Repost from the old site.
I just created this movement because no one else did. I did it because it is so dumb I do not expect anyone to join. It’s called Caucasian Nationalism.
I figure if you are going to be a racist, you may as well hate the fewest number of people possible. I don’t have a breakdown on the population of humanity by race, but being a Caucasian Nationalist will possibly allow you to love as many as 1/3 of all humans as brothers. You won’t like the other 2/3, but most of them have big lips or squinty eyes anyway, so why would you want to like them in the first place?
Compare this to Nordicists who hate anyone not a Viking, Arab nationalists who hate the 97% of humanity who’s not a towel-head, and Orthodox Jews who hate 99.7% of humanity because they aren’t Hebes.
I advocate for the cause of all Caucasians everywhere, including Jews, Indians, Berbers, Arabs, Iranians, Egyptians, Afghans, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Tajiks, and Uzbeks. You need to be over 50% to get in.
If you have less than 50%, we will still pause a moment in your presence to bow before the Great White Man within you. That goes for US Blacks, Hispanics, Mongolians, Ethiopians, Altai, Uighurs, most US Amerindians and possibly Siberians.
It is true that we will cleave off from a large section of humanity, but that is ok.
For the Asians, we will just fuck their women and take over their laundromats, and if the men object, we won’t care about these inscrutable yellow girly-men because they are skinny, wimpy, nearsighted and weak, and we will kick their asses. If they try to defend themselves with martial arts, we will just respond with firearms.
For the Aborigines, Papuans, Melanesians, Polynesians and Micronesians, there is not much to do. They all live on islands, and Caucasians mostly don’t dig islands. Abos are pretty much history anyway, so no worries. Polynesians will be offered jobs playing steel guitar and dancing in our tiki restaurants.
Melanesians and Micronesians barely exist to us, and are too messed up to attack us, so we will let them catch rays on their beaches and leave us alone. No one even knows what a Papuan even is.
For American Indians, if they are 51% or more White, they are in. Ok, that takes care of most of them right here. For the rest, we have not yet decided, but we will accept applications as White Man’s Squaw and for performing in our traveling cowboy and Indian shows. Other than that, they are sort of hopeless too, except for their casinos, but at any rate, they are not a threat.
If they ever get uppity and ornery, we will just mass-ship alcohol into their regions and get them all drunk like we did to the Chinese in the Opium War.
US Blacks will need to supply proof of at least 51% White ancestry to get in. The ones that don’t cut it, we will let them work as entertainers for our shows. We will also allow them to cook and wait tables for us in our fried chicken and rib joints. Other than that, we don’t have to worry much about them. Many US Blacks are too busy drinking, taking drugs, listening to gangsta rap and murdering each other to bother us anyway.
Mestizos will need to submit applications to see whether or not they are over 50% White. If they are, they are in like Flynn. Too much Indian, the door. If they don’t dig it, they can go pray to the dead Aztec Gods and cast spells on us with their fake witches.
We beat em many times in the past, and it was usually a 15-0 wipe-out on our side. They barely got to third base. They will never get off the couch to rise again, and most are too overweight anyway.
We don’t regard Amerindians, even with White admixture, as a serious threat to us. That they are considered a threat to entire nations is one of today’s best jokes. If they ever really rise up like Sendero, we will have to deal. Watchful waiting.
At first I thought that this was a brand-new movement, but unfortunately, one of the most horrible people on Earth, Alex Linder of Vanguard News Network, supports it too (although he wishes to excise all Jews and kill them). I’m a horrible person too, but I suspect that Linder has crossed the boundary of excess horribleness.
When I read that he was a pan-Caucasianist (except for the Jews), I had to respect him, or at least .0001% of him (like when I heard the Night Stalker loved cats). He wants to kill off a good portion of humanity, but at least he’s not a Nordicist, and he wants to save the East Indians, the Arabs and the Ainu. I felt there was a tiny speck of magnanimity amongst that black vision of his.
There is a very serious problem with Caucasian Nationalism. First of all, many of these folks will refuse to admit to being Caucasian. Others insist they are White, but no one else believes them.
Tell a Punjabi he looks White, and he will try to punch you. Tell a Malian they are White, and they will hug you and agree, but no one else will think they are. Turks hate the idea of being White even though they are. Jews truly despise the idea of being White, but they hate shvartzes even more, and Jews certainly are not Chinese.
Tell a Moroccan he is White, and he will embrace you, pack a bowl of hash for you in the waterpipe, invite you to marry his cousin, and start shouting about how the Berbers were the original humans. Tell a Pashtun he is White, and he will run up to you, kiss you on the cheek, invite you in for tea in the men’s room, and regale you with tales of being the original Aryans.
The real problem here is not one of identity; it’s that so many of our Caucasian tribes hate each other so much they will never get together to join the movement, much less have each other over for tea. At the moment, many of them are busy massacring each other. This time-honored tradition is expected to continue into the foreseeable future.
For God’s sake, where does anyone get off saying that Iranians are not White? Look at these beautiful women. They’re White people. They look like European or like any Euro-American actresses. And I must say that the longer I look at them, the more I think that Iranians look a lot Whiter than most Arabs do.
A most interesting people. I once told an Iranian dental surgeon that I thought that Iranians were, “Europeans outside of Europe.” He was Persian, and he had previously agreed with me Iranians were White people (almost all Persians will enthusiastically agree with this statement if you ask them).
He then smiled and said, “You never know. We don’t know where the first European man came from.” He seemed to be referring to the Indo-Europeans, of which he was a member of the Indo-Aryan branch.
Why do people have such a hard time agreeing that Iranians are White anyway? Is it because they don’t live in Europe? Or is it some Nordicist prejudice on the part of Europeans?
South Asia and Central Asia, to be precise.
Most of the people in this video are children, and the real Mighty Whitey types claim that these folks are not really White because kids are naturally paedomorphic in terms of skin, hair and eye color. What that means is that kids can have blond hair, light skin and maybe even light eyes that darken later on with age. I don’t particularly care about that. All I know is these are my people!
I was particularly interested to see very White looking people even India, probably the darkest country in the video.
The video is correct. These people are indeed the true Aryans. Germans Nazis are morons. Nordics are not Aryans. Nordics are Nordics. Aryans are Aryans. Their homeland is in northern Kazakhstan 4,500 years ago. Then they moved down into Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Iran, leaving their languages and genes behind.
On a closing note, I must say that these kids are so beautiful! I love their eyes especially – they have such beautiful eyes!
Repost from the old site.
Problem is, they usually end up sounding like this guy.
German nationalism probably only dates to the 1880’s, and Italian, Russian and Pan-Slavic nationalism barely to the turn of the century.
Otherwise, nationalism in the modern sense really only arose in Europe with the French Revolution (though it was present first in England in the 1600’s with the defeat of the Spanish Armada), but it took the other nations mostly until the end of the century to adopt nationalism. Modern European nationalism is a relatively new phenomenon.
These modern nationalists pretty quickly took an interest in race along with the usual volkisch blood and soil bullshit. And most European nationalists agreed on one thing: the Jew was no good.
More recently, in the very early 20th Century, Nordicism began to evolve in Germany and in the US and the UK. I once had a copy of a proto-Nazi book by a German race scientist delineating all of the races in Europe and the surrounding area detailed down to the last detail. It was published in 1918.
This newer nationalism transcended the older nationalism of the one nation in an attempt to unite all Northwestern Europeans under some sort of a superior Nordic or White Race. At the same time, pan-Slavism and even Islamism developed (Yes, modern Islamism only dates to around 1900 or so).
Southern Europeans were quickly defined out of the equation by Nordicists, especially in the US where they were widely despised, but Hitler actually put Meds second only to Nordics. He hated Slavs, but this was mostly because he said they were a “slave race”.
They were a slave race apparently because they had allowed themselves to be enslaved by Jews in the form of Jewish Bolshevism or Communism. The fascists’ main beef with Communists was that the Communists tended to be anti-nationalist.
And it’s simple to see why Jews have been in the forefront of seeing that White ethnic consciousness or nationalism is dead and buried forever. This is why the anti-racists (who, granted, do bash away at Whites) are so often Jewish.
This is why Noel Ignatiev (Jew) has founded an organization to make Whites go away forever. This is why Tim Wise (Jew) exists. This is why Jews so often decline to identify as White. This is why there are so many Jews on the board of the NAACP. This is why Jews pushed the 1965 Immigration Act and could well be why they pushed civil rights so hard. Let’s face it: it’s hard to believe that US Jews really care about civil rights while they support their KKK-Jewish brethren in Israel so strongly.
KKK types are only bad when they are non-Jewish? KKK-Jews (Zionists) are ok, but KKK Whites are not?
Forget it. There must be another motive.
All of this Jewish behavior made the White Pride crowd dislike Jews more and more with every punch in the ring.
Anti-Semitism is not monolithic; some of it is pretty harmless stuff and unfortunately a lot of it is even true to one degree or another. But the Jews have never acknowledged that truth is a defense against anti-Semitism.
Yet when you start talking about your blond hair and blue eyes and your White race and White blood and then start slamming away at Jews, people, especially Jewish people, do tend to see historical parallels that are not necessarily present in other anti-Semitic brands. Face it, of all of the anti-Semites all down through time, these were the most efficiently deadly of them all. So while Jews will often shrug at other forms of “anti-Semitism” (especially anti-Judaism, which arguably is not necessarily even anti-Semitism at all but instead religious apologetic), the White Pride anti-Semites do tend to hit Jews in a particularly hard way.
And who could blame them?
Anyone who thinks Nordics were the original “Greeks” or “Romans” or “Persians” or “Egyptians” are a bunch of uneducated, inferiority-complexed morons in denial of the truth because of their emotions and obvious ignorant bias. Seriously. First off, Nordics with light features in hair and eyes and pale white skin only BURN in the sun if they’re not mixed with “darker peoples” genes. Nordics are up north in Europe because the sun is way less strong up there, duh!
Mediterranean people (or true origin, not migrants now there today) can easily tan and have dark hair, eyes, etc. to easily take the stronger sun rays on their skin and eyes. It’s so obvious only a moron (yep, many out there) would be able to actually deny this with confidence. Anyone can look up ancient art and pottery of Greeks and clearly see the very curly, swarthy BLACK hair, brown eyes, etc. And also in many pictures they show men with BLACK hair and brown skin.
Also seen in many Minoan paintings, who were of similar or same genetic stock as the Greeks. Look up ancient Persian pictures and you see men with BLACK hair and also very Semitic facial features, well what a shock, just like today’s Middle Eastern population as a while!
Look up Cyrus the Great (Persian). Nordicists are simply in absolute denial, because deep inside they actually have inferiority complexes. They know most ancient history of amazing civilizations have NOTHING to do with them.
When did Nordic people “come on the scene”? Only when they invaded Roman lands when Rome was in decline. Nordics/Germanics stole all the wealth and technology and also mixed with Roman peoples over hundreds of years. This is why you see people with light features in Italy, Spain, France, etc. today.
The ancient Romans even said the GERMANIC tribes to the north lived like uncivilized animals, didn’t clean themselves, did not have public baths, ran around barefoot, etc. Germanic/Nordics never built anything like Rome or Greece, until they had to come down, invade and steal everything like a bunch of animals, because they could not do it on their own without outside help.
This is actual fact Go google image search the Germanic invasions of Rome, and see for yourself. It started at around 300 A.D., and of course many Nordic migrants came over the last 1500 years to live there as well. So much history they ignore (thus, they’re ignorant) because it destroys their superiority complex. That superiority complex is really a mask to cover their… yep, again: inferiority complex.
Sorry guys, but you’re not as “superior” as you always claim. YOU burn in the sun, which many would say is a sign of inferiority, actually. You know damn well if you tanned nicely but most others did not, you would call the genetic defects and albino inferiors, etc. But since you are the ones that burn, you ignore this and try to point at other things. The emotional denial and ignorance of your kind is so high.
All your quotes of people supposedly saying Greeks had “gold hair” is BS lies. More likely implanted quotes by inferiority complexed Nordics who want to steal history. And also, even if light hair was seen, guess what? Hair dye was used all throughout the ancient times, whether Egypt, Persia, Rome, Greece, etc. Look it up, they dyed their hair different colors, even blue and oranges in Egypt.
This is most interesting post, and I agree with it in general. The Nordic-Med history is similar to the Egyptian-Nubian history. Meds produced a superior civilization, and Nordics produced an inferior civilization. When the superior civilization, the Meds, began to die, the inferiors, the Nordic barbarians, charged down from the North and conquered the ruins. And proceeded to not do a thing with it either, as the Dark Ages ensued.
Similarly, the mixed race Egyptians (90% White, 10% Black) produced a superior civilization for millenia. The Nubians to the south produced an interesting but frankly inferior civilization. As the superior Pharaohnic civilization began to die, the inferior Nubian “barbarians” charged up from the South and conquered the ruins. So in many ways, the Nubian Blacks of Upper Egypt and the Nordics are soul brothers.
Vikings are seafaring blond and red niggas from the fjords. Nubian Blacks are are dark desert Vikings gone berserker.
We can probably also theorize something powerful civilizations – that as they start to decline, they grow fat, lazy or decadent, and soon they are overrun by inferior but violent and charged civilizations, who lord it over the ruins for a bit until it all collapses.
That may be, but the part about “proto-Europeans” coming from the Lower Volga is bullshit. All archaeological, anthropological, linguistic, and genetic evidence (not to mention, evidence from indigenous pagan religions/mythologies) point to an Anatolian origin of the Indo-Europeans.
During the LGM, European hunter-gatherer groups gathered in some refugia in South Central Europe (Iberia, Western Balkans, Ukraine…) and Northern Europe was almost entirely covered in glaciers, as were the Alps, Caucasus, Pyrenees, and other major mountain ranges.
After the LGM, the scant remnant of Upper Paleolithic survivors moved back north, but Southern Europe was depopulated, only to be repopulated again by Near Eastern agriculturalists at the dawn of the Neolithic. These agro-pastoralists from the Anatolian-Levantine refugium brought farming, livestock, and copper to Europe. Among the earliest farmers were the Anatolian proto-Indo-Europeans.
The Basques are probably remnants of the Mesolithic survivor population. The purest descendants of these Near Eastern settlers are the Greeks, Albanians, Armenians, and at least some Italians – also the Turks, who inhabit the PIE origin land – ironically Turks, who speak a non-Indo-European Altaic language, are probably more Indo-European than most Indo-European speakers, especially Brits or Indians.
Of course, there were other migrations around that time. A people closely related to the Mongols expanded westward across Siberia, over the Urals and into Scandinavia following the deglaciation. They introduced Uralic languages (Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian, Lappish) into Europe, and the Lapps are their most direct descendants.
But we have strong reason to believe that Indo-European spread from the Near East (most likely North-Central Anatolia) chiefly due to agriculture, not from Western Europe (as some White Nationalists might believe), from India/Pakistan (as many Hindu nationalists believe), or from Gimbutas’ fanciful Kurgan patriarchs (which Wikipedia deems as “official” and which you appear to take for granted).
[Actually, it surprises me that so many people take for granted some nutty hypothesis proposed by the Marxist-feminist Jewess Marija Gimbutas despite the lack of evidence or historical precedent. At least the Paleolithic Continuity Model is based on some evidence (albeit misinterpreted), and the Out-of-India hypothesis is based on understandable wishful thinking.]
Consider the following:
* As per your own model, virtually all Europeans cluster closely with each other and with Persians, Kurds, Caucasus folks, Jews, Turks, and some Semitic-speaking Levantines. Basques, North Africans, Arabs, and “West Asians” (i.e. Afghans) are minor outliers.
This interrelatedness suggests a strong demic diffusion and also implies that the stat that Europeans are 80% Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic remnants but only 20% Neolithic colonists is considerably off. How else do you explain that Europeans are generally closer to Iranians than to Basques?
* While Indo-Europeans are/were indeed fairly heavily male-dominated (Gimbutas was at least correct about this), this follows from a Near Eastern origin, as the Middle East was, and still is, very patriarchal. Ironically, Gimbutas located the homeland of those “evil patriarchal invaders” who decimated the “feminist utopia” that neolithic European society (allegedly) was in Scythia, which is believed to be the source of the Amazon legends…
* Indo-European languages show relatively strong affinities to Semitic languages, and probably Kartvelian and Pelasgian languages (the latter may have actually been Indo-European, related to Hittite), possibly Ligurian (probably Indo-European and related to both Celtic and Italic languages), and even Etruscan (controversially). No such closeness to Iberian (Basque), Ural-Altaic, or Dravidian languages.
* The oldest evidence of Indo-European languages comes from Anatolia (Hittite) and the Aegean (Greek in Linear B). Minoan (in Linear A) remains undeciphered and may have been related. Archaeological records demonstrate a settled native population.
* Even the pagan religions seem to cluster near the Anatolian center. Zoroastrianism and the Indic religions both descend from the Indo-Aryan religion, but the Persian religion is more similar to ancient European religious traditions than the Dharmic faiths are (because Hinduism absorbed some Harappan/Dravidian pre-Aryan influences.)
Greco-Roman and Germanic religions were more alike than either was akin to Celtic (Druidic) paganism, the Celts being more matriarchal and probably influenced by relatives of the Basques in Western Europe and the British Isles.
All this points to an origin for Indo-European in Neolithic Anatolia, but you are probably correct that the Aryans (Indo-Iranians, not blonde Germanic supermen) came into Iran and India via Central Asia. Most likely route being a clockwise migration around the Caspian Sea…
Excellent commentary, fascinating stuff.
I actually agree with an Anatolian homeland for PIE, however, I also agree with a secondary spread from the Lower Volga. So things are complicated. In fact, I argue that Indo-European is actually Indo-Hittite, with Anatolian being so far removed from the rest that it is actually a sister to the rest of the family. Just a look at Hittite shows you how archaic it is compared to the rest of the family.
The part about the Turks, Greeks, Albanians, Armenians, and at least some Italians being the remnants of the original IE people is probably true. So, in a sense, these are really the “original Whites.” Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Nordicists.
Gimbutas’ theory has always ween a bit nutty. There were no ancient matriarchies. As a female friend once said, men have always ruled. Why? She answered, “Men are bigger, men are stronger, men push women around and make them do what they want them to do.” Well, of course, and women are too weak to fight back.
As it is now, as it’s always been. In gender relations, it’s the law of the jungle. I also feel that matriarchies might have been inherently unstable, as I’m not sure that “female rule” works very well. We are having enough problems with what matriarchy we have in the West.
Patriarchy or male rule is sort of a bad deal for women, but at least it seems to “work.” And I have noticed that women from patriarchal cultures seem to be happiest in their femininity and in general. The men are masculine, the women are feminine, and everyone’s happy.
The more women rule, the more miserable women seem to be, and men never seem to be happy under female rule. For one thing, oddly enough, female rule tends to make women act masculine and men act feminine.
Neither is a normal role model, and I argue that the more masculine a woman is, the more unhappy she is, and the more feminine a man is, the more unhappy he is. That ‘s possibly because they are violating nature itself. When you do that, nature fights back, possibly by making you miserable.
Surely IE is related to Afro-Asiatic and Kartvelian, but I disagree that it is less related to Uralic or Altaic, and I also disagree that Uralic and Altaic represent some family. Ligurian and Pelasgian are probably IE, but no one knows what Etruscan is.
I definitely agree that almost all Europeans are quite close to Persians, Kurds, Caucasus folks, Jews, Turks, and some Semitic-speaking Levantines. It is interesting how close the Caucasians are to each other. Most Caucasians are much closer to each other than other major races are. There is much larger differentiation among NE and SE Asians, Aborigines, Papuans and for sure Africans than there is among Caucasians.
All around, a great comment. The rest of you may feel free to chime in if you have any thoughts or anything to add.
And if so, to what extent?
I have a friend. He is a liberal, or even a Leftist really. He votes straight Democrat and would never vote Republican even if you paid him. He supports working class and in general progressive politics. As far as Blacks go, he supports the Blacks in government, supports Obama and supports the Black political project in general, with the exception for busing and affirmative action. He supports Barack Obama.
He has little to no animosity towards Blacks at all. Truth is, he’s indifferent to them. He doesn’t hate them at all, and he thinks Whites who hate Blacks are morons. He’s not a Black-lover either. He just doesn’t think about them much or have deep feelings about them. He is a bit sympathetic towards them because he feels sorry for them since we brought them over here.
He is friendly towards Blacks, and all other non-Whites, frankly, and has no personal racism whatsoever.
On the other hand, he tells me openly that he is a White Supremacist in the sense that he thinks Whites are better than everyone else. Nevertheless, this is a lightly held attitude, as he despises all real White Supremacists and White nationalists as idiots. Does he think Whites are better than Blacks? He never talks about it, but I suppose he does, but only in that he thinks Whites are better than anyone else. I suspect that a very large % of Whites have a sort of secret feeling of White Supremacy and that Whites are better than everyone else.
He’s also a Nordicist, as he thinks that Northern Europeans are better than the rest of the Whites. But he despises all the real Nordicists as idiots and assholes. Once again, it’s just a private belief. I have reason to believe that quite a few Northern Europeans harbor secret feelings of superiority towards other Whites.
He doesn’t support any aspect of the White nationalist or White racist agenda. MLK was a hero, and he likes most Black leaders. He’s an integrationist and hates segregation.
On the other hand, he uses the word nigger freely, though not exclusively, often simply as a synonym for the word “Black.” It’s as if he uses “nigger” without any feelings of animosity towards Blacks, as if this was a proper way to refer to Black people. It’s almost a casual use of the word. He does exempt what he calls “White Blacks” from being called niggers.
Like many to most White folks, he’s down for a good nigger joke, and freely tells all sorts of racist jokes, including jokes about Blacks. Once again, this is done lightly and casually, with little to no animosity in the case of Blacks. I suspect that the majority of Whites tell racist jokes in at least this manner, so this attitude must be common.
I questioned him about his use of “nigger” and the racist jokes, and he said, “Oh come on! That’s not racism!” I would suspect that a large % of Whites would agree with them, that using that word and telling those jokes is not necessarily racist at all. Absent any malice attached to them, many Whites just think that word and the jokes are “nothing.”
Blacks I talked to said he’s definitely a racist. The White nationalists I talked to all said he was definitely a racist, and not only that, but he sounds like one of us (a White nationalist).
Thing is, I don’t agree at all. He’s not a White nationalist; he hates them. I don’t know if he’s even all that racist. To me, he just seems like a regular ordinary White person. If anything, it’s soft racist or racism light, but this kind of soft racism seems like it is everywhere in White America. I mean everywhere. I’d also argue that it’s fairly inconsequential.
What are your feelings on this matter? Please comment.
Repost from the old site.
A question that comes up all the time in race realist circles is whether or not the various races of man, however defined, can be considered to be subspecies. No reputable scientist considers the major human races to be separate subspecies of Homo Sapiens. At any rate, Homo sapiens himself is already a subspecies called Homo sapiens sapiens. There was H.s. neanderthalis , H.s. idaltu, probably H.s. rhodesiensis and finally, Homo sapiens sapiens.
So a human subspecies would be look more like a Neandertal, with dramatic differences between them and modern humans. Even Khoisans and Pygmies are much closer to the rest of us than Neandertal or Idaltu Man was.
This area is still quite controversial, but the only scientists and theorists who are suggesting that the differences between the races are great enough to constitute subspecies are racialists, many of whom are explicit racists. Almost all are associated with White nationalism and usually with Nordicism. Nordicists are best seen as Nazis.
You must understand the differences between races and subspecies. For instance there is the California kingsnake . There are no subspecies of the California kingsnake. However, there are numerous races, many of which look radically different from the California kingsnake norm. They are simply called races of the California kingsnake.
So races of humans and other animals are really a level even below that of the subspecies. They are not protected by the Endangered Species Act, and I’m not sure anyone cares about them all that much. They’re better seen as regional variants.
Subspecies are a variant of a species that only occurs in one limited geographical area in which no other subspecies of that animal reside. Hence, each subspecies is geographically isolated from the others such that interbreeding is rare to nonexistent. At some point, subspecies’ territories may start overlapping. They begin to interbreed a lot, since subspecies of a type are readily capable of interbreeding. Once their territories overlap and interbreeding begins, we often stop calling two types separate subspecies and wrap them into a single entity.
Subspecies were differentiated in the past based on a significant degree of anatomical difference. Nowadays, genetics is much more popular. The combination of significant anatomical and behavioral differences combined with significant genetic difference at some point is deemed great enough to warrant a subspecies split. These discussions are carried on very civilly in academic journals and after a bit of back and forth, a consensus of some sort is arrived at regarding whether or not two variants of a species differ enough to be called subspecies. At that point, the discussion typically dies.
In addition, new genetic discoveries now show that some subspecies are so far apart genetically that a good case can be made that they are actually full species and not subspecies. This argument is also written up carefully in a journal, and usually seems to be accepted if the argument is well thought-out. In addition to splitting, there is lumping.
Some variants of a species have in the past been divided into various subspecies. Some new analyses have shown that all of these subspecies definitions were in error, and in fact, the species is fairly uniform, with few to no subspecies instead of the 10-15 they had in the past. This argument also gets written up in a journal and passed around. Usually the new designation is accepted if the argument is well-crafted.
The species/subspecies question is not as wildly controversial among scientists as laypeople think. Designations change back and forth, all are based on good, solid science, and science simply coalesces around the paradigmatic view of a species as it may change over time. Science, after all, is always a work in progress.
The reasons that the California kingsnake races were not split into subspecies is because apparently the genetic differences were too small to warrant a split into subspecies. It is also possible that these races are widely distributed over the kingsnake’s territory, with no particular race holding sway in any certain locale. So probably all of these kingsnake races can not only interbreed like subspecies but they probably are actively interbreeding as they are probably not geographically segregated.
At some point, it is discovered that two animals, previously thought to be separate species, have interlapping territories and the two species are observed readily interbreeding. Since separate species cannot interbreed, once two species start interbreeding easily, science often decides that they are not separate species after all and instead that they are subspecies of a single species
At some level X, two living things are split into species. At some lesser level of genetic differentiation Y, a species is further split into subspecies. At some lesser level of differentiation Z, we can start talking about races. I believe that all of the various breeds of dogs and cats are races.
“Race” and “subspecies” are two terms often conflated in speech, even by biologists, but strictly speaking, they do have different meanings. I do not know any reputable biologist who thinks that any of the various extant human races or subraces, however defined, need to be preserved on solely anthropological grounds in order to preserve their phenotype.
The various human races have been changing all through time continuously.
North Africans were once pure African, now they are mostly Caucasian.
Northeast Asians looked like Aborigines until 9,000 YBP (years before present).
South Indians looked like Aborigines until 8,000 YBP.
Southeast Asians looked like Negritos and Melanesians until about 5,000 YBP.
Over 10,000 years ago, Amerindians looked like Aborigines. Between 7,000-9,000 years ago, they looked something like the Ainu or Polynesians.
Europeans looked like Arabs 10,000 YBP, like Northwestern US Amerindians 23,000 YBP and 30-40,000 YBP, they looked very strange, possibly resembling a Khoisan more than anything else. White skin only shows up 9,000 YBP in Europe.
Polynesians and Micronesians only show up in the past 2,000 years.
So all of the modern human races and subraces, however defined, have been continuously changing down through time. The notion that they are some kind of unique subspecies in need of conservation like Northern Spotted Owls is completely mistaken and has little basis in modern science.
Since the sound quality was so poor, I decided to make a transcript of this interview available for you all. Enjoy it. Robert Stark: We’re going to be discussing California issues, how the states have changed, and how it affects trends facing the rest of the nation, but first of all, I came across this article on Robert’s site called Some Sensible Positions for Liberal Race Realists and White Advocates. Your first point is to amend the Constitution to get rid of the anchor baby thing. Very sensible position that most Americans would support. Robert Lindsay: I don’t know if they could get it through Congress and pass it as a Constitutional amendment, but all White advocates should be supporting this move. It is a very reasonable position to take. My position is that White advocates should not be taking crazy positions – almost all of them are taking these crazy, loony positions like “freedom of association” that are simply never going to fly.
This move to amend the Constitution to get rid of the anchor baby thing is a reasonable position. Your average reasonable person, especially White person, says, “Sure, why not? Good idea.” The Left is trying to portray this as racism, but hey, let them scream! Because your average normal American, at least White people, and even some Black people, looks at this and says, “What? They’re calling these people racists? Because they want to amend the Constitution to get rid of these stupid anchor babies? That’s not racist, that’s just rational.” Robert Stark: I think that even liberal European countries don’t give out citizenship to anchor babies. Robert Lindsay: Some countries may allow it, but I think most of Europe has gotten rid of it. Ireland recently had birthright citizenship, but they just got rid of it. We’re one of the last countries around to have this. Robert Stark: Ireland has only been getting a lot of immigration recently because of their economy. Robert Lindsay: There has been a recent trend for at least White countries to get rid of birthright citizenship. As far as the rest of the world goes, I don’t know, but I would be surprised if there is much birthright citizenship. Most countries don’t agree with the concept. Why should you get birthright citizenship? If you’re born in some foreign country, you get citizenship of whatever country your parents are citizens of. Robert Stark: Yes, it should be based on the parents. Robert Lindsay: You’re still a citizen of some country! You have a right to be a citizen of some country in the world. If a female American citizen and I go over to…Peru and have a child there, why is that kid a Peruvian citizen? That kid is an American citizen. It’s born of American citizens. Despite the fact that we are living in Peru now, we are still just American citizens living in a foreign country. Robert Stark: What are your thoughts on dual citizenship? Robert Lindsay: I understand that there is a lot more dual citizenship going around than people think. I mean, the anti-Semites go on and on about US Jews being “dual citizens” of the US and Israel. But my understanding is that there’s a lot of dual citizenship going on here in the US and in other countries as well. Immigrants from many different countries the world over who are here in the US actually have dual citizenship – US citizenship and citizenship in their home country. So apparently it’s not just a thing with Jewish Americans having Israeli citizenship – they are not the only ones. Robert Stark: I think the Israeli issue is not so much the dual citizenship – a lot of immigrants have that – the main thing is that many people in positions of power in the government and politics are more likely to have dual Israeli-US citizenship. Robert Lindsay: The real concern is that, say, your average person who has Irish and US dual citizenship is not some sort of virtual agent working for the Irish government. Your average person with Israeli and US dual citizenship is practically an Israeli agent! And that’s the whole problem right there. That’s the whole problem with dual loyalty and the Jews. Robert Stark: Yes, the dual loyalty is a problem. And due to multiculturalism, it’s tolerated, when we really should not be tolerating dual loyalties. Robert Lindsay: Dual loyalty is a problem with Jews due to the nature of Judaism and the Jews. Most other ethnic groups are not so ethnocentric as the Jews so we don’t worry about dual loyalty much with them. But due to the nature of Judaism, Jews are loyal to the Jews first and their native land second if at all. That’s why this dual loyalty thing keeps cropping up with the Jews – it’s inherent in the Jews themselves. It’s not an anti-Semitic canard. Robert Stark: Yes, it’s just how they are. Robert Lindsay: With the Jews, dual loyalty isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. Robert Stark: Your next recommendation is to avoid overthrowing civil rights laws. Can you go into detail about what some of these civil rights laws are? Robert Lindsay: The White advocates want to get rid of all civil rights laws! Every White advocate I have heard of wants to get rid of every single civil rights law that we have on the books in this country. They hate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They hate the Housing Rights Act, they hate the Voting Rights Act. They want to get rid of all of them and all anti-discrimination laws too. It’s true that Rand Paul is running for Senate now, and he agrees with that position, but nevertheless, that is a very fringe position to take. The day to get rid of civil rights laws has come and gone! The civil rights laws are here to stay! Robert Stark: So you think that would be a very difficult idea to sell to your average person. Robert Lindsay: Worse than that. It’s not going to happen! Those days are gone. That was maybe doable in say, 1980 or so… Robert Stark: I think the real big issue is immigration…You’re critical of people who want to get rid of non-White immigration. Instead, you are calling for IQ tests. Robert Lindsay: Yes, this would actually be a very interesting thing for White advocates to support. They were actually suggesting this in Germany. I don’t have any problem with that at all, but I don’t want it for spouses of citizens. If you marry someone from another country, they don’t need to take the test. But it’s a good idea, especially with these problematic immigrants. Some of these immigrants are a real problem. Robert Stark: What groups do you see as most problematic? Robert Lindsay: The Hispanic immigrants are a problem. Especially the ones from Mesoamerica. The ones from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras…And to some extent, those from the Dominican Republic. Robert Stark: Is it because they are coming here illegally? Or is it legal immigrants as well who are a problem? Robert Lindsay: I don’t think that all of the problem Hispanic immigrants are illegals. I would think that with Hispanics, the problem is IQ-related. If you said we are only taking Hispanics with an IQ of 98, which is the US average, therefore, all Hispanic immigrants, no matter how many you allow, are not going to cause an IQ decline in the country. I would imagine if you set it at 98 – your average Hispanic and their offspring who are causing problems – their IQ is below 98. The ones who are not causing problems, who are assimilating well, who act like you and me, their IQ’s are 98 and above. It’s a pretty good cutoff. It’s the dumber ones that are causing all the problems. Robert Stark: How would this plan deal with the numbers of immigrants coming into the US? Do you think there should be a cap per country? Because right now, we take in I think almost 2 million people a year legally. Robert Lindsay: Is it really 2 million? Robert Stark: I think it’s maybe 1.5 million, but anyway, it’s pretty high. Robert Lindsay: Sure, White advocates should advocate for a cap. 200,000, or 400,000…some kind of a reasonable cap. Robert Stark: Isn’t this what Pat Buchanan has been advocating? Robert Lindsay: I think that is a salable position. A lot of Americans might go along with that. And it really puts the pro-immigration, multicultural, PC crazies on the spot, because it forces them to say, “Terrible! They want to limit immigration to 400,000 a year! How awful! We need 2 million billion zillion a year instead!” Robert Stark: As opposed to advocating for zero immigration, they won’t be able to play the card saying you are racist. Robert Lindsay: Sure. You sound like some kind of a nativist nut if you say, “Yeah! We want zero immigration!” And it’s never going to happen anyway – zero immigration is not doable. Instead, you say, “Hey, we just want limits.” Then people have to stop and think, “Wow! 400,000? That’s a lot? How many do we actually let in every year, anyway? 2 million billion trillion zillion? Wow! Well, that’s way too many.” And it puts those idiots on the spot. They have to defend those insane high numbers as the only way to go, and they will have to say that those limiting immigration to say 400,000 a year are part of some evil racist plot, and that’s not going to work. Robert Stark: And focus on the overpopulation issue as well. That’s important to bring up. Robert Lindsay: Yes, I also wanted to say that in 1991, there was an amendment to the Civil Rights Act that dealt with something called “disparate impact.” And this, in contrast with the rest of the civil rights laws that need to stay, has got to go. Thing is, most people don’t even know what disparate impact is. No one’s heard of it, no one understands it.
But for instance the Ricci case, the firefighters case in New Jersey, was a case of disparate impact. Disparate impact says that if you give tests to a bunch of applicants, and the Whites pass the test, but the Blacks flunk at a higher rate, then there must be something wrong with the test. And you have to go back and redo the test or dumb down the test. It says that every time you have a racially disparate impact in any outcome, it’s always due to racism or bias in the testing, and that’s not necessarily true. Maybe the Blacks just could not pass the test.
Most people would be in favor of getting rid of disparate impact. And you would really put the PC idiots and the Black groups, etc. on the defensive because they would have to defend disparate impact and these crazy cases like the New Jersey firefighters, and most White people, and even a lot of Blacks, thought that case was an outrage. The goal is to push the PC-multicultural people into a corner and force them to defend things that sound really bad, and make us sound like the reasonable people. You see? Robert Stark: The next one is getting rid of US colonies. I don’t think we need to go into too much detail here. It’s pretty simple, but in a nutshell, the US colonies are places like Puerto Rico and American Samoa. And they are big sources of immigrants. And because they can’t really be screened like foreign immigrants, they can simply come in in large numbers. Robert Lindsay: Yes. They are unscreened immigrants, and they cause tons of problems. Our legal immigrants don’t really cause a lot of problems, to be honest, because we screen them really well. But the Puerto Ricans and the American Samoans can come here just like that. For them to come to the US is like you or me moving to Nevada. It’s like moving to another state. And it’s because they are unscreened that these groups cause so many problems. And there’s no reason to have colonies anyway! Robert Stark: It’s ridiculous. We should let them secede. It doesn’t make sense. Robert Lindsay: Why do we have colonies anyway? What are we, an imperialist country? Ok, we’re an imperialist country. Let’s have a conversation about this. Do Americans want to be an imperialist country? Let’s put these imperialists on the spot. Let’s force them to defend US colonialism! Robert Stark: I think that Puerto Rico is a product of the Spanish American War. And I think the same with Samoa. So in a sense it is imperialism. Robert Lindsay: I don’t know how we got Samoa. There’s also Micronesia, but Micronesia is not so much of a problem. But Micronesia is a colony too. We should not have any colonies. No country should have any colonies. And this is a Left position. Only the Left is totally principled on this position and says no nation should have any colonies. So by doing this, White advocates would be lining up with the hard Left, but that’s OK! Because the Hard Left takes a very principled anti-imperialist stand on this. Let’s force these elites to defend US imperialism! I want to see these guys on TV defending our imperialism and colonialism. You see, the Puerto Ricans and the Samoans and the rest don’t want to go – they don’t want independence. Robert Stark: They want it both ways. They don’t really view themselves as Americans, but they still want the benefits of being American at the same time. That’s the problem. Robert Lindsay: They like it the way it is. And if they become states, it is not going to be so good of a deal economically for them. But the way it is now, as colonies, it’s basically just a total scam for the colonies. But if they go on their own and become independent, they will probably just become ordinary 3rd World countries, and they will have a lot of problems as far as that goes. Why are we coddling these people? Robert Stark: Another issue that is very important is schools. You are talking about these White advocates who are so fixated on Brown vs. the Board of Education, that it’s basically a done deal, and they are wasting their time. Robert Lindsay:Brown vs. BOE is a done deal, right? Are they going to get rid of it? Even this crazy rightwing Supreme Court, are they actually going to get rid of Brown? It ain’t going to happen! Robert Stark: So your main focus is on busing and that kids should just have to go to their local schools. Robert Lindsay: Well, we shouldn’t say it’s evil or anything like that. “Oh! They’re busing Blacks into White schools! That’s terrible!” The main thing is that busing is just stupid. I mean, why are they doing it? Robert Stark: And it ruins good schools. Like the schools I went to in LA public schools – they used to be decent schools, but they got completely ruined. And both the middle school and high school I went to were in fairly wealthy parts of LA. But they’ve both basically turned into ghetto schools through the use of busing. Robert Lindsay: Well, sure, but I don’t want to say that because that sounds racist. Instead, I would just say that it’s a complete waste of money. And I would say that there is nothing wrong with a White school. They act like a White school is some sort of pathological thing. “Oh! Look at that school! It’s too White! Oh, we can’t have that! We need to make it half Black!” There is nothing wrong with a White school. It’s perfectly acceptable for a White school to be a White school and a Black school to be a Black school. Robert Stark: The multicultural and diversity types, they use diversity as a code word for non-White. For instance, true diversity would be a school where each ethnic group would be say 20%. But on the other hand, they claim that 90% Hispanic and 90% Black is diverse. Robert Lindsay: It’s ridiculous! The diversity thing has become like a fetish. I’m an integrationist, but we don’t need diversity everywhere. If some town is naturally a White town just because a bunch of White people went and moved there and few non-White people decided to move there, well, that’s OK! We don’t have to go fix it up by say, importing 20,000 Black people. If some town is naturally Black, well, that’s OK! Maybe a bunch of Blacks wanted to move there, and maybe non-Blacks did not want to move there.
There is nothing wrong with naturally segregated places, as long as it’s voluntary and we still have laws in place to ensure that anyone can go live anywhere they want to. And when you say that Blacks can’t learn in a Black school, and the only way that Black people can learn is if they’re around a bunch of White people, that’s very insulting to Black people. It really insults them. It says they’re inferior, and it’s a real burn on Black people. And I don’t know why Black people want to believe this insult about them. What’s wrong with a Black school? Robert Stark: You’re right, that’s what busing implies – that Blacks are inferior, and they need to be around White people in order to learn. And affirmative action implies the same thing. Most of your proposals are pretty reasonable, but saying we support affirmative action? California, which is a liberal state, actually voted to end affirmative action. I don’t see how saying we support affirmative action would appeal to most of the public if the majority of people are opposed to it. Robert Lindsay: Well, you could always say you support affirmative action but only if the non-Whites are just as qualified as the Whites. But the point is that that pretty much rules out most affirmative action right there! This was how affirmative action was supposed to be, but it’s never been that way. Robert Stark: But that still is reverse discrimination against Whites – if they are equally qualified, choosing the non-White. I think the best strategy would be to have economics based on economics or geography. It would benefit a lot of middle class Whites in middle America. If you look at the Ivy League universities, they are really dominated by the ultra-wealthy and then a few slots left over for affirmative action. And this is your last point – say we have no problems with well-behaved Blacks who wish to fully integrate into White communities. Robert Lindsay: Right, that’s a good idea, because almost all of these White advocate types are segregationists, and they push things like freedom of association. That’s what this Rand Paul is pushing. It’s not going to happen. You’re not going to get freedom of association back in where White communities can have housing covenants that say we don’t want any Black people, or we only want White people. Ain’t gonna happen. Ain’t gonna happen! Instead, we should say that if there are Black people out there who wish to move to our communities and are willing to assimilate to the values of our White communities and White culture – welcome to our city! Robert Stark: Then you say that this will force the PC crowd into the dubious role of defending Black culture. Robert Lindsay: Yes, because then they will say, “Oh! They only like White culture! Racists!” To that, we should respond, “We like White culture. We’re White, we like our culture. There’s good and bad about it, but we prefer our culture. And personally, we feel that a lot of Black people would be better off adopting White culture or assimilating to White culture than in getting into their own Black culture.” And then the PC crowd will scream, “They’re saying White culture is better than Black culture!” But your average person, especially your average White person, hears that and thinks, “Hm. You know what? White culture is better than Black culture!” Robert Stark: The one point that we left out is to support the immigration of White Hispanics into the US. So, how is that really practical? You’re saying our immigration policy would have to explicitly address race, and do you think that would be practical? Robert Lindsay: Well, White advocates are already saying that they only want White immigration coming into this country. Robert Stark: What are the White advocates’ position on White Hispanics? Robert Lindsay: They never discuss it. The only thing they say is that we will only accept immigration from Europe. And that’s never going to happen. We may as well branch out and say, “Well, we’d like the White Hispanics to come here.” Because then it would be a lot harder for the PC Left to accuse the White advocates of racism. “They hate Hispanics! They hate Hispanics!” And people would look at that and say, “Are you sure they’re racists? They don’t seem to mind the White Hispanics.” And then the PC Left will retort, “Sure! They like the White Hispanics, but they don’t like the non-White Hispanics!” Robert Stark: They would still be able to play the race card, but it would cause division among Hispanics. It’s interesting, because on our last show, we were covering the Rick Sanchez incident. Rick Sanchez is basically White, but because his family is from Latin America, he takes this view that he’s somehow a minority, and it’s sort of our own fault, because in Latin America, the Whites down there in many cases are fairly racist against the non-Whites down there. But we classify everyone from the region as effectively non-White, i.e., Hispanic. It’s ridiculous. Robert Lindsay: The White advocates in the US are almost all Nordicists. They don’t like the White Hispanics very much. They tend to label them as non-Whites. And the only Whites who they think are really White are from Northern Europe. Robert Stark: Well, the first immigration act in the 1920’s was a Nordicist thing because it favored northwestern Europeans. Robert Lindsay: It was, true. White racism in the US has always been Nordicist, but your average White person in this country is no longer a Nordicist. Robert Stark: I think this Nordicism thing has pretty much died out… Robert Lindsay: No, no, no… Robert Stark: Because if you look at these pro-White forums, there are Italians, Greeks, or Eastern European descent, but you are personally into that Pan-Aryanism philosophy. Robert Lindsay: It’s a good thing, Pan-Aryanism, because once you get into Pan-Aryanism, it gets harder and harder to call White advocates racists. Because the PC Left says, “Oh! They’re racist!” Sneer sneer. Then people say, “Hey, wait a minute. They like Moroccans, right?” Then the Left says, “Well, yeah, but they’re still racists!” Then people say, “Wait a minute. They like Syrians. They like Iraqis and Lebanese…” The Left says, “Doesn’t matter! They’re racists!” Sneer. Then people say, “Hey wait. But they like Turks. They like Armenians, Chechens, Iranians…” Robert Stark: David Duke is into that Pan-Aryanism stuff, because he visited Syria and Iran, and he pointed out that he saw people who were so called Aryans when he was there. Robert Lindsay: Well, we shouldn’t be saying that. We should instead be saying something like, “All Iranians are White.” We shouldn’t say, “Well, there’s a few of them who are real Aryans, but most aren’t.” Grumble grumble. Robert Stark: All of them? Do you consider Ahmadinejad White? Robert Lindsay: Yes! Absolutely. If you look at Iranians on a gene map, they’re right next to Norwegians, Danes and English. They’re White people! And if you look at them, they look White. The people I talk to are California racial liberals, but they almost all say, “Iranians? They’re White! They look like White people.” And if you talk to Iranians, they all claim White too. So this whole idea that Iranians are non-Whites is just kind of a fringe concept. It ain’t gonna fly. Robert Stark: People assume that all Middle Easterners look alike, but there are some big distinctions. Someone from Saudi Arabia is completely distinct from someone from Lebanon. Robert Lindsay: Well, yes, but I think Saudis are mostly White. Yet some of them, like Prince Bandar, he’s a pretty Black looking guy. Some of those Gulf types, they have so much Black in them that you can’t really call them White anymore.
One thing I wanted to go back and talk about on my list here. We need to get serious about throwing seriously disruptive students out of school.
Everybody wants to know, “What do we do about the schools?” For the whole White advocate crowd, and many ordinary Whites, the overarching racial question often is, “What about the schools?” The White advocates look at the mess in mixed schools and scream, “Re-segregate the schools! Black schools for Blacks! White schools for Whites! Get rid of Brown versus BOE!” Well, you know what? That ain’t gonna fly. Robert Stark: I agree. The way you deal with these kinds of racial issues is you go around the race aspect by just dealing with people based on their behavior. And the anti-racist types, they’re still going to call you racist because they make excuses for bad behavior. But screw them. All we need to do is to say that students who are continuously disruptive should be send them to separate schools. And if they get their behavior under control, then they can go back to the regular schools. But it’s unfair for students who want to learn to have to put up with that crap. Robert Lindsay: They’re destroying the schools. I hate to say it, but it’s especially true with the Blacks. There seems to be a tipping point of around 13% Black, and then things start going downhill. And just like Fred Reed said (I got this idea from him) when these Blacks start acting really bad, just throw them out! Throw them over to Psycho Kids Central High or wherever where they can screw off all they want. That is a completely reasonable position. Most people, especially most White people, would support it. I don’t know about Blacks, whether they will support it.
But once again, the PC crowd will be backed into a corner, and they will be forced to defend these students who act absolutely horrible, and just flat out destroy schools. They destroy Black schools, they destroy mixed schools, they destroy all kinds of schools. And in response to their charges of racism, we will say, “Well, it’s not just for Blacks. We will throw the bad Whites out. We’ll throw anybody out.” Robert Stark: Yes, anyone. You can’t call it racist, because it’s a colorblind solution. Robert Lindsay: And once again, we will force these PC characters to defend the worst acting, most horrible students in the whole country, total brats, that are destroying schools for everybody else. And that’s a terrible thing to defend. I want to see them defend that behavior. See, that’s a reasonable thing that’s actually doable. Getting rid of Brown versus BOE, getting rid of integration – those are not reasonable goals. Robert Stark: Yes, these people, they’re just living in a fantasy. Like on immigration, they want to shut it all down, but in reality, we will be very lucky if we can even stop amnesty. Robert Lindsay: Agreed. We probably can’t even stop amnesty. We can’t even throw these illegals out of here. Robert Stark: Yes, we can’t even throw out the illegals. Robert Lindsay: First things first. Robert Stark: Practical solutions that are doable… Robert Lindsay: I don’t think we can deal with legal immigration at all right now. First things first. First of all, we need to deal with illegal immigration, and we can’t even deal with that! These PC crazies want to legalize all the illegals, for Chrissake. Let’s deal with that first. Politics is the art of the possible. And these people, these White advocates, especially these White nationalists, they are advocating positions that are totally unreasonable. They are completely non-doable, fringe, ultra-radical positions. I doubt if these folks have the support of 5-10% of the population for these radical things that they want to do. And what’s the point of that? What’s the point of being a total loser? I don’t get it. Robert Stark: Well, if you look at the new A3P Party, most of their platform is pretty reasonable stuff that sounds similar to the stuff that you’re advocating here. Robert Lindsay: It’s a good idea! It’s a good idea to come across like a moderate. One of the goals of politics is to come across as reasonable and to force your opponent to take crazy positions and defend those crazy positions. Fine. Put crazy words in their mouth, and then make them defend them. Robert Stark: These issues all tie together, but originally I intended to discuss California, and we still have a decent amount of time. To start off, we are both from California, and we are both originally from the LA area, and both of us have moved up to Central California. And Robert, can you tell us, what are the changes that you have seen throughout your life and that have happened to our state and what are some of the biggest and most negative changes that you have seen? Robert Lindsay: Well, I’m not going to call for a return to White California. That’s an era that is done and gone. And I did not mind growing up in a multicultural California. When I was growing up in the 1970’s, California was about 70-80% White. It was 80% White in 1970, and it was 70% White in 1980. So it was about 75% White during that era. I spent most of my time in a White community, but I was totally comfortable with a California that was 25% non-White. That was normal to me, it felt good and OK.
I don’t have to live with all White people. We can have some non-Whites around. We grew up with the Mexicans. The Mexicans are a part of this state. They’ve been here from the very start. This state used to be a part of Mexico. The Mexicans – they’re part of the neighborhood! Robert Stark: But the problem is the sheer numbers. Because the PC, Open Borders types try to say, “Oh, you hate Mexicans. You’re scared of Mexicans.” But most White Californians are pretty used to being around Mexicans. They’re part of the landscape. It’s not really an issue that they are here. Instead, it’s an issue of numbers. Robert Lindsay: Yes, right. The Mexicans in this state assimilated really well back in the 1970’s. And now, there are a zillion of them, they’re not assimilating, and they’re causing tons of problems. And they were not causing tons of problems back in the 1970’s. Robert Stark: You wrote that Mexican-Americans are assimilating into low class White culture. Robert Lindsay: The assimilated Hispanics, the ones that are second and especially third generation, a lot of them are assimilating to a sort of a White trash culture. Like the lowest of the Whites, the worst of our people. Robert Stark: I saw that a lot at the Wallmarts in Fresno. Not so much in LA. Robert Lindsay: Yes, it’s not a good thing that a lot of them are assimilating to. One thing that I have noticed is that the Hispanics who have a deeper connection to Mexico – first generation immigrants and some of their children – now I don’t really like the illegals all that much, but we have a lot of them around here. But actually the ones that have a really deep and intense connection to Mexico, who are still into the Mexican culture, a lot of them tend to act pretty good. They have a tight-nit family structure. Robert Stark: Yes, I noticed that when I was in a public high school in LA, the recent immigrants minded their own business, but there were others who emulated the whole gangta rap culture. They wore baggy jeans and listened to rap. Robert Lindsay: Those are not the recent immigrants! Robert Stark: Yes, the gangbanger types are children of illegals or in some cases, even grandchildren of illegals. Robert Lindsay: Yes, they are the children of the illegals. And now we are getting into multigenerational gangbangers. But around here, the ones that are still deeply connected to Mexico, they generally act pretty good. They act like Mexicans, people from Mexico itself. They act like peasants.
If you go down to Mexico – I used to go down there 25-40 years ago – your average Mexican generally acts pretty good. They are conservative, traditional people, they have a very tight-knit family structure, and they keep a close watch on the girls. And for instance, the traditional Mexican girls, they don’t try to sleep with every guy in town. It’s dishonorable to be a slut or to be a prostitute and sell your body.
But I see these Mexican Americans who are assimilated, 3rd generation, and they start selling their bodies on the street and shooting heroin and just sleazing out to the max. And the ones around here that are deeply connected to Mexico, a good, proper Mexican girl, she won’t do that! To them, the worst thing on Earth is to be a whore. And, you know what? I’ve got to respect that. There is something valuable about that.
The family is often very protective of the girls. They have good, strong role models. The male has a strong role model. The female has a strong role model. The Mexican women are very feminine, they’re very nice to men, they’re very friendly. I don’t really have anything against the peasant culture of Old Mexico. There’s a lot to be said for peasant cultures. In many ways, they are good, traditional. Robert Stark: You also said that you have seen the cultural decline of the White middle class. You wrote an article about that. Can you explain some of the things you have observed about the White middle class over time? They also seem to be assimilating into lower class culture and they seem to be getting less intellectual. Robert Lindsay: Part of what is going on is the wiggerization of White people. Things are just getting a lot trashier. Back in 1970’s, White culture, if you had tattoos, you were considered to be a sleaze. Especially a woman, if a woman had tattoos…we knew women who had tattoos, and people hated them and treated them like they were whores. The only people who had tattoos were people like bikers or maybe Marines.
For a White middle class person, that would be considered a totally sleazy thing to do, to get a tattoo on your body. White people were supposed to be like these White bread, upper middle class, well-mannered types. Now, just about every White woman you see is decorated like a cannibal! They have all these piercings all over their bodies. I don’t want to put them down too much, but it seems sleazy to people from my generation. It seems as if there has been a trashification of our people. Robert Stark: That sort of thing used to be seen only in lower class Whites, but now it’s seen in middle class people too. It’s due to the TV. People don’t value intellect so much anymore. Robert Lindsay: Maybe, but White culture has always been anti-intellectual. You can go read Richard Hofstadter’s Anti-Intellectualism in American Life where all the way back in the 1950’s, he was talking about this sort of thing. I think that what’s going on is that White middle class people, especially young people, have decided it’s cool to look and act like a low class person. Robert Stark: We have been talking a lot about race and demographics, but I would like to talk about the issue of the environment in this state and the over development and urban sprawl that the state has been seeing, and how both liberals and conservatives deal with this issue. It’s fascinating because liberals are promoting all this immigration, and business interests go along with them, but the conservatives – they’re apologists for this urban sprawl and this horrible overdevelopment.
Tom McClintock, who is this anti-immigration politician in the state…I knew this woman who was running for state assembly, and she was complaining about all of these tract homes going up in Ventura County, and his attitude was that they could do whatever they wanted to with their land. But I see that mentality as the same mentality as the people who are for Open Borders or defend job outsourcing. It’s really just as bad. Robert Lindsay: Well, you see, he’s just a typical Republican. I don’t get the Republicans or the capitalists’ point of view. For instance, on housing, their POV is that…we have to keep on building houses? What? Forever? How long are we going to be building these units called “housing starts?” That can’t go on forever. We have to keep building new houses, new houses. And in order to keep building new homes, you need an increasing population. This is the whole growth-based economic mentality. And I don’t think it’s sustainable – endless growth forever. You can’t. Robert Stark: So the immigration issue, it’s basically the same mentality. If you look at the places where the elites live like Marin Country or Malibu or Carmel, they’ve done a great job of conservation and low, sustainable growth with lots of open space there. They want to keep their own places beautiful. But if you look at the big money interests, they profit off an increasing population because that means more consumers. Some of these people are Democrats, some of them are Republicans, but it doesn’t matter. Instead, it’s just all about growth is good for making a profit. Robert Lindsay: Endless growth. But isn’t that kind of crazy? Isn’t there ever going to get to be a point where people have enough money, and we don’t need to keep on growing forever? Apparently, you can’t have this endless growth without having endlessly increasing population. And more and more houses. And more and more cities. And more and more roads. And more and more everything. Robert Stark: These neoliberal types, they say we need to keep bringing in more and more immigration as a way to grow our economy. It’s insane because it’s not sustainable, and you can’t have an economy that is based on that model. Robert Lindsay: What’s going to happen? At some point, the whole world is going to look like New York City. What are we going to do? Are we going to start building cities on top of cities? Are we going to start building cities underground, or on top of the ocean, or under the ocean, or up in the sky? And this endless growth thing, it can’t possibly be an environmental position. If you’re an environmentalist, you can’t take this endless growth position. Why do we always need new houses in the US? I don’t understand why. Obviously because our population is growing, right? Are we going to start building second homes? Why does everyone need a second home? Do people need third houses? Do they need fourth houses? Robert Stark: Or the size of the homes. They want these gigantic homes on one acre lots, and it’s wasteful of space. It’s not at all resourceful. And these same types – they claim to be fiscal conservatives and fiscally responsible. But this endless growth is not fiscally responsible because it’s very wasteful of natural resources. Robert Lindsay: Those huge lots are not so great. It would almost be better to pack people into cities and then have big open spaces. But people like those big lots. I was living on a one acre lot up in the Sierra foothills. It’s not bad, there are still a lot of wild animals out there with 1-5 acre lots in the country, with those rural ranchettes. Robert Stark: It’s fine if people have big lots up in rural areas or in nature, but the main problem is suburbia, which is a disaster. Robert Lindsay: There are no living things anymore in suburbia. The only animals are the humans and their pets. There are a few animals that are adapting to suburbia – the raccoons, the skunks and the opossums. In some of the suburbs now, you have some coyotes. Robert Stark: Thank you for being on, Robert. Robert Lindsay: Sure.
Movie: Pulp Fiction, second movie by one of the greatest directors of all time – Quentin Tarantino. Pulp Fiction was one of the greatest movies of the past 20 years.
Song: Misirlou by Dick Dale and the Deltones (1962), with a nice, clean, modern production. One of the greatest songs of the last 50 years. This is where I am coming from: Southern California surf music. Dale moved to Orange County, California in the 1950’s (not sure where). That is where I hail from. He’s been living in Palm Desert since 1983 (a lot of Orange County people like to vacation in Palm Springs). Dale is one of the greatest rock guitarists of all time. The song Misirlou is actually a Greek song redone. Dale himself is 1/2 Lebanese, 1/2 Polish/Belorussian. Clearly a non-White, right, White nationalists?
There are so many great Italian writers, singers, songwriters, directors and actors, it got me to thinking whether the Nazi race scientists were right. If you study Nazi race science, a lot of it was pretty well done. The Med Race (limited to Europe) was considered to be one of the highest races of mankind. In many ways, they were better than Nordics (Nazis). Nazis being Nordics though felt that they were just a bit better than Meds. However, they had immense respect for Meds. All of this is lost on the Nordicists of today, who hate everyone south of the Po.
The Nazi take on Meds was very interesting. They said that they were the most creative race that had ever lived. Listen to Maria Callas or watch Bertolucci if you don’t believe me. You can find webpages by Italians that make a case for this. I have seen modernist paintings by Romans that could have been painted yesterday.
The Nazis said that although the Meds were brilliant in their own way, they were also somewhat chaotic. Sort of like crazy, undisciplined, fun-loving artist types who sometimes show up for work late and hungover. Surely this fits in with our stereotype of Italians. The Nordics were far less creative, but they were more logical and sensible. Sort of like boring accountant types who get shit done.
The Nazis had immense respect for European Meds, which is odd considering the contempt that modern Nordicsts shower on them. Modern Nordicism has to be seen as coming out of UK, US and Australian Anglo culture that has always looked down on the Continent, especially those wogs down by the Mediterranen.
Look at the US. Some of our finest directors and actors are Italians. In Italy, they continue to pump out great cinema and literature as if they were doing it in their sleep.
DNA tests show that King Tut’s Y-DNA matches that of modern day Western Europeans. The lineup is with R1b. The match with modern West Europeans is rather deceptive.
In truth, I believe that R1b is ancient European, or “Old Europe” DNA. It’s found mostly in the Basques these days. It’s probable that the R1b group came from the Caucasus at some unknown time. They probably spoke languages related to the Basques and the languages of the Caucasus. They were overrun by the Indo-European invasion of Europe about 6,000 years ago. The only holdout was the Basques in the high Pyrenees of Spain and France.
So, rather than showing the King Tut was a West European, it shows that he was racially, a member of the “Old Europe” group. No one knows quite what these people looked like, however reports of the “Old Europe” group in the UK say that they had dark hair, dark eyes and were rather swarthy.
Based on drawings, Egyptians seem to have been an olive skinned race similar to the Meds of today. They were surely not either traditional White-Whites and they were definitely not Blacks. The Egyptians made it clear that the Black Nubians were not the same people as Egyptians. The drawings show Nubians are Black Africans and Egyptians as olive-skinned Med types. The Nordicists love to claim the Egyptians. They’re full of shit as usual. The Egyptians were a bunch of swarthy wop non-Whites, you Nordicist turds. Choke on that.
A common White Supremacist lie holds that Egypt was originally “White” (supposedly Nordic too). With time, Egyptians gained more and more Black genes until they hit the 10% figure, whereby any race that has 10% Black genes starts to experience civilizational collapse.
This is a lie. According the Journal of Physical Anthropology, the ancient Egyptians were the same as modern Egyptians racially. The ancient Egyptians test at ~91% Caucasian and 9% African. If anything, this is positive news. It shows that races that are a little bit Black can do some great things, like create the greatest civilizations on Earth.
The website is a disgusting White Supremacist site out of Europe, and the comments are full of WS nutcases, and even worse, Afrocentrists polluting up the threads with “Egypt was Black” crap.
#1 reason why Nordicism will never fly. Nordicism says that chicks like the above are members of some inferior, mongrel race. Further, it states, against all obvious evidence, that the chick above is not even White! What is she then? Who knows?
But that’s not the reason why it won’t work. Sure, Nordic guys evolved in a cold climate, but evolution retained a supercharged male sex drive nevertheless, maybe to keep warm and not freeze to death at night. Anyway, Nordicism tells Nordic guys that no way can they ever, ever touch chicks like the one above, in fact, they can’t even think about it. Because she’s, like, inferior, you know.
Nordic men will fall all over themselves, commit deadly stampedes, start wars, commit serious felonies and do all sorts of fucked up shit just to get a chance at chicks like that. They will collectively shout, “Fuck your racial theories,” as they fight Hell and high water for a shot at Miss Lovely above.
Ennio Morricone doing The Ecstasy of Gold, the soundtrack to Sergio Leone’s The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. The ultimate spaghetti Western music to the ultimate spaghetti Western flick. These flicks and especially the music to go along with them were also very popular with us punks during the early punk era for some weird reason. You would often hear these tracks on the punk radio stations of the era and at wild hardcore punk shows. I don’t have a reason for that.
Edda Dell’Orso, Italian diva, does the killer Italian operatic solo wordless singing on the score.
Sergio Leone is next.
One more thing. Why don’t all your Nordicists just FOAD already? Who says Southern Europeans are inferior? They make more and better art in a century than you could in a millenia? Even your ultimate Nordicist heroes of all time, the Nazis, said so.
The hereditarians are flat out wrong on IQ. They always say that there is an environmental effect on IQ, but then whenever you show them any evidence of it, they immediately shoot it down. There are few hereditarian researchers on IQ who actually acknowledge evidence for an environmental effect on IQ.
Arthur Jensen, Philippe Rushton and the snide, upper class, snooty, antisocial atavists over at Gene Expression lead the pack. Since nearly the entire HBD/race realist sphere follows the line of Jensen and Rushton, nearly this entire sphere has rejected all evidence for a direct effect of the environment on IQ. Every time we show them they evidence, they shoot it down.
Nearly all White racists and especially White nationalists reject all evidence for an environmental effect on IQ and shoot down any evidence they throw up.
White nationalists have a lot at stake in this debate.
White nationalism is founded on the idea that European Whites are a genetically superior race, and most of the other races, including Blacks, Bushmen, Pygmies, Eskimos, Amerindians, mestizos, mulattos, Polynesians, Melanesians, Micronesians, Southeast Asians, Papuans, Aborigines and Negritos are all quite genetically inferior in intelligence.
They also throw in all non-European Whites as genetically inferior in brains, including Arabs, North Africans, Iranians, Afghans, East Indians and the people of the Stans. Since most White nationalists are Nordicists, Southern Europeans and the people of the Caucasus are also thrown in as intellectually genetically inferior.
There isn’t much evidence for this, as Southern Europeans and the people of the Caucasus in general have IQ’s that are quite high. Furthermore, Eskimo and Maori IQ is high. The IQ’s of many groups in the US, including Mexicans, East Indians and Africans, are also quite high.
When we suggest that there are environmental effects on IQ, we shoot down their whole theory of genetic intellectual superiority and upset their whole theoretical worldview.
But there is quite a bit of evidence for environmental effects on IQ.
Wild IQ rises in the 20th century, mostly in the developed world, are impossible to explain by genetics.
The much higher IQ of US Blacks as opposed to other Blacks is hard to explain by genetics, though WN’s and the Gene Expression authors never tire of retarded explanations. The WN explanation for the 20 pt difference between US and African Black IQ is that it is explained by White blood in US Blacks. This explanation is retarded as it can only explain 4.5 points of the gap, leaving the other 15.5 points unexplained.
The Gene Expression folks say that African IQ is artificially lowered by malnutrition (they invoke environment only when it suits their hereditarian bias and reject it the rest of the time). Therefore, normative Black IQ is 80, and US Black IQ of 87 is also explained by White blood. But there is no evidence for their theory.
The White nationalists and their HBD buddies also pour cold water on the Flynn Effect showing massive IQ rises in the 20th Century. According to them, while IQ has actually increased, real intelligence has not gone up one single iota. The FE IQ’s are not on some BS called “g intelligence,” therefore they are nothing, meaningless ephemera. People are not getting smarter at all, not even 1%. Never mind that Flynn rises are typically accompanied by massive increases in head size, which would suggest real intelligences rise.
For instance there have been 22 different studies of IQ and breastfeeding, all the way up to age 50. All of these studies found cognitive benefits from breastfeeding. On the contrary, hereditarians recently championed one study that found no de novo effect for breastfeeding on IQ. Instead, the differences were tied up with mother’s IQ’s. That is, smarter mothers breastfed more and stupider ones did not. I will take 22 studies over one any day. (Sternberg and Grigorenko 1971, p. 128)
The effects of nutritional supplementation in pregnancy on IQ of offspring have been studied.
Nutritional supplementation in pregnancy and later supplementation of children has been shown to have effects at age 24 in Guatemala (1980) and age 18 in Mexico (1982). Mexican boys improved on IQ, and Guatemalans improved on a range of cognitive and achievement outcomes. (Sternberg and Grigorenko 1971, p. 124)
Lead levels in blood have a strong effect on IQ, leading to declines of up to 10-15 points. There is a clear cause effect relationship between blood levels and IQ. Blood lead levels are higher in Blacks than in Whites, because Blacks tend to liver in older dilapidated housing that has lead paint. Black children apparently ingest the paint chips somehow.
Studies have consistently shown that malnutrition leads to low IQ and antisocial behavior in childhood. Iron deficiency is quite high in US Blacks and Hispanics.
One controlled study found that children who were severely malnourished in childhood ended up with IQ’s of 84 when returned to the home, 82 when institutionalized and 97 when adopted away (Sternberg and Grigorenko 1971, p. 123).
A study in South Africa showed that intensive courses in college teaching Black college students the types of intelligence that are tested for on IQ tests quickly raised IQ’s from 83 to 97. Students were generally aged 18-22, above the age where environment is said to effect IQ. Even Philippe Rushton agreed that scores went up in this study, but he had some retarded reason why this had no effect on his hereditarian theories (Rushton and Jensen 2005).
It is a common canard among White nationalist and hereditarian circles that all early intervention programs designed to raise IQ have not been able to do so. It’s true that they often do not raise IQ, but they have other benefits. What matters is whether these programs are cost-effective or not.
Yet some very intensive programs have been successful. The Abecedarian and Perry Preschool projects (Sternberg and Grigorenko 1971, p. 108) showed long-term rises in achievement scores lasting all the way into adolescence. Abecedarian found rises of 4.5 IQ points all the way into adulthood. The problem is that Abecedarian was quite expensive. Whether 4 point IQ gains could occur in large populations given this treatment and whether this would be cost-effective is not known.
Elizabeth Mandala, an 18-year old high school girl from Sugar Land, Texas, went with two Mexican men, age 38 and 43, old enough to be her father, on a trip to Mexico to learn how to be a coyote and smuggle illegal aliens into the US. Smuggling illegals is a very good paying business. At the time, she was also working as a stripper in a local strip club. She was said to be “smartest girl in her class.”
I guess not too smart though.
She and the two men were found near the small town of Mina in a Toyota pickup truck that had crashed into the back of another truck. All three had been beaten to death. The killers then apparently staged the car accident. There was a cement block on the gas pedal of the crashed vehicle.
The two Mexican men were Dante Ruiz Siller, 38, and Luis Ángel Estrella Mondragón, 44.
Siller, a merchant, and Mondragon, a cab driver, were from a small town near Mexico City.
Comments are wide-ranging, many asking why Texas allows 18 year old girls to be strippers (All US states allow this). Many others asked why her mother allowed her to be a stripper and to go off to Mexico to learn how to smuggle illegals. I would say that she’s an adult and she can do whatever she wants, but that’s just me.
Her classmates at Kempner High School were shocked.
There is a lot of commentary about this on the White nationalist sites, much of it retarded, of course. Much of it is centered on the WN’s notion that Elizabeth was a mestiza, not White. However, the last name Mandala is Sicilian:
Mandala Name Meaning and History1. occupational name for a seller of scarves, from Greek mandilas.
2. altered form of Mannalà, a name of Arabic origin, derived from mann Allah ‘grace of Allah’. The surname is characteristic of the Palermo region and eastern Sicily.
Looks like Arabic -> Greek -> Sicilian language. The Sicilian language has a ton of Greek and Arabic words in it.
A number of Mandalas moved from Sicily to Houston, Texas around 75-125 years ago. All came from the same small village of 919 people in Sicily. Santa Cristina Gela is actually an Arbëreshë village in Sicily near Palermo. The Arbëreshë are colonies of Albanians who moved to Italy around 800 years ago. They speak dialects of Arbëreshë, which at this point is now a separate language from Italian.
Further, some of the Arbëreshë dialects in Italy are now so divergent they are separate languages from each other. The Arbëreshë of Santa Cristina Gela is currently an endangered language, as the young people are abandoning it. Residents of Santa Cristina Gela also speak Italian and Sicilian in addition to Arbëreshë.
The Arbëreshë in this part of Italy came there around 1492 after the Turkish Ottoman Muslims attacked the Byzantine Empire, overrunning much of it. These Arbëreshë came mostly from
The Arbëreshë were predominantly Greek Orthodox. They fled to Sicily, asking permission from the Sicilians to settle there in response to religious persecution. The Sicilians, no strangers to Islamic imperialism, granted them permission to settle.
They had come from the towns of Himarë, Albania, a bilingual Greek-Albanian town populated by Greeks living in Albania, and Koroni in the far south of Greece. Koroni was overrun in 1500. Although the surrounding area was conquered, Himarë continued to put up a valiant fight against the Ottomans that lasted for decades. Many residents of Himarë fled to Sicily in 1482. The Greek community in Himarë dates back to antiquity.
Elizabeth is from Sugar Land, which is near Houston. She is plausibly related to these Mandalas from around Houston, Texas:
Mandala`, Salvatore, Born Feb 15 1835 in Santa Cristina Gela, Sicily, Died Sep 20 1935 in Houston, Texas
Mandala`, Giuseppe, b.1873, Born Jan 26 1873 in Santa Cristina Gela, Sicily, Died Mar 20 1960 in Houston, Texas
Mandala`, Giuseppina Maria, Born Dec 18 1874 in Santa Cristina Gela, Sicily, Died Sep 14 1960 in Houston, Texas
Mandala`, Mercurio, Born Feb 15 1899 in Santa Cristina Gela, Sicily, Died Jan 17 1948 in Houston, Texas
Mandala`, Francesco, b.1877, Born Jan 23 1877 in Santa Cristina Gela, Died Dec 05 1957 in Houston, Texas
If you look closely at her phenotype in this video, that’s a classic Sicilian phenotype, one of many, but I’ve seen it before. I’ve known some Sicilian Italian-Americans who look very much like this girl. Around here, we have lots of mestizas, mostly Mexicans, and we also have quite a few Italian-Americans, all Sicilians. After a while, you get so you can sort of tell them apart.
Furthermore, on her Facebook page, she has several friends with the same last name Mandala, quite possibly relatives. These Mandalas are all Italians living in Italy right now. The second one seems to be some sort of a Greek-Sicilian, which is possible, as there are Greek-speaking communities in Sicily. Furthermore, she is a fan of a Facebook group that is entirely in the Italian language, so it’s possible that she speaks Italian.
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.
Are Teabaggers racists? As usual, it’s an interesting question.
Teabaggers are just Republicans. 80% of Republicans support the Teabaggers, and only 5% of Teabaggers are Democrats.
I’ve known quite a few California Republicans, and not all are racists. Out here they are more about hatred of government and liberals than about race. California Republicans have close friends, date and even marry people of other races. It’s often a White Republican male marrying an Asian (often Republican) male. I’ve known young Republican males who openly dated Black women.
Many of these people would support the Teabaggers, and some were so nuts they would probably go to their rallies.
So the situation is complicated.
Nevertheless, I am on the list for a major Teabagger mailing list. The list owner is the founder and owner of one of the larger Teabagger groups (something like Teaparty USA). Anyway, I get this guy’s mails on a regular basis.
I must say, in all of my years following US politics, I have never seen such blatant racial language, imagery and code words used by any major US political movement. The racial language in these mails is palpable, open, obvious, and clear. It’s actually pretty shocking in the context of US politics.
TEA PARTY PEOPLE DON’T ACT LIKE THE BLACKS DID IN PHILADELPHIA, DETROIT AND WATTS IN THE 1960’s!
Whoa! That’s the headline of a recent Teabagger mail to me. Included was an ad for the Glenn Beck Show. Beck’s racial language these days is really shocking. I swear he sounds more like a White nationalist every day. He’s using the language, imagery and tone of the White nationalist movement on his program regularly. What’s he trying to do?
VOTE EVERY “BABY KILLING” DEMOCRAT OUT OF OFFICE IN 2010, 2011, 2012..MOST DEMOCRATS ARE LIBERALS, JEWS, RACISTS, pro welfare BLACKS AND IDIOTS!..DOES NOT MATTER IF THEY ARE HE’S OR SHE’S…DOES NOT MATTER IF THEY ARE BLACK, WHITE, YELLOW, PINK OR BLUE…DOES NOT MATTER IF THEY ARE CHRISTIANS, JEWS OR…
This one is even worse. Note the anti-Semitism and racism, followed by projection of racism onto non-racist Democrats, followed by the denial of the racism and anti-Semitism later on.
This is pretty typical.
One day I will get a blatantly anti-Semitic email, then the next day, I get a mail accusing Obama of being an anti-Semite for selling out Israel. I get a racist email bashing Blacks, then the next day, I get a mail accusing liberals of being the only real racists, and accusing Blacks of being racists. Then it quotes MLK favorably to top things off.
US White racism is a funny beast these days. It’s really progressed from the days of Bull Connor.
Christians against Abortion; Black Politicians Racists?; Anti-Obama Care; Anti-Give Away to BUMS; Abortion & The Bible; We The People Michigan; Tea Party – Michigan+; Free Speech, 1st Amend; Fire OBAMA & Congress; Election Fraud; Don’t Trust Obama; Discrimination on Race; Free Speech,1st Amendment; Against Welfare 4 Immigrants; Against Welfare Fraud; American 4 Tax Reform; Angry White America; Anti-Give Away to BUMS; Anti-Socialism-Racism; Get BUMS off Welfare; Fleecing White America; Fleecing of America; Fed up with Barack Obama; Fair Reporting; Equal Rights & Social Justice; End Slavery Taxes; End Affirmative Action; Defeat Amnesty
Those are some of their affiliated grouplets.
The Michigan groups are heavily involved with the Michigan Militia movement.
Note that they are calling all Black politicians racists.
Anti-give away to bums means anti-giveaway to Black bums.
Note the strong Christian fundamentalist and anti-abortion sentiment. This runs through all Teabagger posts.
Election fraud means that Obama is not an American, therefore he has no right to be President.
Discrimination on race means discrimination against Whites, the only kind of discrimination these guys care about. The implication, taken straight from the White nationalist playbook, is that all discrimination against non-Whites is over now, and the only remaining discrimination is against the majority.
The anti-tax rhetoric runs through all this stuff. It’s tied in with the anti-Black and anti-immigrant stuff. White tax dollars are going to Blacks and Browns, who don’t deserve it. That’s the subtext.
Note the calls to get rid of affirmative action. That’s not racist per se of course, but in the midst of all this stuff, it’s just one more piece of the puzzle.
Note the attacks on the media. The media is run by liberals, supposedly. No matter how rightwing the media is, it’s never far right enough for Republicans, who keep calling the media liberal in order to keep moving the goalposts and pushing the media further to the Right.
Equal Rights and Social Justice
It appears that White Politicians must look after all the voters but there seems to be a different set of rules for Black and Latino Politicians.
I noticed that retired Florida Senator Mel Martinez did little to nothing about all the illegal immigrants in Florida, the same Martinez retired the day after he voted for Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, also Latino.
What I want to know as a White American Citizen is how do I know that Francisco Rodriguez, running for Florida State House, District 83 or Marco Rubio running for Florida State Senate will look after “All the People”?
I know these are sensitive questions, but they must be asked. These Politicians must be held accountable for their promises while campaigning and stop the lying to get elected!
The Christian Patriot from Florida.
April 10, 2010.
Whoa! That’s some pretty racialized language against Latinos!
What’s interesting about Teabagger mails is that there are many open references to White Americans. In US politics, that’s usually beyond the pale.
Equal rights and social justice is a play on the use of those terms by the Left. These guys are for equal rights and social justice, but only for Whites. They’re also implying that there no longer exists equal rights or social justice for White Americans. That language is from White nationalism.
THE “N” WORD IS WRONG, JUST LIKE THE HONKY WORD AND WHITE DEVILS WORD IS WRONG!
MAYBE WHITE AMERICA IS TIRED OF PAYING PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AND WELFARE, TIRED OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, TIRED OF ALL BLACK COLLEGES, ALL BLACK NEWSPAPERS, ALL BLACK UNITED NEGRO COLLEGE FUND, THE NAACP, RACIAL AGITATORS JACKSON, SHARPTON AND WRIGHT?
Maybe White America is very unhappy with the Democratic Party forcing them to support illegal immigrants so that the Democrats get the Latino vote?
WHITE AMERICA MAY BE TIRED OF CAREER BUMS ON WELFARE FOR 50 YEARS OR MAYBE THEY ARE TIRED OF PAYING FOR OTHERS PEOPLES REPRODUCTION ACTS?
Maybe White America is tired of all the Black violence and crime?
MAYBE WHITE AMERICA IS TIRED BECAUSE PRESIDENT OBAMA AND ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER, BOTH BLACK, DID NOT PROSECUTE THE BLACK PANTHERS FOR BREAKING VOTING LAW ON ELECTION DAY, NOVEMBER, 2008…WHEN ARE THESE TWO POWERFUL BLACK MEN GOING TO END AFFIRMATIVE ACTION?
MAYBE THESE ARE REASONS THAT THESE THREE BLACK CONGRESSMEN ALLEGEDLY HEARD THE “N” WORD!
Whoa! That’s some really racialized language! Darn. I can’t remember the last time I saw that coming out of any major US political movement. That sounds like it’s copied from the commenters at American Renaissance .
American racism has moved way beyond Nordicism. The guy who sends me that stuff is an Italian guy from Florida.
The Teabagger movement is more about US White politics versus US Hispanic or Black politics. As such, they are dying for Black traitors to go to their racist parties and line up behind this White racist movement. There have always been Blacks who were willing to sell out their race and line up with the enemy.
Less ferocious forms of White racism (less virulent than say Jim Crow, segregation or slavery) use anti-Black Blacks to further the White racist project. In this way, they don’t hate all Blacks per se, and the racist nature of the project becomes foggy and hard to see.
All in all, based on the extremely racialized language they are using (shocking in the context of a major US political movement), I must say that this is one of the most openly and virulently White racist major US political movements I’ve seen in a long time. By virulent I do not mean to equate them with segregationists, slavers or Jim Crow folks. US White racism has moved beyond that for the most part and has evolved into a more benign, though still very racist, movement.
White nationalists (WN’s) typically say that all Lebanese are non-Whites, and in fact, they usually hate them, since they hate all non-Whites.
We get into the issue of who is White. Probably ~80% of WN’s in the US are Nordicists, which is the stupidest and most insane type of WN of all. These people generally say that only Northern Europeans are White. They classify even Southern Europeans as non-Whites, and a few say that Slavs are non-Whites, though this view is not common.
According to Nordicists, Irish, British, Icelandics, Faroese, Norwegians, Swedes, Finns, Danes, Germans, Dutch, Belgians, French, Swiss, Northern Italians, Slovenians, Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Ukrainians, Bulgarians, Romanians, Belorussians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians and Russians are all White. These are the only White people.
Typically, Spaniards, Portuguese, Southern Italians, Croatians, Montenegrins, Serbs, Albanians, Kosovars, Macedonians, Bosnians, Greeks, Turks, Jews and Armenians are defined as non-Whites. Furthermore, everyone outside of Europe is automatically defined as non-White, which is preposterous and makes no sense, although some will say that Iranians are White.
This has always struck me as utterly insane. The only logical view of who is White is anyone who is part of the European native peoples or looks like they could be one of the European native peoples. We might have a tough case with the Lapps though, who are partly Asiatic.
By this view, Spaniards, Portuguese, Southern Italians, Croatians, Montenegrins, Serbs, Albanians, Kosovars, Macedonians, Bosnians, Greeks, Turks, Armenians, Jews, Georgians, Azeris, Iranians and Caucasus people are all White, flat out. No argument.
Furthermore, there are folks outside of Europe who look like Whites. So we could divide extra-European Caucasians into White Caucasians and non-White Caucasians. Therefore, while many Arabs, Berbers, Pakistanis, Indians, etc. are not White, there are indeed White Arabs, White Berbers, White Pakistanis and even White Indians. How do we know which is which? Mostly phenotype.
A classic example of White Arabs would be these Lebanese women demonstrating against Syria in the 2005 Color Revolution. Most of these women are probably Maronite Christians. Christian Arabs, even in Iraq, are often the Whitest Arabs of all for unknown reasons, possibly because they did not own slaves and therefore breed with their slaves as the Muslims did.
Look at the women in those pics. Where do these WN dickwads get off saying these chicks are not White? What a bunch of tools these WN’s are.
If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.
Most Blacks nowadays are what we call people with dual consciousness, to borrow a particularly unpleasant anti-racist phrase. That is, they are profoundly ethnocentric (Blacks are much more ethnocentric than Whites) while at the same time drinking the PC anti-racist Krazy-Aid of race denial when it suits their interests.
Whenever Black folks do good things or when White folks do back things to Blacks, a Black race does in fact exist. Whenever Blacks folks screw up or don’t cut it, automagically, the Black race ceases to exist. Wa-la, like a rabbit out of a hat. Can’t be us, cuz we don’t exist in the first place.
After all, if race really does not exist, as the race-denying crazies insist, then consequently racism must not exist either, right? Racism means hatred of others based on their race. But the race-deniers say there is no such thing as race. Hence, it is not really possible to hate people based on something that does not even exist at all.
This post will set out to show how Blacks are in fact different from other races in a variety of ways. In many cases, I think that these differences are biological. That does not mean that Blacks are doomed to their genes for better or for worse, but it does mean, that absent a Super-Culture such as Islam, Communism or some other “gene-warping” culture, Blacks will have a tendency to behave in this way on average.
This post will also address some racial myths.
First of all, a Black personality.
One myth is that due to widespread racism, Blacks hate themselves, and they all want to be White. Black men like White women because their own women are too ugly. There really is no evidence for this. Frankly, it’s amazing, considering the shit we Whites constantly say about Blacks, that Blacks don’t hate themselves. I think if I were Black I would. I cannot imagine being Black and having to deal with all the evil crap other races say about me. Being a neurotic, I think it might go to my head.
Nevertheless, the evidence is clear. Blacks have no problems with self-esteem.
Blacks do not think they are ugly. Black men think Black women look just fine, in fact, they seem to prefer them to other women. Black women think Black men look just fine. They definitely prefer them to other men. Quite a few White women also think Black guys are good-looking. I’ve talked to quite a few such White women. If Black men are good looking (by the objective views of many White women) Black women must be good looking too.
There’s nothing about Black features that looks good on a man but bad on a woman (or if there is, please make a case in the comments). Racists seek to objectively prove that Blacks are ugly. But anyone knows that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. An argument that it can be scientifically proven that Blacks are ugly must be rejected. Standards are beauty are not really in the realm of science anyway.
Following on this line, White nationalists as usual lie feverishly, and don’t make any sense. First they throw lots of data at you showing that every race really prefers to associate with and mate with their own. Fair enough. However, they use this to justify their own racism, as one might figure.
But if this is really true, then why the obsessive worry about miscegenation and the coming Extinction of the Great White Race? I mean, if people only want to breed with their own, why worry about race-mixing, right? The answer is because humans do not only wish to breed with their own; many outbreed.
In an effort to make even less sense, White nationalists then insist that every other race secretly hates themselves and wants to be White. If they can’t be White, they want to mate, breed or fuck White. Wait a minute, I thought everyone preferred their own? At the same time, further muddying their argumentative mess, they argue that all humans are profoundly ethnocentric such that they hate everyone who is not one of the Tribe. But if this were so, what’s with all the non-White self-hatred and desire to screw White wimmins?
One classic argument made by many Whites, not just White nationalists, is that all over the world, everyone prefers that luscious lighter skin to that yucky suntanned look. Of course, the lightest of all are those wonderful Aryan folks from Northern Europe.
But in Africa, Black men show no preference at all in terms of skin color, and Blacks do vary considerably in skin tone on the Dark Continent. Furthermore, in aboriginal Tasmania, darker skin was preferred, and up to a certain point, this was true on the dope smoke-shrouded Southern California beaches and ski slopes were I misspent much of my golden youth.
Further, this is usually the case only with women and not with men. That is, men want a lighter woman (no one really knows why) but women don’t give a damn how dark a guy is. Hell, they even like ’em dark and handsome. And this was the case in China before the Chinese had ever heard of White people, so it’s not a case of Chinese thinking Whites are superior.
Furthermore, in most human groups, females have lighter skin than the males. This means that evolutionarily, most groups of males have been preferentially selecting lighter females. There is no lightening effect seen in any male group anywhere. Reasons for male preference for a lighter female are not known.
As we might expect, Blacks think they are better looking than Whites. This statement is confusing. It does not mean that Blacks think they are better looking than White people. The surveys were done of high school students. 11-16 year old Blacks rated their attractiveness higher than Whites did.
Nor do Blacks suffer from low self-esteem or low confidence in terms of their academic skills. Their poorer average performance is due to the fact that they are not as good at this stuff, not because they are insecure about their abilities. I have not seen studies, but I would assume that the highest scorers would be the most neurotic and insecure about their abilities. Blacks think they are better at reading, science and history, even though they had poorer scores. Taken together, these findings suggest an overconfidence that we will discuss below.
That Blacks have few of the classic neuroses was taken as a given. Obsessive-compulsive neurosis (now OCD), perhaps the ultimate neurosis in the sense that it is driven heavily by conscience, fear, timidity, guilt, doubting and near-miniscule levels of aggression, is quite rare among Blacks. However, since I work with OCD patients, I have since met 2 Blacks with OCD. Both were, as one might expect, highly intelligent. One was from South Africa.
The book stated that the typical mental illness among Blacks was sort of a wild acting out manic-type episode. I believe that studies have found that depression is lower among Blacks, and the Black suicide rate has always been much lower than the White rate, though in the past 20 years there has been a disturbing rise in suicide in young Black American males.
Anyone who spends a lot of time around Blacks will realize that if there is any problem at all, it is excessive self-esteem and overconfidence, which in my opinion, leads to a lot of problems for Black people. You will also find that Blacks don’t worry all that much. Blacks seem to think that White neurotics are completely idiotic and somewhat baffling fools.
Blacks are less neotenous than Whites, and Whites are less neotenous than Asians. Asians are the slowest developing race of all, and Blacks are the fastest developers. Blacks are also the loudest babies, and Asians babies are known for their serenity. Blacks are more active at an earlier age than other groups. In addition, they mature more quickly.
I see no reason why there should be a cultural component to this, and it’s clear to me that these differences are genetic. Asians even seem to retain a neotenous (child-like) appearance far into life, definitely into early adulthood. These differences hold across all cultures, everywhere on Earth.
Yet another possible attribute of a Black personality is reduced ability to delay gratification. A classic 1961 study found that Black children are much more likely than White children to ask for a small candy bar today than wait a week for a bigger one. This study has been repeated many times with similar results. The reduced tendency to delay gratification is probably genetic, but it’s probably not irremediable, that is, a culture could probably make Blacks delay gratification more, though it would be an uphill climb.
This is what we might expect from a more extroverted group, and Blacks are the most extroverted of the three major races, Asians being the least. Asians are probably the most likely to delay gratification. I’ve known many White extroverts, and one thing they were lousy at was delaying gratification. Delaying gratification is glorified in America, but it’s definitely a drag, speaking from one who has spent most of his life doing just that.
Unfortunately, reduced ability to delay gratification probably has something to do with the much elevated Black crime rate.
A new comment on the previous post offers the best explanation yet.
The statues and paintings do not look like Meds or anyone else it seems. Their facial appearance was not as attractive as Meds or modern Italians (who are an extreme mixture of everything).
They were a bit shorter than the German/Celts but were much more muscular. The few bones (ancient original Romans used cremation) showed heavy muscularity, much greater even than Moderns.
My premise is that the Roman style of fighting served the infantry well, and their battles were of brute strength. Their sword the Gladius used was not as good as the Celtic sword in many ways. The Celtic sword has been shown superior in computer tests. However, the Roman style was to fight in a compact manner and use their superior physical strength it seems.
They were even outnumbered by great margins it just about all battles. This fact seems to not to carry much weight, but in hand to hand combat it does. How the Romans won these battles was in part organization, but the endgame was really genetics.
Where they came from is anybody’s guess. They do not appear to be like anyone but Romans.
Of course in the later stages they were just a mix, sort of like modern day Italians.
Well, sure. It’s all starting to make sense now. Along with the earlier post, We Are Not Our Ancestors , it’s all starting to come together. The Romans, like many other ancient peoples of Europe and probably of other places, were part of a race or ethnic group that no longer exists.
This is why the Meds and Nordicists have been fighting so long about whether the statues and paintings are Meds or Nords. The reason it’s controversial and hard to figure out in the first place (hence the debate) is that the Romans were neither!
They were not Nordics or Germans, nor were they Italians or Meds. They were an extinct race, vanished from the Earth. It’s nice the way some unknown commenter comes along and so neatly ties together loose ends.
I found it very interesting that the Romans were outnumbered in almost all their battles but won most of them anyway. The commenters theory sounds better than any others out there. Most combat was indeed hand to hand back in those days. What a terrifying way to fight a war!. Can you imagine having to go hand to hand with a deadly enemy in a kill or be killed battle? I’d rather take my chances in modern way any day.
As a side note, I am really getting tired of all of these races and ethnic groups claiming the achievements of ancient folks as their own. In many cases, the great ancients do not seem like the ancestors of those puffing their chests.
RIP Teddy Kennedy.
He authored of the 1965 Immigration Act that got rid of quotas that mandated that 90% of our immigration should come from Northern and Western Europe, for which he is hated by White nationalists. This bill was written to keep out Eastern and Southern Europeans, not Mexicans and Chinese.
At the time, the nation was full of hatred for Eastern and Southern Europeans, who were regarded as grossly inferior to the Nordic founding stock of America (of which I am a member – 5/8 British, 1/4 German, 1/8 French). Even Jews were regarded as inferior. IQ tests were showing Italians and Jews with IQ gaps as large as that between Blacks and Whites. Italians in particular (and to some extent Jews) were associated with crime, social decay, gangs, ghettos, etc. the same way that Blacks and Mexicans are now.
Considering all this, it’s interesting that these groups are now fully integrated into the US middle class. There is little to no evidence that they are inferior to Nordic Whites. The ghettos, squalor, crime and gangs are a memory.
At the time, the nation was so nuts about these groups that a proposal was made to sterilize them and to put them into camps to deal with them later. The model was eugenics, the same theory that drove the Nazis to their mass murder. The camps could have conceivably been used to kill these White inferiors, though that would have been odd. The nation was so in thrall to eugenics at the time and so contemptuous of these so-called inferior Whites that the only reason the proposal was shot down was that it would cost too much and require too much outlaw in manpower and materials.
When Calvin Coolidge signed the bill, he made a remark about how the US was a Nordic nation and commented on the necessity to keep out these European “inferiors.”
So given the stupid Nordicism behind that bill, it’s a good thing that it finally did get amended. Supposedly, the quotas were changed so that 90% of the immigration was supposed to come from non-White areas instead of White areas, but I’m not sure if this is true. It would seem reasonable to make immigration quotas much the makeup of the state – that is, if the US was 90% White in 1965, 90% of quotas should have been reserved for Whites, broadly defined.
Anyway, according to White nationalists, this bill sealed the doom on White America. They may be correct, but I don’t really care that the US will eventually become a non-White country. I’m more concerned about the rate at which the non-Whites come here and the quality of the non-Whites and their assimilation potential. After all, I grew up in a California that was 20-30% non-White, and that was fine with me.
On the other hand, I don’t even recognize my state anymore. Immigration is more a problem of too much, too soon and way too many low quality Third World peasants and urban poor types who offer no benefit to the US and lots of downside.
On top of that, it’s true that Teddy was behind the latest Amnesty bill too, along with Juan McCain. This one failed, and it would have amnestied in 20 million illegals and then, via chain immigration, would have allowed 60-80 million more relatives in. This is the outrage that Obama is determined to pass. If this bill passes, America as we know it will be gone forever and we will have to decide which type of Latin American country we are going to be.
Teddy was also involved in the Chappaquiddick outrage, where a drunken Teddy drove his car off a bridge into a river, then made his way out of the car to the shore while his young female passenger, Mary Jo Kopechne, drowned.
For this, amazingly, he apparently served no time at all. It was clearly a case of vehicular manslaughter. He delayed showing up at the police station until the booze had worn off. For this, he was hated forever by the Right, but you know if one of their heroes had done it, the Right would have supported him anyway and not trifled a second over it.
Despite the Amnesty outrage and Chappaquiddick, I still don’t hate Teddy Kennedy. Maybe I should. But he was one of the greatest modern US liberal senators, always solid in his principles, and rarely selling out to the Right or Far Right the way so many of these fake liberals like Chris Dodd, Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama do.
He was a real liberal, always great on health care, the environment, gay rights, civil rights, you name it. He always stood up for and fought for poor, low income and working class people. I suppose that his immigration craziness was just part and parcel of his liberal. There is an interview with Michael Levin in a recent issue of American Renaissance where he says something very sensible about liberals. Liberals are wrong on race, he says, but they mean well. They have good intentions, in contrast to conservatives who are just flat out mean.
This is important to note. Liberals like Kennedy honestly do not think or realize that legalizing 20 million illegals followed by 80 million chain immigrants is bad for America. They still believe in the Emma Lazarus and Statue of Liberty myth – “Give me your tired, your poor. Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.” They don’t do it because they are White self-haters or anything like that.
A Teddy Kennedy Presidency would have been a very interesting one, but after Chappaquiddick it was doomed. Teddy may have even been so liberal as to scale back US imperialism, something no liberal US President has ever done.
Kennedy was an inveterate womanizer and tales about him are legendary. Once in the Senate Dining Room, a young female dived under the table to service him, hidden by the draping tablecloths. He especially loved young women, even into middle age and possibly beyond. I don’t care about this, and I wish I could emulate him. Teddy was a heavy drinker too, an Irishman. You could see the damage the booze had done to him later in his puffy and reddened face. Nevertheless, he lived to age 77, and was finally killed by a brain tumor, not booze.
He was ill in recent days, and last week, he took time off from the Senate for medical reasons. In less than a fortnight, he was gone, dead 11 PM PST last night. Teddy was well-liked by all of his fellow Congressmen, even his conservative enemies. He was part of their club. He apparently had a warm, charming, engaging and charismatic personality.
Teddy was of course related to John F. Kennedy, assassinated US President and Robert F. Kennedy, assassinated US Presidential candidate front-runner. He was the Great Little Brother.
RIP Teddy Kennedy.
Eupedia.com was founded in December 2004.Our aim is to create a detailed and informative guide for countries of the European Union for travellers, expats and locals alike, with an emphasis on sightseeing, history, culture, economy, and life in Europe.
I figure that this page tells us something about the origins of the Caucasians, not to mention the origins of the Europeans. One thing that is incontrovertibly clear is that the Caucasian Race did not arise in Europe. Instead, it appears to have arisen in Southern Iran, the Caucasus and the Middle East, as I have speculated. So the Grandaddy of all the great European White Men was some towelheaded wog. Figures. Choke on that, White nationalists.
Going back even further, the Caucasians appear to have origins in Haplogroup N, which, a commenter on this blog has noted, seems to originate in Eastern Africa, especially around the area of the Masai in Kenya. This is also as I suspected, as I assume that the proto-Caucasians may have roots in the Masai, the Tutsi, the Southern Sudanese and other Desert Adopted Elongated African types. The Tutsi even have an uncanny, almost Caucasian appearance about them, despite their African purity (no Caucasian blood).
It also looks like any European clades go back no further than 13,000 years in Europe, and even at that time, I am told that Europeans looked more like Arabs than present day Aryan Supermen. This means that the vaunted White Race, like most exact races on Earth, is a relatively new creation, the latest model, as it were. Attempts to link present day Europeans to Paleolithic Europeans would appear to be absurd on their face.
If anyone other than White nationalist boneheads can make more sense of that page than this, go to it. It’s looks kind of mind-boggling from here.
This is an interesting question mostly because it would be academic and noncontroversial except that Nordicists have chosen to shove their hateful snouts into the matter and create a bunch of lies.
The proto-Italics, later to become the Romans in part, came from Austria 2900 YBP. No quite knows who Austrians were at that point racially, as Germanics don’t show up in Austria until late in the Roman Empire near the Fall.
A sector of the Nordicists have created a lie to disinherit the Italians of their claim to the Roman Empire. According to this lie, the ruling class of the Romans were pure Germanics, and the rabble/refuse were just a bunch of racially degenerated dagos. They enlist all sorts of nonsensical evidence in favor of this supposition, including looking at statues and paintings and whatnot.
The Nordicist notion stems from their incredulity that a bunch of no good wops could have created one of the greatest empires known to mankind.
It’s interesting that many Nazi racialist authors did not subscribe to the standard Nordicist lie of today. The Nazis were quite clear that the Italians of today were the descendants of the Romans. In fact, Nazi racial hierarchy placed Meds only slightly below Nordics on the racial scale. Both were seen as highly superior races, but the Nordics were seen as a bit better, as supremacists always have to put themselves on top.
Nazi theory held that both Meds and Nords had a lot of good and bad racial tendencies, and held that Meds were superior to Nords in many ways. In particular, the Meds were seen as one of the most, if not the most, creative race in modern times, or possibly ever.
The Nordicist distortion of today stems from the UK and the US. The US was settled by Northern Europeans and the Southern Europeans, including Italians, who immigrated starting 130 years ago were seen as highly inferior on a racial basis. Science has not born this claim out, but it remains a part of US founding stock culture, and it was a motivating factor being the restrictive 1925 Immigration Act.
I don’t know the UK racially very well, but I suspect that they have always looked down on the Continent in general, and probably the Southern Europeans in particular. Not when it comes to partying in Mallorca though I guess.
Anyway, the truth is that modern Nordicists have so distorted even Nazi Nordicism that most modern Nordicists would have probably been booted out of the Nazi Party at the time. I am not trying to romanticize the Nazis here, but in terms of racial science, they were correct in some ways. Contrary to popular nonsense, Nazis did not hold Jews to be inferior. Nazi racialism quite correctly recognized the superiority of the Jews. Instead, they just held that the Jews were evil.
The Nazis employed racialist academics who followed the army on their gruesome deeds. Over by the Caucasus, these academics undertook deep scientific studies that concluded that certain Jewish groups in that area were not racially Jewish, but instead were culturally Jewish. The Nazis were not as insane as everyone says, and they held by the findings of their scientists and saved the lives of tens of thousands of Jews on that basis.
The pro-Meds have been battling the Nordicists about this for nearly a century now, and I support the Meds’ side of the argument. From Roman sources we get reports describing Romans in quite the same way as the peoples of Abruzzo to the Po would be described today. Germanics were described as blond, blue and very different looking than Romans.
The only difference between the Romans and the Abruzzo to Po Italians of today is that the people in this region are actually more Germanized today than they were under the Romans! To the South, there have been some changes, including a large injection of Arab, Phoenician, Spanish, Corsican, French (Norman), Greek and Albanian genes. This is most marked in Sicily.
One lie is that the Abruzzo to Po Italians have lots of Black blood in them. To the South, yes, there is some Black blood, but it is minimal. It is most prominent in Sicily at around 5%. From Abruzzo the Po, the % of Black blood is about the same as in Germany, if not less, at around 1.5%.
Academics have stayed out of the debate only to say that the ancient Romans were the same people as modern day Italians.
A similar lie was spread about Greece on the same basis. How could these dumb-ass Southern European inferiors have produced one of the greatest societies in history? It’s obviously not possible, so some mysterious Germanics must have infiltrated that rocky land to surreptitiously ruled over those swarthy inferiors. Once again, statues and whatnot are enlisted in support of this, and Nordicists study art and statues with magnifying glasses claiming to see secret Master Race features in Greek art.
The Meds have gone at them again in this argument, and once again, I side with the Meds.
The Nordicist argument is curious. If Romans and Greeks were secret Master Race types, then obviously the central Italians and Greeks, as largely racially unchanged folks, are their descendants anyway. The argument becomes circular. The Nords try to say that the Central Italians and Greeks underwent some massive racial degeneration after the Falls, but there is no evidence for this.
As with Southern Italians, there seems to be some Black blood in the Greeks, but only about 5%. It appears to have gone in mostly during Ancient Greece, so the argument for racial degeneration doesn’t make sense. The Ancient Greeks were a little bit Black too.
Some Nordicists make a truly insane argument about Ancient Egypt which is almost as insane as the Afrocentric crap about Black Athena.
According to this, some Master Race White types created Egypt, then Egypt underwent racial degeneration with an infusion of Black blood and collapsed into the Hellish Cairo of today, trash dumps everywhere, mangy stray dogs in the streets, and rats about as big as the dogs scurrying through the open air markets.
Not only that, but nothing works, and in order to get hooked up to the non-working system, you have to wait in line forever and pay off a bunch of lazy pricks.
Academics once again stay out of this one, except to say that they think there was continuity between Ancient and modern Egyptians. I saw one piece in the Journal of Physical Anthropology that compared genes of ancient Egyptians with those of modern Egyptians. Amazingly, racially, they were about the same at 91% Caucasian and 9% Black.
The truth is somewhat interesting. While the Afrocentrist notion must be discarded, it’s certainly true that at least historically, a bit of Black blood mixed with mostly White stock has produced some of the greatest societies the world has ever seen. At 90-95% Med Caucasian and 5-10% Ethiopic Black, a mixing bowl for the greatest civilizations man produced was created.
It’s difficult to come up with a theory to explain why this stock did so well, but possibly mixing a bit of one stock to a lot of another produces an excellent genetic set. Anyway, this is how animal and plant breeders have been operating for centuries. It would be surprising if humans were different. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.
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.
In the post, Albanians Are Neither White Nor Europeans?Lafayette Sennacherib takes issue with some of my anti-Nordicist POV, suggesting that ancient Greece was populated from the North, specifically the Baltics:
…there may turn out to be some truth in the notion that the Myceneans came from the North (though I think it unlikely that many went back).
I mentioned here before that I’d recently come across this book by Felice Vinci: The Baltic Origins of Homer’s Epic Tales.
Homer, as you are no doubt aware, is credited (it’s not known if he was one or many authors) with the creation of the earliest European literature with his epic tales ‘the Iliad’ about the Trojan war, and ‘the Odyssey’ about the journeys of Odysseus as he tries to find his way home, with a boatload of men, after the war.
Last I heard, the best guess is that it was composed about 1200BC and written down about 7oo BC. Trouble is, there’s a lot of description in Homer, but none of it fits the Mediterranean.
You’ve guessed what’s coming: Felice has matched all the descriptions and journey times and directions to the Baltic. Apparently there was a verifiable drastic climate change before which the Baltic was a lot more user friendly.
I think ( I haven’t read the book yet), from reviews I’ve read, that he places some of Odysseus’ travels quite far afield up the North Sea coast of Norway, and even to the Shetlands and Orkneys and possibly Scotland and Britain.
If you’ve ever seen the ancient underground towns in Shetland or Orkney (the back of beyond these days; in fact even the Romans called them Ultima Thule – the ends of the Earth), which seem to have had efficient plumbing maybe as early as 1500 BC, you can’t help but wonder how such refinements came to be in this most unlikely of places – Felice’s theory would locate them in a lively interlinked maritime world centering on the Baltic.
Of course, this isn’t proven, but I get the impression that some serious people are taking this seriously enough to fund more research.
Felice speculates that deteriorating climatic conditions caused many of these Baltic peoples to migrate south, and that they took their myths and poems with them, and that the reason that some of the names of towns correspond to known and existing Greek sites is that they named places in their new home after places in their old home, as Europeans have so obviously done in the USA, Australia and so on.
Well, I agree that the theory is interesting, but in the long run, none of it really makes sense from a Nordicist POV. Germanic tribes went all over Europe, so the very idea of Med and Nordic doesn’t make a lot of sense. And Meds went all over up into the north too. The two groups totally mixed in with each other. Nordics are part Med and Meds are part Nordic.
Bottom line is that modern Greeks are the same folks as ancient Greeks, no matter where they came from. Modern Italians are the same as the ancient Romans, no matter where the Romans came from.
Nordicists take issue with this, and say that Rome and Greece were created by some glorious Nordic types, and then after the Fall, some kind of mud people* or nigger people* from the South (I guess that means Arabs, North Africans, Ethiopians, Lebanese) came into Greece and Italy and muddied up these beautiful White German folks, creating the present day swarthy Med.
Nordicists are serious assholes!
The ones here in the US really, really, really, really hate Southern Europeans. They think they are inferior greaseball part-Mud*, part-nigger* people. Most US Nordicists say that Meds are not even White.
Anti-Southern European prejudice and discrimination, especially discrimination against Italians and Catholics, is pretty much history in White America, but at one time, this was a prominent trend. Italians have moved into the White Ruling Class, and the Catholic JFK was elected and ruled Camelot 50 years ago. Even the KKK lets Catholics in now, and says let’s let bygones be bygones.
The fact that probably 80% of White nationalists are Nordicists just shows once again how out of it these people really. Hell, these racist baboons are behind the times even in terms of intra-White prejudices. How do you spell “loser”?
If you read the original Nazi racialist authors, they do not say this at all. Say what you will about them, but they pursued this stuff as a science.
They agreed that Meds were a great White people, and that the modern Meds are descendants of the great cultures of Greece and Rome. They listed many attributes of the Meds and said that in many ways, Meds were superior to Nordics.
However, Nordics were also superior to Meds in many ways. When it all tallied up, the Nordics came out on top, but only slightly. To say that the Nazis felt that Meds were inferior is completely mistaken. Meds were a great White people, but Nordics were also great, and Nordics were somewhat greater the Meds. Of course they had to put themselves on top, all Supremacists do.
One thing the Nazi racialist scientists did say was that Meds were very creative, perhaps the most inventive and creative Whites that ever existed, or maybe the most inventive and creative humans that ever existed. They said that Meds were superior in terms of the arts, which is somewhat related.
Modern day Nordicists (neo-Nazis in general) who despise and disparage Meds as non-Whites, in all honesty, would have been thrown out of the Nazi Party in Germany! That’s how out of it they are.
This is sort of a peculiarly American and Australian thing – the Nordicist contempt for Meds. I’m not sure if you see it that much in Europe, though people are always going to be rivals.
It does exist in Italy though, where the Padanianists pour scorn on the “part-nigger”* Southerners. The Padanianists also take pride in being “Celtic.”
However, non-racial frustration with the South extends as far south as Abruzze (east of Rome) in Italy. Even in Abruzze, they think that they work hard and they don’t get all their tax money back. Instead it goes to the unproductive South, who take more in revenues than they contribute in taxes.
Further, in Abruzze, there is frustration that any tax money sent South in the form of revenues is wasted, as it just goes to the Camorra (Mafia) anyway. The notion of the South, and that means Naples south (Naples is thoroughly Camorra-overrun) as being the Land of the Camorra is not misplaced.
The Camorra for all intents and purposes practically run the show down there. Police try to fight them, but they are overwhelmed. Most of the politicians are paid off, and those who are not might get shot. Judges and investigative journalists are routinely threatened and gunned down.
There was also something like this North-South rivalry in the former Yugoslavia, with the notion being that Slovenia and Croatia were the economic engines of the place, and everything south just took in more revenues than they paid out in taxes.
In the north of Spain, there is some pride once again in being “Celtic”, but I am not aware that Northern Spaniards hate Southern Spaniards all that much, or at all.
Some of the north, especially around Leon and Asturias, is in bad shape economically, and I’m sure they take more in revenues than they pay in taxes, so the North-South thing doesn’t really work.
In Western Asturias in particular, the region is depopulating, and most towns are losing population. Even wolves are coming back to the hills and foraging in garbage dumps outside of towns. In 20 years, many villages in Western Asturias may be effectively abandoned.
The economic and industrial engines of Spain are in the Basque Country and Catalonia (industry in the Basque area, corporate offices in Catalonia). This is one of the main reasons why Spain is dead-set against having these regions secede.
Repost from the old site.
If you learn how to use Game and PUA techniques on Albanian women, check out this great site.
A lot of White Nationalist idiots insist that Albanians are either not White (Whatever the Hell that means.), or, more particularly, that they are not Europeans (!). The reason that “Albanians are not Europeans”, despite the fact that they live in Europe (!) is apparently because “Albanians are Muslims”. So White folks, who live in Europe, but are Muslims, are automagically transformed into “non-Whites”. Nice magic.
First of all, that is not entirely true. It’s true that the Kosovars were mostly Muslims, but in Albania proper, the population was originally about 50% Muslim, 30% Catholic and 20% Orthodox Christian. Albanian Orthodox, apparently. I never even knew that existed.
Pretty interesting phenotype. I like those girls. Love the way they look. I’m not sure quite what they look like; I’m thinking they have a phenotype all their own? They look a lot like Italians. Looking at the guys, I think they look like Greeks. They have a very interesting nose. I’m not sure if it’s a Greek nose or an Italian nose. It’s prominent, but still attractive. I assume they are just some type of Meds. I’m not down with all those old anthropological types. Notice that there are a fair number of blonds. Nordicist retards say this is because “Nordics” went down to the Mediterranean, civilized the backwards Meds, become their ruling class, did all those great Italian and Greek civilizational Med things we swoon about, then took off back to Germany or wherever to run around in bear skins with rude tribes of White gangbangers called Vandals and such. Dumb, huh? Truth is, Meds went up north and actually helped to form those great Nordics. Nordics are part Med. I got my hands on this great proto-Nazi Nordicist book once out of Germany from around 1920. Everything was race, race, race. It was kind of cool the way he split Caucasians up into all these groups. But it seems that the ruling classes of all of the great empires – Indian, Persian, Armenian, Roman, Greek, you name it – were all Nordics! Germanic proto-Nazi dudes were running all over Europe and West Asia forming ruling classes and creating great civilizations and lording it over the the untermenschen darkie types, then high-tailing it back to Germany as soon as civilization collapsed. Back to Germany, one of the least civilized places on Earth, except it was exporting Platos and Caesars to the world. Yeah right. Supremacists are so funny sometimes. More Albanians! All blonds, pretty much. You see any particular phenotype there? I don’t. They just look like White people. No wait! They’re not White! Only Nordics are! Snark. These people don’t look like Muslims either. They look like young folks who like to have unmarried sex. Have fun kids!
If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.