Marilyn Monroe types pumped out lots of babies. What’s surprising is that these evil bitches stealing all the good men were not all killed by their proto-Viking sisters.
Anyway, since gentlemen prefer blonds, the mutation spread, and nowadays we even have blond and blue Jews, though most of those come from bottles and contact lenses.
The maps are interesting. The general Scandinavian – Baltic region seems to be an epicenter, with the Finnic region predominating. Taking the median of the blond epicenter in central Sweden with the blue eyed epicenter around Novgorod in Russia just east of Estonia (Ingria), we get a blond-blue epicenter around Tampere, Finland in southern Finland about 150 miles north of Helsinki. Northwestern Russia has a lot of Finnic and general Scandinavian genes. After all, the St. Petersburg region and environs was ruled by Swedes for centuries.
We have a strange strip of blond along the forbidding Pomeranian coast of Poland, near the V-2 rocket test site. The outbreak of blonds in the Galicia region of Spain is interesting. These folks say they are Celts, and perhaps they are. Moving to France, we see another outbreak in Brittany, once again attributable to Celtic Bretons. In the UK, blondism trends to the East, but this was where the Danish influence and the Danelaw was greatest.
Heading down to Italy, we see that the Venetian speaking region in far northeast Italy is a blond outlier, not the general “Padania” of the northern separatists. Since this region was long under the Austro-Hungarian Empire, perhaps the answer can be found there. There is another blond outlier on the heel of the Italian boot in the Puglia-Salento region that is also unexplained. There are a lot of Greek and Albanian genes in this region, but how do we get blondism from that?
The blue eyed map also shows some interesting things. In Spain, there is an area of very dark eyes, but it is a little to the east of the Moorish area. There is an area of somewhat lighter eyes in North Africa on the border of Algeria and Morocco that is unexplained. A commenter says it was from Vandals. That region is in the area of the Middle Atlas Mountains and much of the Rif Range. There are a lot of the more pure Berbers in area – Riffians in the Rif and Chleuh in the Middle Atlas.
The Riffians in particular are very light – 36.8% of them have blond hair and blue or green eyes, higher than the % of light hair among Spaniards and Italians. Riffians have a moderate amount of Alpine and Nordic features for a Mediterranean race. Considering that Riffians are lighter than Spaniards or Italians, it seems insane that White Nationalists say that they are “non-Whites.” The Chleuh are also quite light, see pics.
Czechs have lighter eyes than Slovaks, and Turks have lighter eyes than most Italians, perhaps due to heavy Slav influence. The far south of Switzerland has darker eyes and hair than the Swiss to the north of them. This is the Italian, Lombard and Romansch speaking region of Switzerland.
Here are some cool Nazi-era photos that I just ran across.
The first one below is of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1941, the famous Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact. Any idiot with half a brain knows that Stalin and Hitler despised each other and that Hitler had long ago decided to invade the USSR in order to put the final stake in “Judeo-Bolshevism.”
The USSR was the heart of the Judeo-Bolshevik beast, and only the destruction of the USSR would kill it for sure, since the beast kept sending tentacles out in the form of local Communist movements in Europe that threatened to spread Communism into the heart of the Continent.
Hitler’s hatred for Slavs is hard to figure. The Slavs were said to be a “slave race.” It’s true that the Russians had a reputation for running rather than fighting, but that was the nature of this forest-dwelling peasant people and in fact it was adaptive. When the Scandinavians first invaded down into Russia to conquer part of it, they found it curiously ill-defended. Faced with a superior force, the Russians would fight a bit, then give up land and just melt away into the mysterious forests. The Scandinavians felt it was useless to go find them, and after a while, a peace of sorts was reached.
The Russians were a forest-dwelling people at the time who lived in deep forests, often near rivers. They farmed a bit, lived off wild game and other food from the forest, and especially fished in the rivers. They weren’t exactly hunter-gatherers, but they were as close to that as a European people got at that time. They had a small population and were poorly armed, and typically responded to attacks by melting away into the forests where the enemy could not find them. Military defenses have to be judged by their adaptiveness, and this one worked well.
The Mongols also conquered a bit into Russia, and the Ottomans were so enamored of taking White slaves in the form of Slavs of various sorts that this is where the word “slave” comes from – it means “Slav,” because in Medieval times, so many slaves were Slavs.
Like most of Hitler’s crap, this had a grain of truth along with a ton of bullshit. The Russians were not really a slave race. As fare as stereotypes go, one can make a better case for the Russians as being one of the primitive, barbaric, backwards and even frightening of the White Europeans. This has long been the view from the Continent, especially of, say, the Finns, who despise the Russians as “barbarians.”
Most recently, Hitler’s view had the Russians as a “slave race” once again, this time having allowed themselves, idiotically and cowardly, to be “enslaved” by the Jews in the form of Judeo-Bolshevism. In fact, a vicious Civil War had been fought in the early 1920’s and 5 million Russians had died. Maybe twice that had starved in a horrible famine. Anyway, Soviet Communism wasn’t all that Jewish after 1927, and Stalin was no Jew. The majority of Russians went along with the Soviet program and even supported it. It was certainly better than Czarism.
Stalin hated Hitler’s guts and knew full well his plans to attack the USSR. Much of the wild industrial buildup of the 1930’s, which occurred amidst another 5 million famine deaths (though the famine was by no means intentional and there was no “Holodomor”) was a mad race to build up the USSR in order to withstand a Nazi attack that Stalin had predicted as early as 1933.
Without this mad industrialization and possibly the deaths it entailed, the USSR may not have been able to defeat the Nazis, and World War 2 would have looked a lot different. So in a sense the mad Soviet buildup of the 1930’s saved the West and the world from the Nazi Orcs.
In addition, the purges of the 1937-38, cruel, insane and evil as they were, were actually intended to ferry out Nazi spies. This was the nature of Stalin’s paranoia. It occurred in the backdrop of his increasing knowledge of the Nazi threat.
Hence, anyone with any sense knows that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a pact between two of the deadliest enemies the world has ever known.
Anti-Communists have never stopped playing up this sad pact as evidence that Nazis and Communists are the same, and that all Communists are really Nazis and all Nazis are really Communists. This makes no sense, as Hitler was much more of an anti-Communist than he was even an anti-Semite, and much of his anti-Semitism stemmed from his view that Jews were a bunch of Commies. These same folks try to say that Stalin was just as much of an anti-Semite as Hitler (this view especially popular with rightwing Zionist Jews).
This flies in the face of the common reactionary stereotype of the “JewSSR” or the USSR as a Judeo-Bolshevik state. Stalin was certainly no anti-Semite, but he wasn’t exactly a Judeophile either. The Jews suffered badly in the purges of the 1930’s. Anti-Semitism was a capital offense. When the Germans invaded later, Ilya Ehrenberg, Soviet propagandist, laid down the line, “You’re either an anti-Nazi or an anti-Semite! You can’t be both!” This at a time when traitors were getting bullets to the head in the USSR. Ehrenberg’s views were approved by and represented those of Stalin himself.
Anyway, the Pact was nothing but Stalin desperately buying another year or so before the inevitable Nazi attack. Another year to build up his defenses and to move most of their industry behind the Urals.
Below is another interesting pic. This is of the special German Army division, the Gebrings Division, or the Handschar, made up of Bosnian Muslims that the Germans set up after they conquered the Balkans in WW2. Zionists, especially Jews, and Muslim-haters never stop talking about this division. It’s unfortunate, but the truth is that huge pro-Nazi paramilitaries were formed by citizens of many of the countries that the Germans conquered.
There were pro-Nazi divisions made up of Romanians, Hungarians, Finns, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Russians, Italians, Armenians, and peoples of the Caucasus.
So singling out 10,000 Muslims for signing up for the German army is a bit absurd. I would think that many more Bosnian Muslims fought against the Nazis as part of the anti-fascist resistance, but I don’t have figures
The next picture is very interesting. These are East Indians, apparently Sikhs, serving in the German Army. They are in the regular Army, not the SS, as you can see by the insignia on their collars. India was a British colony at the time, and there were Indian soldiers serving in the British Army. A number of these Indians were captured by the Nazis and made into POW’s. The Germans recruited some soldiers for their army from these POW’s. Some of these Indians may have been motivated by anti-colonial feelings towards the British.
This also lines up with the lunatic Nazi notion that they were going to reach India via their offensive in the Caucasus. They would conquer the Caucasus and move on to Iran and then to India, where they would set in motion and armed Indian rebellion against the British colonizers.
The Nazis had some respect for the Iranians and may have even considered them White (the name Iran comes from the word “Aryan”). Nazi race researchers had been running around India researching the Indian Caucasians in order to determine the origin of the Aryan Race. It’s not certain what the Nazis meant by “Aryan,” but I believe it meant the same thing as Indo-European. Yet Slavs were somehow not Indo-Europeans or Aryans? Whatever. Nazi race science never made much sense.
The next pic is really boss. This is a Nazi propaganda poster showing caricatures of evil Soviet troops raping and then murdering teenage German girls. Note that the girls are really almost prepubescent, maybe 12 years old. The blood in the pubic region is from the “pure” virgins being raped. Classic propaganda. Note that the Russians have a pronounced Asiatic look about them in order to make them appear to be non-Whites, while the German girls being raped and murdered are pure blond and blue “Aryans.”
In reality, Russians are probably only about 3-5% Asian genetically, but some have more than that. Most Russians are just another type of White people. It’s true that the Red Army did a Hell of a lot of raping of German sympathizer females, women and girls, on Eastern Front. It was just terrible what they did.
Note: Repost from the old blog. Delphi.lv.
It looks like a big Latvian site. Took me a little while to figure this linguistic puzzle out.
Click here and you get the Latvian version of the page, and click here and you get the Russian version of the same page. What I found very interesting was the very large number of commenters on the Russian version of the Latvian page.
It’s well known that all of the Baltic states have been hostile to the Russian population (unfortunately seeded in the Baltics as settler-colonists in order to flood out the native Baltic peoples and water down Baltic nationalism) and the Russian language.
I believe that upon independence, Latvia was as much as 40% Russian and Russian first language speakers. No doubt it’s declined since then, but this dual webpage implies that Russian-speakers are still pretty common in Latvia, no?
Wikipedia to the rescue. Looks like Russophones and native Russians were 40% at independence and only down to 28% now. That’s a great big fat demographic that can’t be ignored by any major website. Interesting fact – in Latvia, 81% know Russian, and only 79% know Latvian!
Wow. No wonder Latvian nationalists are pissed. Obviously this goes back to the USSR when Russian was the national language of Latvia and a lot of native-Latvian speakers also speak Russian too. With 80% of the population speaking either Russian or Latvian, damn right you better make that website in both languages! The Ministry of Foreign Affairs says:
“The Russian language is robust in Latvia, as Russian-speakers are a majority or plurality in many cities, almost all Latvians speak Russian as well as Latvian and culture and media from Russia have a strong presence in Latvia. Indeed, the legacy of Soviet Russification policy was still evident in the results of the 2000 census in Latvia, which showed that knowledge of Russian is still more widespread than knowledge of Latvian in Latvia: 81% of all inhabitants know Russian, while only 79% know Latvian.”
Updated June 25, 2014. This article is 64 pages long, so be warned.
I’ve been reading a lot about this issue because I find it fascinating. Of course the media is going to feed you a lot of crap, nonsense and lies about this situation, so where do we go to really learn about it? Maybe I should ask some Latin Americans? That isn’t going to work. Most of the Latin Americans I have met are from the middle and upper classes, and almost all of them insist that there is no racism in their particular country. That sounds dubious! So, where shall we go to get the straight-up ugly truth?
No better place than Stormfront, the home of Nazi White nationalist maniacs! True, they are not very nice people, but I figured that if there were any Latin Americans on there, they would definitely tell it like it is.
Indeed there is a Latin American forum on Stormfront, and it is populated by lots of Latin American Whites. I learned a lot there, reading probably over 1,200 pages over a few days, but I’m not going to link to any of the comments because why link to Stormfront?
The truth will be very depressing to White nationalists, and it surely destroys some of their cherished myths. One of them is that racial separatism is possible. Apparently it is not.
Another is that as a White population shrinks, separatism becomes more of an urgent reality for a larger number of Whites. The truth, as we see in Latin America, is quite the opposite. As the White population shrinks down below 50%, unbelievably, White ethnocentrism declines accordingly, and the impulse to separate becomes less and less.
First of all, many or probably most White nationalist types in the US are Nordicist idiots who think that Latin American Whites are not “pure Whites.” Regardless of the truth of this, Latin American Whites have a more lax view of Whiteness. To them, if you have White ancestry, and if you look White and you act White, you are White. This strikes me as very reasonable.
During colonial times, children of a criollo (pure Spaniard, or White) and a castizo (1/4 Indian, 3/4 White) was considered to be criollo, or White. This person would have been 12% Indian and would probably have a strong White phenotype. It is likely that this standard is still employed in Latin America today.
The Latin American system classes all European Meds as White: Portuguese, Spaniards, Italians, Romanians, Greeks and Yugoslavs. Also, White Arabs, especially Lebanese and Syrian Christians, are also considered White. Latin American Whites also consider Armenians and Georgians to be White.
How many Whites are there in Latin America? That’s a very interesting question. Many figures are tossed about. I figure the best figure is around 170 million+ Whites in Latin America.
What was interesting on the forum is the way that they described Latin American Whites. According to them, the average White down there is very, very racist in US terms.
In Argentina, the general belief is that they are White and not a part of the rest of Latin America as a result, and there is open contempt, at least in private, for mestizos and mulattos*, not to mention Indians. The general belief, contrary to the US, is that dark = ugly. Indians are ugly, Whites are beautiful.
Latin American Whites do not necessarily despise mestizos, though some certainly do, and this feeling is more pronounced in some countries than in others. In many cases, Whites do not dislike mestizos of the same social class. However, the contempt for Indians is a hallmark of the mindset of Latin American Whites pretty much across the board.
In the US, the feeling is quite the opposite. Indians are not regarded as ugly, and Indian women have long been fetishized by White men as sex objects. Indian men are not seen as ugly either. We pretty much like Indians here in the US.
Similarly, Whiteness is highly prized all over Latin America in both Whites and non-Whites, whereas in the US, many Hispanics, typically Chicanos, get angry if you suggest that they are White or part-White. This is seen as an insult to them.
In Latin America, Indians are widely despised by Whites, there is no way of getting around that obvious fact, and no amount of denial and lying will make it go away.
Let us look at Mexico. It is a common Mexican lie that there is no racism in Mexico. This lie is usually perpetrated by mestizos and Whites. I doubt many Indians would tell you that.
Among the Mexican upper class, with the males at least, there is once again a belief that Indian women are ugly.
Nevertheless, Mexican politics means that most Mexican Whites say they are mestizos, deny their Whiteness, and hate the US. These are traditions of Mexican society.
Mexico decided a while back to deal with the race issue by formulating a lie that said that every Mexican was a mestizo, and that’s that. That lie is called mestizaje, and it is said to be the essence of Mexicanness.
There is another lie about Mexican society, this one about Blacks. A friend went on a tour of Mexico and was informed that the large Black population had simply disappeared.
The truth is that they were “bred out.” They were bred into the population so heavily that the average mestizo now is 4% Black, and that percentage is fairly uniform across the mestizo population. There are few Blacks remaining in Mexico, but there are some down by Veracruz.
Denial of Whiteness goes along with mestizaje .
Hatred of the US (the gringos), is part of Mexican culture for a long time now.
These same Mexicans, who deny their Whiteness, insist they are mestizos and hate the gringos, the men anyway will have nothing to do with a woman that is pure Indian or maybe mostly Indian. On the other hand, they date, sleep with and gladly breed with mestizos, especially the lighter ones. They will often deny this by saying that the mestiza is White like they are, or not like the household help, or whatever.
These same Mexican Whites are also very happy to have mestizos and Indians moving into the Whiter parts of Mexico, as this means more low wage labor and more customers to buy their stuff. White consciousness in Mexico is essentially about zero. The same White Mexicans who will insist that they are mestizos and not White will get angry if you call them indio. Indio is a big insult to any White Mexican.
Nevertheless, there is little overt racism in Mexico between mestizos and Whites, perhaps due to the homogenizing effect of mestizaje. However, there is some discrimination in employment to the extent that lighter skin makes it easier to get a good job than darker skin.
Light skin, eyes and hair are valued traits, but they are not necessary to get along in society. However, there is considerable racism against Indians. In addition, most White and mestizo Mexicans have a deep and abiding hatred for Blacks, whom they call pinche mayates (fucking niggers).
In recent years, the number of White Mexicans marrying mestizos has been very high. In Mexico, mestizos often want to marry White according to the tradition of mejorando la raza, literally, “improving the race.” Mestizo men are said to have an extreme fetish for blonde White women.
It is true that if you watch Mexican TV, you might think Mexico is 90% White. However, this is mostly true for the largest two networks, and it is often not the case with local or regional networks, where you see many mestizos. Mexican mestizos have conflicted feelings towards White Mexicans, and some of them have extreme anti-Spanish and anti-European feelings. Typically, if they are males, they would also do anything to get their hands on a White woman.
The history of White Mexico is quite interesting. Forum posters say that Mexico was around 37% White as late as independence. That’s fascinating.
What’s happened since then is more and more breeding with mestizos and possibly even Indians, such that the percentage of White Mexicans is now about 8% and declining all the time. That percentage is controversial. Some Mexicans say the true number is as low as 5%. 61% of the population are mestizos of all sorts of varieties, and 30% are either Indian or mostly Indian.
There are up to 10 million Whites in Mexico. Areas of Mexico that were 90% White in the past are now maybe 30-40% White.
Historically and to this day, most of the Whites lived in the northeast, but they are also scattered throughout the country. Nuevo León in the northeast used to be overwhelmingly White until a vast migration of Indians and mestizos from the South swamped it. Afterward, very heavy mixing occurred, and Nuevo León is no longer a White state. Most of the Whites in Nuevo León live in the large city of San Pedro.
But there are still small towns in the mountains of Nuevo León which are, bizarrely enough, all-White towns. Many people in these towns have blond hair and blue eyes.
The original plan for Nuevo León was to create a separate Spanish colony, separate from New Spain, but it never came to fruition. This state is prosperous and plays a very important role in the Mexican economy.
According to posters, along with the claim that Mexico was 40% White in colonial times is the notion it was a very nice country back then (assuming you were White of course) and that it has subsequently declined into what posters called a cesspool as it grew darker in the next nearly two centuries. Posters felt the situation was hopeless for Mexican Whites, and it was projected they would become extinct or nearly so with a century.
With Mexican-Americans, things are a bit different. I have seen very White Hispanics who act angry if you tell them they look White. Many of them do not even realize that Hispanics are mixed with White and Indian. The levels of White-hatred among US Hispanics seems to be quite high, probably as a result of US culture. Within the Chicano community, some Whiter Chicanos complain of a lot of mistreatment, often due to envy. Costa Rica is a very interesting case, and the % of Whites in Costa Rica is very much in dispute. Costa Rica initially experienced a huge massacre of Indians in the context of conquest and enslavement, and the White population remained small at maybe 20,000 until independence. Costa Rica was always one of the poorest, if not the poorest, of the Spanish colonies.
Nevertheless, this population had become much less White during colonization, since the Spaniards brought few women with them. Most male Indians were either killed or exported to Peru. Hence, the colonists bred with Indian women. This continued all through the 1500’s and 1600’s. Later on there was an input of Black slaves from Jamaica. By independence, these people were about 55% White.
The Central Valley region, where Whites initially settled, is still as White as Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil and Antioquia in Colombia, two heavily-White enclaves in Latin America. This region may be 90% White.
After independence, the government had a policy of importing White workers from Europe, and this continued until about 1950 or so. This resulted in mass breeding with the original Costa Ricans, hence the original group became lighter over time. This is why Costa Rica traditionally has been such a White place.
As late as 1960, Costa Rica was probably 90% White.
However, in recent years, a large influx of mestizo illegal immigrants from Nicaragua, Colombia and other places has come into the country. There are 4 million native Costa Ricans in the country, but there are also 1.5 million Nicaraguans and 1.3 million Colombians. 99% of the Nicaraguans are mestizos.
The Colombians are regarded as “the Jews of Costa Rica” in that, once they go into a business sector, they tend to quickly dominate it. Hence, Colombians are somewhat resented in Costa Rica. Downtown San Jose now looks like Mexico City. Crime has risen along with the mass illegal immigration.
In addition, on the Caribbean Coast, there are now many Jamaican Blacks, possibly also illegal immigrants. In coastal cities, people tend to be mixed-race. In the inland cities, most people are White. In recent decades, many mestizos have appeared among native Costa Ricans, as the Whites there are starting to breed in with mestizos. In some places, a majority of Whites are now married to mestizos.
Nevertheless, the upper class is still overwhelmingly White, as this photo set of Costa Rican Presidents shows. And Costa Rica is still a mostly-White country. The population is 73% white, 17% Mestizo, 4% mulatto, 3% Black, 1% Chinese and 1% Indian. Officially, 85% of the population identifies as White, but that includes a certain number of light mestizos. There are 3 million Whites in Costa Rica.
Costa Rican Whites are quite racist and openly dislike Indians and Blacks, in keeping with the Latin American standard. They have fewer problems with mestizos, unless the person is a heavily-Indian mestizo.
A sort of Latin American version of PC nonsense along the lines of Mexico’s mestizaje has recently become de rigeour in Costa Rica. The notion is, “We are all White.” In addition, the usual anti-White nonsense history familiar to any American is now taught at all high schools. Most Whites are drinking the Nonsense Koolaid, and White consciousness is now very low. Honduras has the tiniest White population in Latin America; only 1% of the population is White. There was long a tiny White population on the Cays Islands off the Honduran coast, descendants of English and Dutch immigrants. They always spoke British English. The Cays have been owned by Honduras since 1850, but this colony never married Blacks or mulattos out of tradition.
At some point, this group become seriously inbred, and many of them migrated to the US in order to spread out and ameliorate their genetic issues.
The situation of Cuban Whites is also very interesting. Cuba was an 74% White country at the time of the Revolution in 1957. The reason was similar to that of Costa Rica. Cuba was originally quite Black (they were all slaves) but there was huge immigration from Spain in the 1800’s, mostly from Galicia (northwest Spain). Quite a few also came from Catalonia.
Hence, at the time of the Revolution, 85% of Cuban Whites were Spanish, 10% French and the next largest group was Italians. The remainder included Scottish, Irish, English, Germans and Hungarians.
The rest included 12% Blacks and 14% mixed race. Although Havana has always been darker, the rest of the country was heavily White, and some parts still are. Whites tend to be concentrated in Western Cuba, the tobacco-growing region. Since tobacco did not use slave labor, there were fewer slaves in this region.
There was little breeding between Whites and Blacks because Cuba was a very racist society, something the anti-Castro Cubans deny. Part of the reason for this was high White race consciousness in Cuban Whites. Another aspect was that breeding with Blacks would be like breeding with your former slaves, as many White Cubans were slaveholders. This was seen as insulting and degrading to Whites.
After Castro, most of the Whites took off, and they keep on leaving. Cuba is now 37% White by government statistics. Cuba has 3.4 million Whites. Many of the remaining Whites are older. Further, the Revolution resulted in mass interbreeding between Whites and Blacks for some reason, such that there is now a huge mulatto population in Cuba.
Cuban Whites go back to Cuba now and say that their beautiful White homes are now inhabited by Blacks and mulattos, and this infuriates them. They insist that after Castro, they are going to go back and take over all their White property from the Blacks and mulattos. This is probably a fantasy.
As you can see, there is a heavy racist element in the whole anti-Castro movement.
Cuban-Americans were described as still very racist, and most want nothing to do with Blacks or mulattos at all. In South Florida, you will rarely if ever see a White Cuban-American woman with a Black man. It is just not done. Further, there is a lot of housing discrimination in Miami as racist Cuban Whites refuse to rent to mestizos or mulattos.
The situation in the Dominican Republic was described as dire. Posters said that maybe 16% of the population was White and it was declining all the time. The D.R. has 1.6 million Whites.
The DR has always been a much darker place than Cuba or Puerto Rico. Dominicans have long looked down on Haitians as Blacks, and most Dominicans will tell you they are mulattos no matter how much Black they have in them. In part, this is a way of distinguishing themselves from Haitians.
Soon after the Haitian Revolution in 1804, Haitians invaded the Dominican Republic. The Haitians quickly turned this into a nonstop rape-athon of the Dominican women. Anyone who was lighter-skinned such as Whites and mulattos was quickly killed, and the Dominican Blacks were enslaved by the Haitians. That is why to this day, Dominicans hate Haitians so much, over 200 years later.
Most remaining DR Whites are in the areas of Santo Domingo, the capital, and Cibao and Bani. These were tobacco-growing regions, and tobacco did not need huge armies of slaves to work on it. Hence, tobacco growers were often small landowners. The lack of slaves meant that there was much less interbreeding between Whites and Blacks.
The situation in Puerto Rico was very confusing, although it seemed as if maybe the population is 62% mulatto, 18% White, 18% Black and 2% Asian. Nevertheless, 80.5% of the population identifies as White, but most of those are probably mulattos or light mulattos. Forum posters said that Puerto Rico was once much Whiter, and indeed, there was a movement around 60 years ago among White Puerto Ricans for independence, and after independence, reunion with Spain as a colony.
Some White Puerto Ricans in the US are race-conscious. Even in the US, it is not common for a White Puerto Rican woman to date a Black man. However, in Puerto Rico, things are different. A number of non-Whites try to marry White in a mejorando la raza gambit. Kinky African hair is devalued as pelo malo or “bad hair.” Many Puerto Rican Whites are quite racist by US standards. Slurs and jokes about Blacks are commonplace.
There was racial apartheid in Puerto Rico until 1898. Until that time, Blacks were not allowed to own businesses or be doctors, lawyers or engineers. Up until the 1960’s, banks would not hire Blacks, and Blacks were not allowed into some clubs.
Since the 1960’s, salsa music has been promoted. Most Whites dislike this “African” music and want nothing to do with it, but it is extremely popular with Blacks and mulattos. Upper middle class areas are 95% White, but they are right next to lower class areas such as housing projects. 99% of the people in the projects are Blacks and mulattos. The projects are full of problems, and theft is rampant. Upscale White areas are often gated to keep out non-White criminals.
There is a serious illegal immigration problem consisting of Blacks and darker mulattos from the Dominican Republic.
White Puerto Ricans have a very dim view of the US Puerto Rican community, whom they generally describe as “trash.” They say most of them are Blacks and mulattos and act worse than the non-Whites on the island. White Puerto Ricans usually do not live in Puerto Rican enclaves in the US and instead tend to be spread out.
Unbelievably, there is even a tiny number of Whites in Haiti of all places. Haiti is 96% Black, with the rest being a tiny number of mulattos and some Whites. The White population is only .015%. Port Au Prince is about 2.5% White. A number of the Whites are Christian Arabs from Syria and Lebanon.
The original Whites were massacred in 1804 during a rebellion led by a Black named Desallines. Almost all 25,000 of the White slaveholders and their families were killed in the uprising, which ended slavery in Haiti once and for all.
Considering the Whites were slaveowners, as a revolutionary I support Desallines’ Rebellion, but they should not have killed minors or mentally disabled Whites. There was one case where they killed a screaming crazy White woman who was well-known to be mentally ill. Some of the Blacks wanted to save her, but the mob had their way.
The rebellion also ended colonialism in Haiti. With 25,000 Frenchmen dead, France said goodbye and good luck to the colony. France has been furious at Haiti ever since.
After the Whites were either killed or left in 1804, the place quickly fell apart, and the Blacks begged the Whites to return. Some Whites did return, but in 1805, a Black leader ordered all of the Whites to be tortured to death.
It’s hard to believe, but one of the big vote-getters in one of the recent fake elections in Haiti was a White man named Charles Baker (photo).
The rest of the Caribbean has very few Whites left, and those that remain, posters on the forum report, have very much of a siege mentality. Barbados (4% White) is a good example. The Whites here are English, Scottish and Irish for the most part and have a high level of White consciousness.
There is also a group of very light-skinned mulattos in the Caribbean – especially in the Grenadines and St. Kitts – who see themselves as White or near-White. They refuse to marry Blacks and will only marry “high yellows”, “redbones” or “Portagees.” I assume that those are words for very light-skinned mulattos. Some even have White features like green eyes.
In Barbados, the Grenadines and St. Kitts, there also remain small White communities who seldom intermarry. They only marry White out of tradition. Along with this is a refusal to date or even socialize with Blacks and mulattos. For this, they have long been accused of racism.
The Bahamas has a 7% White population, mostly in certain areas. White consciousness is very high here, the highest in the region. Officially, the number is 12%, but that number is too high and includes many light mulattos. St. Barts, unbelievably, is a majority-White island in the Caribbean – the only one. Most are descendants of French from Normandy and Brittany. However, it is now being flooded with Black immigrants from neighboring French islands who are looking for work. Bermuda is 34% White. Whites keep to themselves here and don’t socialize much with Blacks. White consciousness is very high here also, second to the Bahamas. The Whites are British. Martinique is 5% White, almost all from France (it is a French colony). Jamaica is only .01% White, and there is a large mulatto population. However, Kingston is about 4.5% White. The White community has been steadily declining over the years, and many White males are breeding with mulattas. The White community here is said to be barely holding on. The remaining young Whites often present a “wigger” appearance with long dreadlocks, smoke ganja and the same Jamaican creole as the Blacks. Curiously, the remaining White females almost always marry Whites.
The Cayman Islands still have quite a few Whites (10%), especially on the western half of Cayman Brac. Officially, Whites are 20%, but once again that includes many light mulattos. 80% of the population is mulatto.
All through the Caribbean, the White birth rate is low, about the same as in the US. The birth rate for the Blacks and mulattos is much higher. Although White communities are hanging on in the Caribbean, posters acknowledge that they are “culturally Africanized” to some degree due to living near Blacks for so many years. Colombia has a large White population estimated at around 22%, which means there are 10 million Whites in Colombia, as many as in Mexico. However, the Whites here typically have some Indian and Black blood, so it is more of a social race concept. Further, a Colombian White often has brothers or sisters that are quite a bit darker than he is, relics of a long history of interbreeding here. The rest of the population is 54% mestizo, 14% mulatto, 6% Black, 3% zambo (defined below) and 2% Indian.
Antioquia Province is one of the Whitest places in Latin America along with Southern Brazil and Costa Rica’s Central Valley. This region is 80% White, and White Antioquians are known as paisas. Antioquia is 1% Indian, and the rest are Blacks and mulattos. There was little interbreeding with the Indians since the Indians were so violent that they did not accept newcomers.
The capital of Antioquia is Medellin, and this is also a very White city, but recently many Blacks, mulattos and Indians have been moving to the city from other parts of Colombia, so it is not as White as it used to be.
Manizales is another majority-White city. The Whites are mostly Spaniards, but curiously, in Barranquilla and Santander, there are many Germans. Colombia received a very large input of Black slaves.
There is a lot of racism in employment here, and the dumb blonde gets the job over the competent Black with a degree. Everything here is all about appearances both genetic and personal – your height, weight, clothing – and above all else, social class. Other than that, some say that race relations are generally pretty good, keeping with the trend in the most heavily mixed Latin American countries such as Mexico, Venezuela and Brazil.
However, others say that racism is still a very serious problem in Colombia. 30 years ago, it was not uncommon to see signs in Colombia saying saying, “House For Rent. No Blacks.” To this day, it is very common for Afro-Colombians to be turned away from upscale establishments on account of their color.
Whites are about 20% of the population of Venezuela (5.2 million Whites), but they have very low levels of race consciousness. Most of the population at all levels does not bother much with race, as class is much more important than race in this country. It is quite common to see mulatto or mestizo parents having a kid who looks quite White. That is the degree of the historical racial interbreeding in this nation. Venezuela, like Mexico, is one of more racially egalitarian states in the region.
There is a vast population of Blacks, mulattos and zambos. (Zambos are mixed Black-Indians) in the country, especially in certain areas. Venezuela also received a large number of Black slaves.
Ecuador is a profoundly racist society, as you often see in South American countries where the White % gets low. Although official figures put the White population at 10.4%, the actual number is around 5%. There are 650,000 Whites in Ecuador. They are about as racist as Peruvian Whites. They have utter contempt for Indians and Blacks, and they have nothing to do with other non-Whites.
Similar to how it was in the Jim Crow South, non-Whites are not allowed to eat in White restaurants, or if they are, they must use a separate set of dishes. Whites often wash their faces and hands after dealing with a non-White, as if they had been dirtied.
Official figures show that Ecuador is 65% mestizo and 25% Indian, but social race is amply on display here, and if we go by actual genetics instead, the figures are probably reversed – 66% Indian and 26% mestizo. 3% of the population is Black, all on the coast. As in Bolivia, Ecuadorian Whites said that the Indians in Ecuador hate everyone who is not Indian and want to throw them all out of the country.
The racial history of Ecuador is pretty nasty. Slavery lasted in various odd forms all the way until 1930, and de facto White rule was ongoing until the 1970’s. Non-Whites were not allowed to have any significant government or military posts until that time. In the 1970’s, a progressive regime allowed non-Whites into the officer corps. The nation is very racially stratified, and Whites, Blacks, mulattos, mestizos and Indians all pretty much marry their own.
From 1809 to 1905, Chinese and Jews were banned from entering Ecuador, and there was something resembling an actual racial apartheid structure in place.
In the early 1900’s, a progressive mestizo president came aboard and initiated a series of major changes. At the time, the White population was 30%, but it has since dropped from 30% to 5% in a mere century. The progressive reforms involved a major land reform that broke up the White latifundias (vast estates) and distributed the lands to the Indians and mestizos. Many of the original stock of Spanish and British Whites returned to Europe in disgust due to these changes.
In the 1920’s, a significant wave of German immigration came to the country. Presently, Germans make up the largest % of Ecuadorian Whites, followed by Spaniards, British and a small number of Lebanese. Many of the Germans are Nazi supporters.
One would think that there would be hardly any Whites in a country like Peru, yet 12% of Peruvians are White. Official figures are 15% according to the CIA, but the last racial census in 1940 showed only 3.7% Whites. The true % of Whites in Peru is quite confused. I think the % of Whites is probably around 12% though, since I have met four Peruvians in the US (all in the LA area), and 3 of them were White. I’ve met five on the Internet, and two of those were White. So out of my limited encounters with Peruvians, 40% of those I encountered were White.
This gives us 3.5 million Whites in Peru.
The rest of the population is 45% Indian and 37% mestizo. The mestizos here seem to be more Indian than in places like Mexico and Chile.
Peru is an incredibly racist society, and Lima is regarded as the most racist city in Latin America. If a mestizo or Indian stops a White on the street of Lima and asks directions, the White will usually refuse to speak to them. The Whites there have the attitude, “We don’t even talk to these people”, who they refer to as cholos.
Even mestizos experience a lot of racial discrimination, and this experience was one of the reasons so many young Peruvian mestizos became cadres in Sendero Luminoso. My perception is that the average Peruvian mestizo has a lot of Indian blood, possibly even mostly or pure Indian.
Social race is rampant here, and if you take off your Indian clothes, move out of the village to a big city and quit speaking Quechua, you can automagically transform yourself into a mestizo.
Many light or upper class mestizos identify as White and desperately want to be White, and many are admitted into White social circles. A lot of these people have high levels of cognitive dissonance. You may hear an obviously mestizo upper middle class mestizo point to a lower class mestizo as dark as they are and curse the “cholo de mierda” (shitty cholo).
Posters said that the rest of the mestizos who are not trying to identify as Whites really hate Whites and don’t try to hide it at all. Race relations in Peru appear to be catastrophic.
Although official figures put the number of Whites in Bolivia at 15%, the actual number is smaller at 8%. 65% are Indians, and 27% are mestizos. There are 1 million Whites in Bolivia. The Whites tend to live in the Western part of country. Race relations there were described as horrible, and Whites were often targets of abuse and verbal and even physical aggression by Indians.
The Indians were said to have a grudge against the Whites going back centuries to the Conquest. Posters said that the Indians consider the whole country theirs, hate everyone who is not Indian and want to throw all non-Whites out of the country.
Whites have traditionally tried to marry only other Whites, but lately some young Whites are starting to date Indians and Blacks, much to the consternation of their more traditional relatives. Whites do not really hate mestizos, though out of tradition, they do not date or marry them. Furthermore, the mestizos often hate the Indians just as much as the Whites do.
Posters described White Bolivians as living in fear. Expressions of White ethnocentrism invite attacks, robberies and even homicides, so Whites tend to keep their heads down. The feeling among Bolivian Whites is that they are losing their country. Many White Bolivians are taking off, often migrating to Southern Brazil.
About 50% of Brazil is White, which leaves us with 80 million Whites, although this figure is extremely controversial since it gets into the “Who is White?” mess.
The official figures showing 54% White in Brazil are from government surveys and are a bit high. This means that 54% of the population identifies as White, but many of those might not be seen as White in the US.
The reason the government number is higher is because it relies in self-report, and many Brazilians who are light-skinned but not really White see themselves as White and identify as White.
The rest are Blacks, mulattos, Indians, caboclos (mestizos) and zambos. Something like 42% of the population is mixed race – this includes various forms of mulattos, mestizos and zambos – however, almost all of these are mixed with Black, and few Brazilians have obvious Indian admixture. The Indian admixture is most prevalent in the Northeast.
Census figures say only about 7% are Black, but those figures are based on self-report, so they are erroneous since many Blacks claim to be mulattos. The Blacks are mostly in the northeast. Anyway, about 29% of the population are actual mulattos.
This means that Brazil has a Black and part-Black population of 36%, or 70 million, making it the second largest Black population on Earth after Nigeria. If Black Brazil were a nation, it would be the second largest Black country on Earth.
About 13% of the population, or 25 million people, are caboclos or mestizos.
A tiny .5% are Indian.
There are possibly 96 million Whites in Brazil, meaning that Brazil has one of the largest White populations in the world. The stunning truth is that Brazil has more Whites than most European countries. If Brazil’s Whites were a country, it would be one of the largest White countries on Earth.
Southeastern Brazil is still very White, especially Rio Grande do Sul. The three southern states – Rio Grande do Sul, Paraná and Santa Catarina – are the Whitest ones; in addition, the state of São Paolo is still majority White, but it is much less White than the southern states.
São Paolo used to be overwhelmingly White, but lately it has been flooded with non-Whites from the northeast and other areas. The city of São Paolo now is heavily non-White (75%), but many of the smaller cities in São Paolo state are still very White. Other southeastern states like Rio de Janiero and Espirto Santo were 70-80% White in the 1940’s, but are now less than 50% White due to mass immigration of mulattos from the northeast.
A recent government survey found that the South is 85% White and that Rio Grande do Sul was 92% White, but that does not seem to be the case anymore with the heavy internal migration that has been moving to the area from the Northeast and Rio. The figure was already an overestimate due to the faulty nature of the poll, and the present figures are that the South is about 65% White.
In Rio Grande do Sul, Blacks and mulattos are concentrated in the southern part of the state near the Argentine border. In Parana, they live near the Paraguayan border.
The Whites are mostly Germans and Italians (71%). Brazil has the largest Italian community (27 million) outside of Italy, although the Argentines would argue with that and try to claim that title for themselves. Italians live in São Paolo, the South and parts of Minas Gerias. Most of the Italians are from Northern Italy. Portuguese (24%) make up another large group, and Spaniards (mostly Galicians) make up a somewhat smaller group.
French, Poles, Dutch, Ukrainians, Swedes, Belgians, Croatians, Lithuanians, Jews, Russians, Romanians, Lebanese and Syrians are a yet smaller sector.
West of Curitiba there are 100% Italian cities. There are also cities that are completely German. In these places, the newspapers, menus, schools – everything – is in Italian or German, and Portuguese is a second language.
The White South has its roots in history. There were few Indians in this part of Brazil for some reason, so they were easily overrun and routed. The main industry of the South has always been cattle ranching, and there is no need to import Black slaves for that. Further, there were few of the plantations that characterized the North.
This is also one of the wealthiest regions of the country. The separatist movement in the South claims that the majority of the taxes paid to the Central Government come from the three White states in the South.
The explicitly racial White Separatist movement in the South has little support, but the more general non-racial separatist movement that intends to split off the three White states from the rest of Brazil has varying levels of support in the South. A recent poll in Rio Grande do Sul found 60% support for secession in that state. However, secessionist movements are outlawed by the Constitution and in order to form a political party, the secessionist movement would have to be supported by X% of voters up in a large number of states, possibly nine states.
Nevertheless, whatever support there is does not translate into votes, and the secessionist candidate last time did not even win .1% of the vote. The secessionist movement looks like a joke from here.
I do not support this secessionist movement. It reminds me of Padanian separatists in Italy, Ahwaz separatists in Iran and Bolivian separatists in eastern Bolivia. There is no reason why a state should let the wealthiest region lop itself off, make off with all the loot, make a new state, and leave the old state broke and holding the bag.
Due to the wealth of the region, the white parts of Brazil were flooded with immigrants from other parts of Brazil, especially the impoverished and mostly Black northeast. This migration lasted only from the 1950’s to the 1980’s and affected only the state of Sao Paolo. In addition, many were flooding in from Rio, which is an extremely racially mixed city. Posters seemed to think this was a disaster, as the new migrants will soon start breeding with the Whites in the South.
Brazilian Whites were said to have a low level of White consciousness, and many think that a lot of mestizos and mulattos are actually White. Hence, many will willingly breed with non-Whites, probably especially with mestizos and mulattos. However, there are definitely some hardcore Nazi types in the South, though probably not very many.
Brazilian soaps are almost always about White families. Blacks play minor supporting roles, running a juice stand on the beach, practicing voodoo and giving practical advice to the Whites. The reason Brazilian TV is so White is because research has shown that mostly Black/mulatto Brazilian viewers do not want to see Blacks or mulattos on TV.
There is still racial discrimination in Brazil to the extent that if you are lighter it is easier to get a good job than if you are darker, but Brazilians like Mexicans labor under the lie that they have beaten racism. This is a problem in that it makes existing racism hard to deal with. If there is no racism and everyone gets along fine, anyone bringing up racism charges is a troublemaker and a liar who is trying to set the races against each other.
Furthermore, studies show that Blacks are bullied at school by Whites who call them the equivalent of “nigger.” Blacks are almost never hired by Brazilian firms for good white-collar jobs, and those few Blacks that have such jobs are almost always hired by foreign firms.
The truth is that privileged Brazilian Whites simply refuse to work for a Black boss or have Black superiors. That would be like your slaves lording it over you. The Whites have a very good privileged system there, and they don’t want to share with Blacks at all.
On the other hand, the discrimination is really more economic than genetic, and social race is all the rage. Black and mulatto cops will stop and search groups of Black and mulatto males (racial profiling) but will not stop groups of Whites. Why? The darker guys are often up to no good.
A wealthy Black is only respected if he dresses the part and has the proper wealthy adornments. Furthermore, he needs a White woman, preferably a blond. The first thing Black futbol stars do when they hit the big-time is grab a blond to marry.
Yet a White man, even if he dresses down, is considered to be automatically OK. But a rich Black man dressing down would be considered just another low-class Black up to no good. Much also is made of education and speech. Most Whites are well-educated and speak a refined Portuguese. Blacks are usually poorly-educated and speak a slangy, low-class dialect something like a Portuguese Ebonics.
But not all Whites are rich, and there are many poor Whites in the South. The favelas of the South are filled with Whites, and there are White beggars on the streets. Blacks in the South have been elected governors of states and mayors of large cities, and the South was the first place Blacks got civil rights. Studies show that the best place for a Black to live is in the White South due to the wealth of the region.
Nevertheless, the upper class Whites of the South are extremely racist by US standards. They dislike people with dark skin and regard them as inferior. There is not much anti-Semitism because there are only a few Jews (12,000) in the region
The racial history of Brazil is very interesting.
Originally, the Indian tribes were nearly bred out of existence. They sent over the dregs of Portuguese society. Due to the harsh nature of the region they were going to, the colonists were nearly all men. They few women on board the ships were generally prostitutes. Most decent women did not want to put up with the rigors of colonization. It meant a long sea voyage on a ship full of males in an environment of poor hygiene. When you stepped off the ship, the new land was all jungle, with unpleasant tropical weather, many jungle diseases and no hospitals. In addition, the new settlements were under continuous attack by hostile Indians.
One famous such colonist was named Diogo Álvares. The Tupinambá Indians referred to him as Caramurú, his Indian name. He singlehandedly fathered 200 children by many different Indian women. Essentially, most of the coastal Brazilian Indian tribes were simply fucked out of existence. Interbreeding with Indians continued even up until the late 1800’s, and it was not unusual for a White man to father up to 20 children with different Indian women.
Hence, the true settlement of the country occurred due to voluntary immigration from Europe or the importation of African slaves, mostly from the Portuguese colony of Angola.
White women were so heavily valued by Portugal that the law stipulated that they were not allowed to leave the country without the signed permission of their husbands or fathers, in shades of a practice that continues today in Arab lands. Unbelievably, this law remained on the books until 1975!
Since there was a shortage of women, many men brought their own wives from Europe, or arranged marriages in Europe, or tried their luck with the yearly importation of Crown’s Orphans, orphan girls gathered from all over Europe and imported to Brazil to become brides for male colonists. Yet there were still not enough women. So many men had sex with their female Black slaves, resulting in a large mulatto population.
In the late 1800’s after slavery was abolished (1888) the government undertook a “Whitening” or Branqueamento project that was shockingly called just that. The idea was that Brazil was a mostly Black country, and that mostly Black meant disaster for the future (Racial thinking was extremely common at the time).
Hence a huge effort was made to encourage Europeans to immigrate to Brazil. This effort went on for some time and attracted many immigrants from Italy, Germany, other parts of Europe, and even Japan.
In 1923, a Brazilian Congressman famously said, “The Black eclipse will have passed entirely in 70 years.” He was referring to the disappearance of Blacks in Brazil as an ethnic entity, presumably replaced with some sort of mulatto or zambo.
In 1945, the country’s official immigration policy openly stated the need to “develop within the country’s ethnic composition the most convenient characteristics of its European descent.”
As recently as 25 years ago (1988), an assistant to the governor of São Paolo actually suggested mass birth control for Blacks, Indians and mixed-race people as a eugenic measure.
This official explicitly racial thinking is pretty much a thing of the past. Posters said that Lula is a mulatto (though he looks White to me), and racism is now actually illegal in the country (whatever that means), though the law is hardly enforced and even those convicted get a slap on the wrist.
Furthermore, there is a very large amount of interbreeding going on in Brazil, even in the Far South. Down there, this mostly involves White women breeding with Black and mulatto men. In the rest of Brazil, all sorts of racial interbreeding is going on, described as epidemic.
In general, this is mostly going on with lower class Whites. The middle and upper class Whites still do not mix with non-Whites all that much.
White Brazilians felt that the situation for Whites in Brazil was dire, even in the South. Uruguay is easily the Whitest country in Latin America. A government survey taken 10 years ago came up with figures of 93% White, 6% Black, .4% Indian and .4% Asian. The Blacks, like in Brazil, are almost all mulattos. There were only a few Indians here, and they were mostly quickly massacred. There are 3 million Whites in Uruguay.
The economy has always revolved around cattle-raising, and there is no need for Black labor for that. However, the economy is now in terrible shape, and many of the middle classes are leaving. Whites have a low level of consciousness here, and this is probably the PC capital of Latin America. There are strong cultural connections to Argentina, stronger than between the US and Canada. Argentina is still the largest White country in Latin America. 97% of the population identifies as White, but as probably 80% of Argentine mestizos identify as White, that figure is confusing. The population is still about 80% White (though estimates vary from 75-85%), the rest being mestizo. This gives us 32 million Whites in Argentina.
However, this is a decline from 1970, when the country was 90% White. Further, there are millions of illegal immigrants who are not being counted and who will probably be legalized soon. There are 30 million Whites in Argentina.
The largest White group are Italians at 60%, followed by Spaniards (mostly Basques and Galicians) at 20% and then Germans at 10%. Argentina has the largest Basque, Galician and Catalan populations outside of Spain. The other 10% of the White population is made up of Swiss, French, Irish, English, Russians, Belgians and Dutch in that order.
German and Irish Argentines mostly segregate themselves from those of Spanish and Italian descent, but many Argentines are some mixture of German, Spanish and Italian anyway. There is a certain amount of German supremacist Nordicism in the German community along with very high levels of support for Nazism.
Only about 1% are Indians. They killed most of the Indians very quickly during colonization, so there were not many Indians to breed with. Argentina’s Indians live in the arid northwest up near Bolivia and Chile in their own communities and don’t bother anyone.
There was a large Black population in the 1800’s in Buenos Aires, but they seem to have vanished into thin air. Argentine legend says they fled the country due to persistent discrimination, but that seems a little dubious. They were probably just bred into the population, and the Argentine gene pool is now 3% Black. In the northwest (Jujuy and Salta), mestizos are the majority. This area is also being heavily flooded by illegals from Bolivia. The northeast near the border with Brazil is also heavily mestizo.
Since the 1990’s, there has been a huge illegal immigrant invasion of mestizos and Indians from Bolivia (by far the largest group), Peru, Paraguay and Chile. There are other immigrants coming in from Asia, mostly Korea but also some from China. Immigrants, almost all mestizos and Indians, are continuing to pour into Argentina at the rate of 200,000/yr. The government does nothing to stop it, and recently gave citizenship to millions of mestizos and Indians from Bolivia.
The illegals from Bolivia and Peru are regarded by White Argentines as troublesome people who commit a lot of crime, engage in street protests and riots, and have no interest in assimilating.
In addition, the heavily-Indian illegals from Peru and Bolivia have an extremely high birthrate in Argentina of 6+ children per woman. The girls start getting pregnant at age 14-15. On the other hand, White Argentine women are only having 1-2 kids at most.
The posters were complaining about this and saying that the non-White immigration situation in Argentina was far worse than in the US and that in 20-30 years from now, White Argentina may be just a memory.
Posters said that White Argentines were very racist at least in US terms. Most were said to be sympathetic to Nazism and fascism, and this is why so many Nazis fled to this area after World War 2.
However, the fascist military dictatorship, which flaunted Nazi imagery, nostalgia and anti-Semitism, pretty much ruined things in terms of overt White consciousness in the country. To be strongly pro-White now is to be a Nazi or pro-dictatorship, and this is not acceptable in polite society since the dictatorship was so unpopular.
There is also still an extremely high level of anti-Semitism in Argentina, at least as compared to the US. White Argentines complain privately about how Jews and non-Whites are wrecking the place, but have a “What can you do about it?” attitude.
The mestizos of Argentina are very light, and at some point it gets really hard to tell who is a light mestizo and who is White. The mestizos identify as Whites and say they are White.
The reason for this is that the huge immigration from Europe to Argentina lightened the Argentine mestizo population, similar to what occurred in Costa Rica. Also there has been a dramatic increase in White-mestizo breeding in the past few generations, something that was previously rare.
In addition, a correlative to US hip-hop culture called cumbia villera has recently showed up. It is based on the culture of Argentina’s mestizo and Indian ghettos, and the topics and mindset of the music resemble rap – songs about killing people, selling dope, treating women like crap, etc.
Most Argentine Whites are horrified by this trend, but a lot of young Whites are getting into because it’s “cool”, the same way a lot of young Whites are getting into Black rap music. Young Argentine Whites who are into villera music are also starting to date mestizos. As in the US, it’s White females going for the darker, thuggish types. There the young White women go for mestizo villera types, and here young White women go for Black rapper types.
At the same time, there is an increasing trend among Argentine Whites to say that they have a little bit of Argentine Indian in them, sort of like the way many White Americans say that they have a little bit of Cherokee. This is seen as progressive, liberal and hip.
I mentioned above that most Argentines are quite racist and are contemptuous, at least in private, of mestizos, Indians, mulattos and Blacks. It works the other way too. Argentines say that many Mexican, Caribbean and Colombian mestizos, mulattos and zambos really hate Argentines. Some hate Argentines and Chileans more than gringos. They call Argentines “Nazis” even though Argentines have never done anything to them. However, many of these same folks would love to get into Argentina.
The situation in Chile is very confusing. It’s not really a White country. It’s more of a light-Mestizo country. 60% of Chileans are (generally light) Mestizos, 33% are White (usually with some Indian admixture) and 7% are Indian. However, on appearance, half of Chileans appear White. Blacks are only 1%. This gives us 6 million Whites in Chile. The Whites tend to live in Santiago and in the south of the country.
Mixing occurred early in Chile, as it really took a long time to defeat the Indians; they really put up a hard fight here. They were not totally defeated until the 1880’s or so, and after that, they were not exterminated, but their population was seriously reduced. There were not many White colonists in Chile, and the few who were there were often soldiers. Mass breeding occurred between White soldiers and Indian females. This constituted the basic stock of the nation.
The initial White stock was mostly English and Spaniard. The Spaniards were mostly from Castille, Andalusia and the Basque region. Later, many immigrants arrived from Europe, and there are large German, Italian and Croatian colonies in the South. White Chileans are also Swiss, British (often Scots Irish) and French. Among the Germans, there is high support for Nazism.
The lower classes tend to be a bit darker shade of mestizo (25% Indian), but not much. The upper classes are somewhat lighter mestizos (15% Indian). All mestizos and Whites in Chile identify as White and say they are White. Whiteness is something that is highly valued by society, and Indianness and mestizaje is devalued. Chilean TV is like Mexican TV – just about everyone on it is White.
However, Chile is experiencing the same problem as Argentina, a mass invasion of darker mestizo illegal immigrants from Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador, mostly the first two, beginning in 2000. Further, many of the White Argentines who settled there after the recent crisis are going home.
Along with the mass immigration of Peruvian and Bolivian Indians and mestizos has come a serious wave of street crime. The local Chilean Indians are not much of a problem. They live isolated in their own communities and leave other people alone. White Chileans will happily breed with mestizos and even Indians. Often it’s a White girl and a mestizo or Indian man. White consciousness is pretty low in Chile. Posters lament that the racial situation in Chile looks dire.
Many posters commented that mestizos and Indians in Latin America really hate Whites. Although this is a typical White nationalist claim everywhere (that all non-Whites hate Whites), there may be something to it in Latin America. One said he had heard Indians and mestizos saying that they were going to take power all over Latin America and throw all the Whites back to Europe.
All posters felt that Lula in Brazil, Chavez in Venezuela, Morales in Bolivia and Castro in Cuba were anti-White Leftist politicians.
Lula was seen as anti-White for initiating affirmative action for non-Whites for the first time in Brazil. Chavez was accused of “ethnically cleansing” Whites from the country, but that seems like nonsense. What’s going on actually is that wealthier Whites are leaving Venezuela due to Chavez’ socialist policies. Morales was accused of wanting to take over all the Whites’ property and give it to Indians and mestizos.
All over Latin America, the Indian, mestizo and anti-White cause was seen as being led by Communists for various reasons. Some of the reasons given were quite dubious. It’s probable that these Leftists are simply being driven to ameliorate the vastly inequitable situation in their countries.
One poster noted that in spite of the profound racism, at least in his part of Latin America (apparently Peru), Indians and mestizos of both sexes were constantly trying to marry White or at least have babies by Whites.
This went so far as males misleadingly impregnating White women, females misleadingly allowing themselves to be impregnated by White men, ingratiating themselves to and flattering Whites, etc.
The poster said they want to marry White to “wash themselves.” I find it dubious that mestizos and Indians have that much self-hatred, but it’s possible.
All of his aunts and uncles married mestizos, and none of the marriages turned out well.
He described Indians and mestizos as aggressive, abusive (usually verbally but sometimes physically), and unable to control their emotions well. None of the mixed race offspring of his relatives did well in school. All of his White relatives now have mixed feelings about their part-White kids, and to some extent, they are ashamed of their offspring due to their mixed blood, poor grades and mestizo values.
While most posters lamented the historical fact that the original White settlers to Latin America had bred in heavily with Indians and to some extent Blacks, others attempted to rationalize it. As one put it, it was either Indian and Black women or homosexuality/bestiality.
Some posters attempted to explain why White men had bred in so heavily with Indian women. One described it as a natural match. Indians being racially Mongoloid or Asian, Indian women are similar to Asian women. Indian women, similar to Asian women, were described as very submissive, and White men liked this quantity very much. The poster noted that in the US you see many White male/Asian female couples for the same reason. A Caucasian male and a Mongoloid female appears to be a natural mix. Each party gets what they want out of the relationship.
Another poster said that many White males continue to breed with Indians, Blacks, mulattas and mestizas because these women are not laboring under the same sexually repressive strictures that White women in the region are. The life of a moneyed White woman in the region is somewhat restricted sexually, as she feels bound by the Madonna/whore dichotomy characteristic of Hispanic culture.
However, in the White women in poorer classes and with non-White women are much freer sexually. As one poster put it, “Indian and Black women spread their legs very easily, and many White men are tempted by this.”
All posters felt that the future for Whites in Latin America was hopeless. Continued immigration of non-Whites, high birth rates of non-Whites combined with low birth rates of Whites, along with continuing and accelerating intermarriage of Whites with non-Whites, meant a slow darkening of the White population and its eventual diminishment to low numbers.
Various proposals were suggested to “take back our countries,” but all were rejected as hopeless.
One suggestion was mass emigration to Uruguay, seen as one of the last holdouts for Whites in Latin America. This was rejected as impractical, mainly due to the small size of the country.
A while back, there was a “move to Argentina” movement, but that didn’t seem to catch on either since most White Latin Americans love their home countries and don’t want to leave. Another problem was that Argentina’s economy was very bad.
There were many threads about leaving Latin America and moving to Whiter places, especially Europe.
Some radicals offered militant proposals. One was to declare a White nationalist state in Southern Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, separate from Brazil, and presumably evict all the non-Whites.
From that base, the new state would expand across the rest of Brazil, pushing the Blacks and mulattos into Northeastern Brazil. Then the Blacks would be shipped to Central Africa and the mulattos would be shipped to Angola. This proposal seems unlikely to come to fruition.
The White State in the Southern Cone, expansionist or not, is a pipe dream for other reasons. Part of the problem is that Brazilians and Argentines, even the Whites, hate each other. I’m not sure what it’s all about, maybe soccer. Also they speak two different languages and have very different cultures. Further, even White Brazilians are very nationalistic and would probably never want to leave Brazil.
A union of Uruguay and Argentina would actually be possible due to deep cultural connections between the two, but it would not be good for the White state, since Uruguay is PC Central in Latin America. It would be like annexing a gigantic Spanish-speaking Massachusetts.
I saw in these threads the future of the US. America will become much more mixed and Spanish-speaking. The history of the continent is one of the marriage of the two great races, the White and the Indian, and the language of the marriage was Iberian. We missed out on it here, since so many Indians died, White immigration was so huge, and most colonists were from Britain. Also, White colonists here brought women along.
Soon the US will become just another Latin American country, that is, we will finally become part of the continent of the Americas. In other words, the unusual and continentally anomalous experiment of “America” will slowly end, and we will finally join the Americas.
*Although the word mulatto is offensive to Blacks and mixed race people, I am going to use this word because that is the way that Black-White mixed race folks are referred to in Latin America. Further, “mixed race” is a seriously idiotic way to describe Black-White mixes. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.