Who care if low morals, unattractive White women have sex with Black men? I mean we are going to have unattractive and low morals White women no matter what. Does it matter that they are screwing Blacks?
I get pummeled for saying this, but there may be advantages to mulatto or mixed race children.
They are much more intelligent than full Blacks. Mulattos have IQ’s of 93.5, and full Blacks have IQ’s of 87.
I am not sure if they act better behaviorally. There is some evidence that the young ones act worse because they don’t fit in with either group. Two of the worst gang members in my complex with mixed race young men, one White-Black mixed, the other Hispanic-Black mixed.
Also Latin America, which has a high number of mixed race people, has one of the highest crime rates on Earth. Countries such as Colombia, Panama, Venezuela, and Brazil have many people with mixed Black ancestry. The mix here is generally White-Black-Indian. Hugo Chavez was a mix like this. I think they are called Zambos, but that is pejorative.
Puerto Rico is the same and Puerto Ricans commit lots of crime. Puerto Ricans in fact are precisely 1/3 Black, 1/3 White and 1/3 Indian.
I just had a date with a 23 year old half-Black, half-Hispanic woman that was one of the worst dates of my life. I believe she was a female psychopath.
However, we don’t have to look far to find mulattos or light-skinned Blacks among the finest achieving Blacks in our country all the way back to George Washington Carver. Many of our finest Black intellectuals have quite a bit of White in them. You also find a lot of light-skinned Blacks among the top positions in society such as law, medicine and politics.
Although I discussed some mulattos who acted very bad, I don’t have to think very hard to find a lot of mixed race or mulatto people I have met who act exceptionally good. Many of them are completely outside of the low class – ghetto type culture, one of the major Black cultures. They are very common among middle class Blacks, and the young ones I have met typically act just like the other well-behaved young people in their environment.
Of course many dark-skinned Blacks are also part of the Black middle class, act quite good, and are quite intelligent.
Increased mulattoization of US Blacks would lead to continuing improvements in the group, with an increased number of Blacks moving into the Black middle class, and the ghetto culture possibly shrinking.
US Black intelligence would increase very slowly as measured by IQ.
We would see more Blacks in top fields such as law, medicine, academia and politics than we see now.
We would probably see more Black and mixed race people mixed in with the general population or living among Whites than we do now. Presumably these mixed race people would be less likely to be packed into ghetto Crime Manufacturing Enterprises than we do now.
Since Blacks act better when they are spread out through the population rather than being packed together in a segregated group, this presumably would have a good effect. In other words, other than the obvious genetic effect, increased mulattoization would increase actual integration in US society, and integration of good for Black people.
Whether crime itself would go up or down is somewhat up in the air as Latin America shows that mixed race populations such as Black-White or Black-Indian-White can have some of the highest crime rates on Earth, even higher than full Black populations. When it comes to the causes of crime, there is a lot more than genes going on.
Tulio: It seems the Latin America right is mostly dominated by whites. I yet to see many dark brown Amerindian leaders of right wing movements in Latin America. They seem to be all people of European descent.
Yep. White people act pretty horrific down there. I know you don’t like Chavez, but he is the hero of the Blacks and Browns down there. The opposition is mostly White and light-skinned. During the recent rioting, the opposition attacked some Black Venezuelans on the assumption that they were Chavez supporters and set them on fire in the streets. The Opposition habitually called Chavez a mono or a monkey. He was a zambo, a mixture of Black, White, Indian. This mixture is pretty common in Venezuela, Colombia and Panama. I have read interviews with members of the opposition. One was an unmarried White upper class man in his late 20’s who lived at home. He said he felt so insulted every time he saw Chavez because it was like his people (upper middle class Whites) were being ruled by their maids and gardeners. The idea that this proud White man should be ruled by his inferiors was infuriating. Peru is an extremely racist society. Now it’s mostly against the Indians, it’s true. They hardly have any Blacks. There was recently a case of a beautiful Black woman who tried to get into an exclusive nightclub in the wealthy Miramar District of Lima and she was turned away at the door. I guess they had a “No Blacks” policy. Chile is incredibly racist against Indians, and they are supposedly one of the most progressive countries down there. I had a friend whose father had worked in Allende’s administration. He was a sociology major and he was doing some work with the Mapuche Indians who live in the South. But his racism against those Indians was off the charts. Chileans are extremely racist Peruvians, and most of it is wrapped around the idea that Peruvians have much more Indian blood than the Chileans do, though the average White Chilean is ~25
I’m not sure how racist things are in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia or Brazil. Some people say that Colombian Whites are extremely racist against Blacks, but others said it’s not the case. Actually in Latin America there is the phenomenon of social race. A wealthy Latin American told me that even Black Latin Americans can be completely accepted in wealthy White circles if they only have enough money. This phenomenon is called social race. It is especially prominent in places like Brazil. So a wealthy Black Brazilian can be effectively “White” and a poor White in a favela (there are many Whites in favelas) is effectively Black or mixed race (a wigger). Racism is forbidden by law in Brazil but it still exists. I think there was a case recently where a White woman was in an elevator and she would not let a Black person in the elevator with her. It generated a lot of controversy. Nevertheless, there is a racial hierarchy. White women are regarded as wives and mothers but not so much as sex objects. In fact, they are too pure for that. Black women are regarded as unattractive. Their only use is maybe to be your maid. However, mixed race mulatta women are the most highly prized of all, and even White men see them as the sexiest women of all. They are sexualized as sex objects. I had a White Brazilian woman who was my friend for a while. She mostly spoke Portuguese so it was hard to talk to her. I told her, “You try not to be racist against Blacks here, but it’s hard.” She agreed with me, and said, “Yes, I agree, we try not to be racist too, but it’s hard. We Whites have a saying here in Brazil, ‘If a Black doesn’t steal from you when he’s coming, he steals from you when he’s going.” In other words, if he doesn’t steal from you when he’s walking in the door, he will definitely steal from you when he is walking out the door. So even down there Blacks are regarded as thieves. There’s not a lot of racism in the Caribbean because there are almost no Whites. However, the mulattos in Dominican Republic are extremely racist against the Blacks in Haiti. They still enslave them, for Chrissake. Mexico, I am not sure, but in barrio culture here, low class Hispanics are much more racist against “mayate” Blacks than Whites are. The mestizos are openly racist, much more so than the Whites who probably think open racism is uncouth as Mexican Whites are very into being proper, mannered people. In there is open racism against Blacks in Mexico at least in the media. Further, the Mexican media is ~100
I would however say that this mostly applies to Mexican-Americans. I am not even sure if it applies to Mexicans in Mexico because there is actually a High Culture in Mexico. In Mexico City there is opera and the main paper has a large book review section every week. In other words, a true highbrow intellectual culture, right in the heart of Mexico. It goes without saying that the members of this highbrow culture are White or a lot Whiter than average Mexicans. But in Mexico, White and people involved in highbrow White Mexican culture extends all the way down to 60-70
The high culture of Mexico City compares starkly with the rest of Mexico. Your typical Mexican mestizo is a pretty lowbrow person – he’s probably never read a book in his life nor does he wish to. Nevertheless, even the lowliest cook in a corner market knows how to read and write. They definitely teach you that in Mexican schools and most Mexicans have been to school. And most Mexicans from Mexico, even a lowly corner cook like I mentioned, know something about Mexican history – the Civil War of course and even the clerical contra rebellion afterwards ~1930 that most Americans have never heard of. Every Mexican knows who Emilio Zapata and Benito Juarez are. I was stunned at how many of these very uneducated people had even heard of Frieda Kahlo. How many Americans know who she was? How many Chicanos know even a parallel basics of US 20th Century history? And you will never meet a Mexican-American who knows who Frieda Kahlo is nor do they care to find out. Beyond that, we descend even lower to Mexican Indians, who not only don’t read books but may not even know what a book is. Mestizos believe in some strange saints in their profoundly syncretic Catholicism, but when you get out to the Indian villages, people actually still believe in witches. As you can see, the descent from High Culture down to beyond lowbrow is a steep one indeed. You will nearly break a leg walking too quickly down that slope. The South Americans I have met in the US are not so anti-intellectual as the Chicanos below. South America after all has a much better High Culture than Mesoamerica. South American High Culture is so intact because the culture of Spain still lingers down there to a great degree while it has nearly vanished from Mesoamerica. I have talked to rich people in Lima and Bogota who literally spent half the year in Spain. Literally. I had an Argentine girlfriend once. She often called me Senor instead of my first name (imagine an American girlfriend routinely referring to you as sir) and was in stunned awe of the fact that I was an hombre de letras or a “man of letters.” Intellectualism is a big deal in Argentina. The Salvadorans and Nicaraguans I have met in the US were highly politicized, and I was shocked at how smart they were. You think you are dealing with another “ignorant Mexican in a mini-mart” until you start them off on politics, and they start rattling away and soon leave you in the dust. Every Salvadoran I have ever met has heard of La Matanza (The Massacre), and that happened in 1932. And I’ve not met one yet who could not tell me who Farabundo Marti was (see La Matanza above). How many Americans know who Farabundo Marti was? Most Americans don’t have the slightest idea what either of those things are. It just goes to show that you can take a society with an IQ like Chicanos and supercharge them politically and possibly even culturally if the objective conditions are right. The Colombians, Peruvians, and Chileans I met here and outside the US (not to mention the Argentine woman) had a shockingly deep knowledge of politics for an ordinary person, and the Latin Americans were often as learned as a Spaniard or at least wished to be. How many Americans know who Tupac Amaro was? But the young Peruvian woman I knew all about him and even knew quite a bit about his wife, who is a proto-feminist hero down there to some mestiza and indigena women.. I never asked her who Jose Carlos Mariategui was, but I am sure she could have told me all about him too. Another Peruvian woman I met knew all about Jose Arguedas and his famous novel The Fox Above and Below, which ties in with Mariategui, if you think about it. Arguedas was one of the most famous figures in Peruvian literature and his own daughter, incredibly enough, sat on the central committee of the Shining Path. Sendero was about indigenismo and to a lesser extent feminismo than anything else. They even his name in the formal long name of their group – El Partido Comunista del Peru en la luz del pasado sendero luminoso del Jose Carlos Mariategui or The Communist Party of Peru in the Light of the Shining Path of Jose Carlos Mariategui. Here is a recent comment from a half-Mexican American who agrees with most everything I have said about these people.
As a half-Hispanic raised with Hispanics, I mostly agree with this. My Mexican mother who immigrated illegally to the US paid tens of thousands for in-vitro fertilization, and that’s what pulled me out the ditch. This was evidently high-quality sperm because I still managed to turn out above average. The people around me were impressed that I actually liked to read and learn. When I was young, the other Hispanics were amused that I could memorize the times tables and recite miscellanea about science and history, besides being capable of drawing dragons properly. To give you context, my mother has been living in the US for over 25 years, and still does not understand a drop of English. They have a culture which consists of strong work-ethic (never missing a day of work and so on) followed by self-induced brain death post 9-to-5. They just watch mindless television and do not learn. I discovered my own origins at the age of ten. I also achieved standard atheism at the age of nine (which I consider a standard benchmark for the ability to display rudimentary acts of rationality.) Then it took me years of hard work to unwire all the Catholic stupidity in my mother’s brain. This culture has no concept of logical reasoning, so her mind kept swinging in repetitive loops whenever I tried to carefully and methodically pin her down to the implications of specific arguments. I succeeded in that endeavor, and am now in the process of teaching her where she is actually standing by explaining the crucial insights of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. People may laugh at the fact that she didn’t know the Earth was a sphere orbiting the sun, but yet most ‘educated’ humans alive today are just as ignorant about reality. For example, by not knowing that there is no universal now sweeping forward, or by holding the belief that we are made of little billiard ball particles bouncing around. In my experience, whites at least fake like they want to learn. They’ll say “Oh yeah, that’s cool. Schrodinger’s cat is dead and alive… lol… because it’s all probabilistic, hur dur” or something. Of course, they don’t know jack-shit and also prefer to consume mindless media, but their culture says it’s okay to be smart. Hispanics just don’t give a shit. A lack of intellectual culture is their biggest setback. The ghetto lower-middle income schools I went to were torture. The kids couldn’t do basic algebra; the teachers were underachieving whites who couldn’t get higher paying jobs in other districts or who preferred having less responsibility because black and hispanic parents wouldn’t bitch to them about grades, or have any expectations whatsoever really. And the teachers made no secret about this, they outright told us this was the reason. Also, what you say about Mexicans bringing Mexico is absolutely true. I stayed in La Villita when I went to university in Chicago because some kind family members we barely knew were willing to rent super cheap. As I walked through the dirty streets past yet another leather boot store blasting trumpet music I almost felt ashamed, like ‘How could Mexicans escape to a new country and yet prefer to make it Mexico again?”
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
Sicilians are ~5
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-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
John Engelman: Contrary to what Karl Marx said, for most people most of the time loyalties of nation, race and ethnicity are stronger than loyalties of class. The working class in the United States has always been more diverse than the working class in European countries. It is becoming more diverse with the influx of non whites.
To get class consciousness you really need a homogeneous working class. It helps if the working class is ethnically distinct from the upper class. In Scotland the upper class is English, or Anglicized Scottish. That is to say Scottish, but educated in England, and often speaking with English accents. The clear majority of Scots vote for the British Labour Party. English workers are more likely to vote for the British Conservative Party. The argument is circular in a sense because as you look around the world, generally what you see in most cases is an ethnically homogenous working class. Would you describe the working classes of Latin America as homogeneous or diverse? They seem to be a mixture of White, Indian and Black and the mestizo, mulatto and Zambo mixtures, correct? Yet the diverse working classes down there have high working class consciousness despite their diverse nature. Aren’t North African and Gulf countries fairly mixed between Blacks and Arabs? Certainly in Arabia, lands with diverse working classes of Kurds, Arabs and Iranian working classes are all very left. I believe Sri Lanka even with the vicious Tamil versus Sinhalese war, the diverse working class is leftwing. In Burma the working class is very left although there have been wild ethnic wars sputtering on for decades. In Russia and other nations of the former USSR, there are many ethnic minorities, but the workers are still working class. A recent exception is Ukraine where workers have gone radical Right. The former Yugoslavia is still very leftwing even after all of the ethnic conflict and even slaughter of past years. Spain’s working class is very radical despite an armed conflict in the Basque region and separatists in Catalonia. The different religions hate each other in North Ireland, but the Scottish Protestant workers are as class conscious as the Irish Catholic ones. Switzerland is divided between three ethnic groups – French, Germans, and Italians – yet it is a very leftwing country. The extreme tribalism in Africa has not prevented the working classes from being class conscious. Is the working class of England voting Tory yet? Or do you just mean that they are more likely to vote Tory than the Scots are? Most workers in Europe, Arabia, North Africa, Africa, the former USSR, China, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, Japan, South Korea, Nepal are the same ethnicity as the ruling classes of those places, yet workers have a high degree of class consciousness in all of those places. The places where working class consciousness has been harder to develop were those that had a Chinese ruling class as in Philippines and Indonesia. I think we need to come up with some better theories about the poor class consciousness of the US working class. If you are looking for examples elsewhere, India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Taiwan, Australia, the Baltics and Colombia are places with quite poor working class consciousness. In Australia it is recent as US style conservatism is imported. A similar trend is underway in Canada and has been since Thatcher in the UK. But the UK is in nearly a revolutionary situation. A lot of the working classes are militant and radicalized, while a lot of the country has at the same time gone Tory. When Thatcher died, there were anti-rich riots in housing estates across the land. Thatcher was burned in effigy in the streets. Can you imagine that happening in the US? The recent riots in the UK also had a class undercurrent. I was dating a British woman at the time, and she told me that local storeowners who treated the community well were spared by rioters. Rioters focused on stores selling upscale goods to the rich. Many corporate outlets were also smashed. She told me that a number of those outlets had a reputation for not paying taxes to the UK by hiding money offshore. She said the rioters knew who those companies were, and they were brutally singled out. Many outlets were burned to the ground. Can you imagine heavily Black rioters in the US having class consciousness like that? The Baltics are a case of entire nations full of complete idiots who hate Communism so much that they went into an extreme overreaction against Communism and turned against anything socialist, left, liberal or mildly progressive. Fascist heroes including many Nazis with a lot of Jewish blood on their hands were celebrated. Communist parties were outlawed, and Russian minorities were viciously maltreated. Radical rightwingers were elected in all of these lands, and Chicago Boys Friedmanite experiments were undertaken. The results were predictable. In the recent economic crash, the most neoliberal European countries were the most devastated of all. Estonia was eviscerated, and Latvia was almost wiped off the map. 1/3 of the Latvian population left the country, including almost all of the educated people. The Philippines and Indonesian cases are up for discussion, but these are Latin American situations of a ruling class of a different ethnicity than the working classes holding forth brutally and anti-democratically over the people. In addition, the workers have little consciousness. Taiwan has a similar legacy where extreme hatred of Communism resulted in being ruled by reactionary fascist anti-Communists for decades. There is a nascent Left now, but it has little power yet. The wealth of the country seems to have gotten in the way of working class consciousness. Probably the extreme anti-Communism helped too, as any working class movement could be quickly portrayed as Communist.
In support of one of my newest heroes, Fabricio Orjeda, leader of the FALN of Venezuela from 1962-1966. I also like this group, which I just learned about. They hardly killed a soul. Kidnapped a few people for ransom, including a US military colonel! Cool! That’s some real style. I like that! Back in those days, a lot of these groups kidnapped people and even robbed banks to get money for revolution. There were a number of groups in El Salvador in the 1970’s that did this quite a bit. Hey come on. A revolution needs money. Get real. How you going to have a revolution without money?
Most Mexicans are mestizos, but there are large minorities of more or less pure Europeans and Indians. He describes most of the significant White groups in Mexico and puts Whites at ~17
Although most Whites have Spanish roots, there are also significant French, Portuguese, German, Italians and Irish minorities. I met a young woman who is Mexican-American, but she is mostly Portuguese. The village she was born in in Mexico is made up of primarily Portuguese people! There are also quite a few Jews in Mexico.
More or less pure Indians make up ~12
Mestizos make up ~67
There are what he calls 3 occult roots in Mexico: Blacks, Asians and Arabs.
The first root, the Blacks, has its basis in African slaves who were brought to the east coast of Mexico. This affair did not last long as a slave who married a free Mexican had children who were free. So, slavery quickly went out and the Blacks disappeared via mixed breeding as slaves quickly took free, non-Black Mexicans as spouses.
The result was that pure Blacks nearly disappeared and the remainder are mostly mulattos, zambos (Indian-Black) and triracials. In addition, your average Mexican mestizo now is ~4-5
The next root is Asians. In the early days, quite a few Filipinos came to Mexico when it was part of Spain via the colony of the Philippines. By this time, they are heavily mixed with other races in Mexico. In the early 20th Century, many Chinese came to Mexico. Unfortunately, most were tossed out in the 1930’s in a wave of nativism, but in Mexico city and Mexicali, there are still quite a few Chinese and part-Chinese, as the Chinese also married heavily into the mix.
The last root is Arabs. Most of these Arabs are Christians from Mesopotamia, the Levant and Egypt. They came in response to anti-Christian attacks waged by the Ottoman Empire at the end of WW1. Since they came from the Ottoman Empire, many Mexicans referred to them as “Turks.” Carlos Slim, Mexico’s richest man, is Lebanese, as is Salma Hayek.
All three of these occult roots each make up ~1
There have been various studies of Mexico’s admixture, but they tend to come up with quite different results. I agree with the the author that the best studies show Mexico’s genome to be 52
Most self-identified Mexican Indians have some White in them, in addition to a bit of Black. Percentages range from 1
The author notes that Mexican-Americans have traditionally been a lot Whiter than Mexicans, because they tend to come from the Whiter regions of Northern Mexico. Southwest Mexicans have usually tested out at 66
A photo on his site of Chicano gangbangers shows that they are mostly White, something we have always known here.
Towards the end he makes up a list of racial categories of Mexicans, following my lead in this piece, even adopting my formulae and marking scheme.
He lists five major races in Mexico – Whites, Indians, Mestizos, Blacks and Asians.
No major disagreement there.
I have been regarded as a mad splitter in my piece above. One critic said that if Lindsay doesn’t stop soon, he’s going to have as many races as there are languages. This criticism, in addition to endless bashing by race deniers, hurt my feelings, as a result, I have made few new updates to my races of man post.
However, the author is much worse of a splitter than I have ever been, splitting off all sorts of groups that I probably would not have split off. Hence, his scheme is better seen as a view towards Mexican ethnies or ethnic groups than races per se. For instance, he divides Mexican mestizos and Mexican Whites into quite a few different races, on what basis I am not sure. Are they ethnies? Quite possibly. Races? Dunno about that.
In my scheme, I actually adopted a conservative scheme in which I tried not to split off new races unless I couldn’t help it. I wanted some significant genetic distance between a group or ethny before I would split them off. Hence, I lumped most Europeans into a single race because there isn’t much genetic distance between them. I am wondering if the author has any genetic data to back up splitting many of these groups into different races, because I only split based on hard genetic data.
At the end, I think we have two different schemes here. One is dividing races based on hard genetics and the other is splitting racers and also ethnies on the basis of partly genetics but also subjective factors. On the other hand, there probably is not much genetic data on the various different Mexican mestizos and Whites.
All in all, a very commendable piece, the fruit of long research. By the way, the photos are excellent. Make sure to check them out.
Repost from the old site. In our never-ending attempt to fight ignorance and stupidity everywhere it shows its ugly head, we will examine the question of the racial makeup of the Californios, the original Mexican settlers in California. Later on, we will look at the racial makeup of the first settlers of LA, along the same lines. First of all, let us demolish a particularly obnoxious form of Chicano nationalist crap: the Aztlan lie, perpetuated by radical racist Chicano nationalist idiots like this, this and this. According to this mountain of leftwing ultranationalist racist manure, Mexicans, otherwise known as Aztecs, are the true owners of a place called Aztlan, encompassing much of the southwestern United States. These folks are upset because we fought a nasty war in which we invaded Mexico and stole part of their country. However, most of the Mexicans in California at the time (the 7,000 Californios) hated Mexico so much that they welcomed the Americans who started this immoral war. After all, the Californios had waged their own unsuccessful secessionist war not long before, a war savagely put down by the Mexican government. However, the Aztlan BS lies on a steaming heap of lies of its own. For the Mexicans themselves stole “Aztlan” from the very Native Americans who they claim to represent! Holy hypocrisies, Batman! Yes, the Native Americans, not the Native Mexicans, were the original owners of this land. I have worked extensively with Native Californians and their opinion of Mexicans and Mexico is not extremely high. I am sure they would be furious with the notion that this land really belongs to Mexico. They are still smarting over being taken over by the Americans. So let us see now. Spain conquered Anahuac (the stupid name Chicano nationalists give to their fake country) in the 1500’s. Spain also conquered “Aztlan” right around this time, though they pretty much left “Aztlan” alone. In 1821, Mexico won its independence from Spain in an anti-colonial war. Mexico then assumed imperialist domination over the Native Californians, herding them into missions which frankly resulted in the genocide (in terms of destruction of a people) of many Native California tribes, especially those on the coast. The Indians were captured by force by these “charming Mexicans”, herded into missions against their will (a process that had really reached its peak under Colonized Mexico), where they were worked very hard and mixed in with so many other tribes that their languages and cultures were wiped out in the attempt at Catholic conversion. Running away from the mission was punished by whippings, beatings and imprisonments. The death rate was high in the missions, mostly due to diseases. There were repeated Indian uprisings at these missions against their wonderful Mexican overlords. These usually ended unsuccessfully, but in a few cases, some priests were killed. Leaders of uprisings were typically executed by priests. The Indians on the coast of California were particularly devastated by missionization. In many cases, we have few or no records of some of these languages since they disappeared as early as the early 1800’s. So in all their endless bitching about White invaders coming from Europe and genociding the Indians (largely true to some extent) Mexicans themselves, both colonized and independent, invaded “Aztlan”, stole the land from Native Americans, and committed a variety of crimes against the natives. So, Aztlan doesn’t really belong to Mexico – it belongs to Native Americans. But since they have been integrated into the US peacefully, it goes by default to the US. As if the notion of Aztlan were not lunatic enough, not to mention the BS called Anahuac . Anahuac is the name given to the Valley of Mexico, where Mexico City is now located, by the arriving Aztecs. The conflation of the Aztec Mexico City place-name of Anahuac by Chicano nationalists into the name for the whole continent of the Americas is extremely ethnocentric and is likely to fly well with few, if any, other (non-Aztec) Native Americans. Further, it is a frankly racist notion in and of itself. Chicano nationalists, being partly of Mexican Indian blood, claim Aztlan in the US for (partly) Mexican Indians, of all people! Outrageous or what? And on what do they base this claim of sovereignty of (part) Mexican Indians over Native Americans? Because, supposedly, according to some crazy Aztec myths, the Aztecs came from a land far to the north before they settled down by Mexico City. However, this is actually a misreading or deliberate propagandistic distortion of those myths, which actually refer to Aztlan as a land to East of Mexico, across a great sea, an island, to be precise. Clearly, this story is just that, a crazy myth with no basis in reality. Yet Raza propagandists have either ignorantly or malevolently twisted this myth of an island across a sea into a myth of a “homeland to the north”. This silliness rests on still more nonsense, mostly that all (part) Mexican Indians are actually Aztecs! In fact, the Aztecs were simply one large tribe (at this point a large collection of tribes who can no longer be considered one people) who had conquered, in Genghis Khan viciousness, many of the surrounding tribes. They were hated by almost all tribes that were familiar with them as basically a Mexican version of Nazis, they were savage, vicious, cruel and brutal, they practiced horrible human sacrifices, and they either tried to Final-Solution or actually Final-Solutioned many other tribes. In short, they were a bunch of bastards, and their principal pastime was Final-Solutioning surrounding “Mexicas”. Somehow, radical Chicano nationalists have decided that all Chicanos are really Aztecs! How the Hell do they know? Check out this page: there are 289 living Indian languages in Mexico. Granted, 28 of those languages are varieties of Aztec. But that makes 28 different tribes of Aztecs. That’s 261 separate non-Aztec tribes if you will. Add in another (at least) five non-Aztec tongues that have gone extinct since Cortes landed in 1519 to get 265. Out of 289 separate tribes, how do these idiots assume that all Mexicans are really members of the 28 Aztec groupings amongst the 289? Based on what evidence?! It’s as stupid as saying that all Native Americans are really Navajos. Now, maybe the Aztecs really did have a homeland to the north and maybe they did not. Linguists and historians are unsure about this, and this “highly advanced tribe” called Aztecs, had not yet figured out, by the late date of 1519, a coherent way of writing stuff down, when Europeans, Middle Easterners and Asians had been doing so for centuries. This same tribe of super-people had also not figured out bronze age metallurgy, which many cultures around the world had accomplished centuries or millenia before. According to legend, Aztecs came from somewhere to the north around the year 830. Various suggestions for this Aztec homeland have been put forward, all the way from Wisconsin to the middle of Mexico. The idiot Chicano nationalist claim to Aztlan is based on a misreading of the homeland of all of the Uto-Aztecan people (the Aztec tongues are all part of a large language family called Uto-Aztecan, which contains many non-Aztec tongues). But Uto-Aztecan is a huge language family that may be 5,000 years old . The homeland of the Uto-Aztecans was probably in southern Arizona. But that does not mean that that is where the homeland of the Aztecs was, anymore than saying the homeland of the Germans (Germany) is the same as the homeland of the Indo-Europeans (Southern Ukraine). Somewhere around southern Arizona about 5,000 years ago, the proto-Uto-Aztecan split into Northern and Southern groupings. But after that, there were a variety of splits inside of Southern Uto-Aztecan. As you can see, this theory just gets dumber and dumber. Proto-Aztecan itself did not even come into being until 600 AD, before which where was no such thing as the Aztecs. Furthermore, the builders of Tenochtitlan built the city between 2100 and 1400 years ago. In 600 AD, it was destroyed. It appears that the builders of Tenochtitlan, then, were not even Aztecs, but instead were some other group. Since the beginnings of the Aztec languages coincide with the appearance of a new group, described as Aztecan, and the destruction of the Tenochtitlan civilization, it appears that the Aztecs were not the builders of those pyramids but the destroyers of them! And so what if Aztecs used to live in Arizona or wherever centuries before 1519? We now accept that virtually no Indian tribe in the US was always in the spot where they were contacted, from the time of settlement from Asia to contact. We have been able to plot many migrations of Indian tribes pre-contact. It’s clear that they moved around, conquered, enslaved and genocided each other, practiced cannibalism on their enemies, (and were victims of all the above) and did all the things that tribes normally do. Point is, giving “Aztecs” a bunch of Native American land in the Southwest because they “used to live there centuries ago but left” makes about as much sense as the Zionism that these La Raza morons despise so much, often to outrageously anti-Semitic degrees (see here for a sample, or, really, most anything on La Voz de Aztlan). Now that we have demolished a few of these La Raza ethnic nationalist dung piles, let us move on to one of another of their cherished myths – that the original Californios were Mexican Indians. Shall we start with a fascinating tidbit about the very first residents of Los Angeles ? Los Angeles was founded by a group of settlers from a place called New Spain on September 4, 1781, soon after the US Declaration of Independence. Here is a map of New Spain. Does New Spain (its jarring yet powerful flag is here ) mean the same thing as “Mexico”, not to mention “Aztec”? Of course not. It included the entire Western US, a good part of the Midwest, all of Florida, Louisiana, the Gulf Coast, (yes) Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Trinidad, Cayman Islands, the Mariana Islands and even the Philippines. The best evidence is that the original settlers to LA came overland from Mexico. For a long time the Spanish government had been trying to get Spaniards to go to California, but hardly any of them wanted to go. The first settlers were regarded by a local priest as “the dregs”, similar to the first settlers of Australia. It seems they were escaping something. Quite a few were criminals or fugitives. 2/3 of them were Mestizo or Mulatto. So much for “Aztlan”! Some even came from the Philippines (via Mexico). Do Blacks, Mulattos and Filipinos all get to carve out a chunk of “Aztlan” for themselves? Here is the actual rundown, incredibly, from a Chicano nationalist website: Jose de Lara, 50, a Spaniard from Spain (evil White man), with an Indian wife and three (1/2 White, 1/2 Indian) mestizo children Basilio Rosas, 68, an Indian from Durango, Mexico, with a mulattress wife and six (1/2 Indian, 1/4 Black, 1/4 White) children Antonio Mesa, 38, a Negro from Sinaloa, Mexico, with a mulattress wife and five mulatto (3/4 Black, 1/4 White) children Antonio F. Felix Villavicencio, 30, a Spaniard (evil White man) from Chihuahua, Mexico, born in Mexico with an Indian wife and one (1/2 White, 1/2 Indian) mestizo child Jose Vanegas, 28, an Indian from Jalisco, Mexico, [Los Angeles’ first ‘alcalde’ or mayor], with an Indian wife and one pure Indian child Alejandro Rosas, 25, an Indian from Sinaloa, Mexico, with an Indian wife Pablo Rodriguez, 25, an Indian from Sinaloa, Mexico,, with an Indian wife and a pure Indian child Manuel Camero, 30, a mulatto from Nayarit, Mexico, with a mulattress wife Luis Quintero, 55, a Negro from Jalisco, Mexico, with a mulattress wife and five (3/4 Black, 1/4 White) mulatto children Jose Moreno, 22, a mulatto from Sinaloa, Mexico, with a mulattress wife Jose Rosas , 67, an Indian from Durango, Mexico and his mulattress wife and six (1/2 Indian, 1/4 White, 1/4 Black) or Coyota children *A Filipino, Antonio Rodriguez, from were not Aztecs. Look at the above – one could hardly find a more mixed group of people. It’s Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition 200 years in the past. Does that look like a bunch of Aztecs from “Anahuac” to you? Of course not. Idiots. Let’s look at something else. Exactly what percentage of Mexicans were living in Alta California, which Mexican invaders, recall, stole from Native Californians? A whopping .1
White Americans made up 1,300 of the population and Europeans (both evil Whiteys, who La Raza claims has no right to be in Aztlan) were 500. Going by adult males, the Whites and Europeans, who were concentrated from about Monterey to Sacramento, were about equal in population to the Californios. Here is a photo of a famous Mexican officer who led a war against local California Indians in 1828-1829. He looks about as “Indian” as I do. So much for the “Aztecs” of “Aztlan”. Also, if the evil White European conquerors were so diabolical and all, why does the Raza not only speak the language of these evil White conquerors, but why also have they adopted much of the culture and religion of these hated genocidal folks? Not only do they speak this “evil language”, they champion it to the point of demanding that it be an official language alongside English. Along the same lines, see here for an excellent demolition of an apparent radical La Raza professor, Manuel Servin’s, allegation that the Californios,
as the study of California’s settlement shows, were not Spanish, but overwhelmingly mixed-bloods from Indian, Spanish, and also Negro stock.
Attacking the notion that “Hispanic” or “Chicano” (whatever those words mean) culture or people were largely or even partly “Spaniard” is one of the favorite pastimes of the La Raza ethnic nationalists. Why the obsession? Probably because they hate Whitey and European culture so much, while glorifying Mexican Indian (But only Aztec!) culture so much, that the notion that “Spaniard” forms a large part of “Hispanic”, “Latino” and “Chicano” culture and/or DNA really ticks them off. It’s self-hatred plus denial, pure and simple. Ralph Vigil does a good job of demolishing this nonsense. First of all, “Spaniard” itself is not any kind of pure White race; instead, for 700 years or so before 1519, Spain had undergone an incredible amount of race mixture. In the New World, a mestizo born in wedlock was “criollo”, or Spaniard; one born out of wedlock was “Creole”. There was a lack of White women at first, so 1/8 Indian and 1/16 Black still qualified one as “White” or “Spaniard”. So much for race! So much for race indeed, even to the present day. A Mexican Indian leaves behind Indian ways and magically transforms into “mestizo”. A Guatemalan Indian drops Indian ways and starts dressing like a mestizo and automagically becomes “Ladino”. Neither without a drop of White Blood. Back to Vigil:
In order to arrive at a better knowledge of the Hispanic heritage of the borderlands, one should perhaps always keep in mind that this heritage consists of a Spanish, Mexican, and regional Southwestern past, and that an extreme emphasis on any part of the Hispanic heritage, whether it be the “Spanish cult” or the “Mexican-Indian” past, makes for a distortion of borderlands history.
So neither “they were Spaniards” nor the La Raza fetishization of Mexican Indians explains the matter well. Vigil concludes that the matter, like so many things, is complicated. It does not lend itself to simple explanations or La Raza propaganda soundbites:
In conclusion, the student of the history of the Spanish-speaking people of the Southwest encounters a civilization that in varying proportions has elements of Spanish, Indian, Mexican, and Anglo origin today. Although these background influences are important for the analysis and evaluation of the formation of the people variously called Mexican, Mexican-American, Spanish, Spanish-American, Chicano, and other names, the difference between that which was Spanish, Mexican, and Southwestern or New Mexican in the colonial period can only be a matter of regional distinction within a similar general culture. To claim, as Servín does, that Hispanos in New Mexico are not of Spanish stock or language or culture because of some race mixture over the centuries is to miss the importance of miscegenation completely. Vertical mobility existed socially and by the early nineteenth century, all those colonists in New Mexico not obviously Indian were Spaniards. To claim otherwise is almost the same as stating that Spain ceased to be Spanish because of the Berber invasions, or that “Anglo-Americans” today are Indians because they eat corn, potatoes, and use tobacco.
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.”