In Praise of Race Mixing

Hage writes:

Doesn’t race mixing produce better looking women? A lot of great looking women in South America (region with a ratio of the best looking people) are of mixed race heritage.

It is a given in animal breeding that heterozygosity is a good idea. Whether this works the same in humans is not known, but we are animals too. Surely race mixing cannot be a disaster if animal breeding is any guide, and probably inbreeding is a much more serious problem with humans.

The White nationalists and other racial pluralists always champion pure races and inbreeding and pour cold water on the notion of hybrid vigor and interbreeding. However, the record from animal breeding shows that highly purebred (inbred) and unmixed animal breeds have a huge number of serious issues, typically genetic medical problems (often muskoloskeletal). There is certainly no evidence that mixing races produces a “bastardized,” “mutt” or inherently unstable and defective race of any sort. In fact, the more diverse a race’s genetic set, the more adaptive they are as a general rule.

If, say, Blacks are a problem in your country, you can always get rid of the problem by eliminating the Black race in your land. You would do this not be killing or deporting the actual Black people in your country; instead you would simply breed them out of existence by breeding in with them.

This was actually a project of the government of Brazil in the 1800′s under the Brancamiento Program, whereby Whites and others were encouraged to breed with Blacks in order to eliminate the Black race in Brazil, who were seen as a problem. At the same time, the state encouraged mass importation of Whites from Europe. Many came from Portugal and Spain, and quite a few others came from Italy (mostly northern Italy) and Germany (north and central Germany).

At present, there are only ~7% pure Blacks in Brazil anymore. Nevertheless, the more mulattoized culture of Brazil has a gigantic crime rate, is horrifically violent, and in general, Brazil is an extremely cruel, callous and unequal state (one of the most unequal states on Earth).

In Mexico, at one time, there was a large number of Blacks in the country. They were simply bred out of existence such that Blacks or even mulattos are not common anymore, except on the coast around Veracruz. Nevertheless, the average Mexican is now 3-5% Black, something most US Blacks are loath to admit. That amount of Black genes in the stock should have very little effect on the population, certainly little to no negative effect. Nevertheless, it is certainly true that Mexico lacks any kind of Black race problem.

In the late 1800′s around Buenos Aires, there was a large Black population in the city. They seem to have disappeared off the face of the Earth, but a good theory is that they were simply bred out of existence. The average Argentine is now 3% Black.

Some race realists like to talk about how the Japanese race is one of the most superior races on Earth. I don’t like to discuss human races in those terms, but they do have high IQ’s a low crime rate and a very orderly society. The Japanese are actually a highly mongrelized race, a with a heavy mix of both Australoid Ainu and Korean Mongoloid in their stock.

What’s Wrong with Loving Your Family?

Inaki writes, sarcastically:

Robert, do you love your fellow mixed-race whites, like the Eurasians of glorious nation Kazakhstan, the mulattos of big booty Brazil, the mestizos of every American’s wet dream nation, Mexico, and the Australoid-Caucasoids of your most beloved and favorite nation, India?

Well, I love all people you know. But not everyone is family. Some are family and some are not. The Caucasoids are part of my family! I mean, I might love a non-White with all my heart and soul, but they’re not part of my family, hear?

There is a part of me that can respect a mixed person for having White in them, but it’s often hard to see with all the blending. I do like Hispanics that have a lot of White in them though. I like to see the White in them. It makes them feel like family. I feel pretty close to most Indians racially for some reason. I’m not sure why that is. I think it’s because on some level, they just look more or less Caucasian.

And I do have a special spot in me for mulattos, especially the guys. They almost feel part of the family, maybe distant cousins. Plus they often act a lot better. Light skinned Blacks are often not so caught up in the worst Black culture and are more liekly to “act White.” About Kazakh types, not sure. The Whiter looking ones I could relate to quite well.

I love women of all races. In particular, I’m a Rice King.

White Nationalist Lies About Portugal and the Dangers of Mulattoization

Here is a typical lie that the White nationalist scum tell about Portugal and the dangers of Whites interbreeding with Blacks:

Portugal – Once a 16th century world power with colonies around the world – moor/negro slave interbreeding after 400 years has left it with a 40% illiteracy rate. The most backward country in Europe. Slow mongrelization without a shot being fired.

Well, guess what? It’s just not true. The Portuguese are not a mongrelized or mulatto people by any stretch of the imagination. Overall, the Portuguese are about 3.5% Black. In the South and Far South it is a lot higher, with some of the highest rates in Europe at around 5%.

Look, there is no way on Earth that 3.5-5% Black DNA in White genes is going to jack to your population. More Black genes than that? Maybe so. Whatever happened to Portugal, it had nothing to do with introgression of Black genes.

Another one of their lies talks about the greatness of “White Egypt.” Except there never was any White Egypt, scumbags. There was an Arab Egypt. You know, Arabs, those inferiors? And even the great Arab Egypt had ~12-13% Black genes. The glory of ancient Egypt shows that at least in the ancient world, one of the greatest societies the world ever produced was accomplished with a fair amount of Black genetics and mulattoization.

You know how these scumbags like to talk about the glories of great White South Africa? Guess what, fucktards? Those great White South Africans you love so much are 11% Black by genetics. There have even been cases of two White parents producing a child who looks pretty mulatto.

Let us look at the Arab World. The Arab World has gotten a lot Blacker over time with the introduction of Black slaves via Islam, but there was no corresponding degeneration of society. In fact, at the moment, the Blackest parts of the Arab World are the wealthiest of all.

Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Kuwait have quite a bit of Black genes in their populations. Percentages generally range from ~13-17%. But these are some of the wealthiest countries on Earth, with First World health and developmental figures, spectacular architecture, suburbs that look like Phoenix and a stunningly low crime rate, especially for violent crime.

So moral and economic degeneration of your population via low levels of mulattoization (~15% Black genes) is not guaranteed by any stretch of the imagination.

In fact, in recent times, we have few to no cases of mass mulattoization of any population anywhere on Earth. Show me one great, prosperous White society anywhere on Earth that degenerated into a moral and economic basket case in modern times due to mulattoization. Show me one, one, one, one.

Show me one in the Caribbean. One in South America. One in Central America. One in the Arab World. One in Africa. One anywhere.

Not that I think that mass introgression of Black genes into a White society is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Instead I think it is nothing much to worry about, since it doesn’t seem to be happening anywhere on Earth, which is probably a good idea.

A Couple of Nice Charts on Black Crime

Just the usual chart you have seen so many times before.

These types of charts are familiar to all of us, including, believe it or not, most White liberals. White liberals are not stupid about Black people, and they are very, very aware of the reality of Black crime. In fact, this is one negative aspect of Blacks that most White liberals will freely discuss. They generally discuss in non-racist terms, and it is possible for a White person to talk about Black crime in a non-racist manner.

I can’t remember if I have ever heard one single White liberal making the usual stupid excuses that we White liberals supposedly make for Black crime: it’s all White people’s fault, they’re poor and oppressed, bla bla. White liberals don’t buy that stuff. I’m not sure who does? Maybe White college professors and White Leftists.

Please do not confuse White liberals with White Leftists. White liberals are sane on the subject of race, but White Leftists surely are not. Bring up Black crime with a White Leftist and he’s liable to call you racist and shoot down the whole conversation. Or he will say that all Black crime is caused by racism.

White liberals generally like Blacks and they hate anti-Black racism. This is because White liberalism was founded in part on opposition to White racism. Degenerating into anti-Black racism, is, for a White liberal, becoming your worst enemy – the cracker, the redneck, the ugly White racist, whether Bull Connor or William Pierce.

Nevertheless, White liberals can discuss Black crime. They are not sure what causes it, and the subject is a little bit uncomfortable (you can often see White liberals get nervous discussing it). But they all think it sucks, and they pretty much blame Black people for Black crime. Yet at the same time, they don’t follow this logically down the path so many White conservatives take: “Blacks commit tons of crime, so I hate Blacks.” White liberals stop short at that turnoff and just keep on driving.

White Leftists like to scream about the high Black incarceration rate, which is a lamentable statistic, it is true. They talk about the Prison Industrial Complex, along with a few other clever euphemisms. What’s implied here is that having all these Black men locked up is some sort of an outrageous injustice in and of itself. But I doubt if that is true. Why are so many Black men locked up? Probably because they commit an incredible amount of crime.

Very interesting chart shows homicide rates the world over. Note the very high rates in Black regions.

As you can see by this chart, Africa in general has a high homicide rate. It’s quite a bit higher than White or Asian areas. The homicide rate is also low across the Arab World and in South Asia. Granted, it is high in Russia, Kazakhstan, Greenland and Myanmar, but those are best seen as outliers.

There is also a lot of homicide in Latin America, in Central America in particular. Central America is very Hispanic and has few Blacks. The racial makeup is mestizo, or White-Indian mix.

Venezuela, Colombia, Brazil and Ecuador also have a lot of crime, especially the first two. Venezuela and Colombia have a fair amount of Black genetics, but overall Black genetics probably amounts to only around 20-25% of the population. The Blacks there are very mixed, and often take the form of mulattos, Black-Indian mixes, and Black-White-Indian mixes. The latter is particularly common in Venezuela.

Of course Brazil has some of the heaviest Black genetics in Latin America, but it typically takes the form of mulattos as opposed to more pure Blacks.

The high crime rate in Latin America shows that Hispanics in the form of basically mestizo populations are fully capable of committing just as much crime and mayhem as Blacks if not more. There doesn’t seem to be a genetic explanation for this, as a White-Amerindian mix doesn’t seem particularly criminogenic in a genetic sense.

However, this chart should put to rest the argument that only US Blacks commit lots of crime, and that crime is low in Africa, the Caribbean and other places where there are lots of Blacks. It seems that wherever you have lots of Blacks, you tend to have lots of crime, in particular violent crime. Crime appears to follow Blacks like night follows day. The reasons for this may be debated endlessly but the reality of this truth seems hard and fast.

Great Documentary on Fidel Castro

Great movie! Lasts about 1 3/4 hours, but it’s worth the whole thing. Views him in a positive light. Includes lots of interviews with old friends including Gabriel Garcia Marquez.

One thing that shines through here is Castro’s excellent relationship with Blacks. Many of his strongest Cuban supporters are Black or mulatto people. Cuban Black artists love him to death. And many American Blacks have a positive opinion too. Alice Walker, Henry Belafonte and others are interviewed. Some Whites are interviewed too, including Hollywood director Michael Pollack and writer Saul Landau.

Towards the end, there is a segment about the gusanos of Miami, the Cuban exiles. They are almost all White. During the part about the Elian Gonzalez affair, these Whites are contrasted with shots of Cubans marching to free Elian. The shots are striking. Cubans in Cuba are very Black – very Black and mulatto, and they love Castro!

The gusanos in Miami think he’s the devil, and their all White. We think this is about Communism versus democracy, but once again, it seems to be boiling down to race. It’s a Black-White thing.

Wayne Smith, former representative of the US Interests Section in Havana (we have no embassy), lays out the psychosis of the US hatred for Castro, the hundreds of assassination attempts, the insane 50 year embargo.

The embargo is nuts. The whole world is against it. Votes on it in the UN typically end up something like 170-3. The US only gets Marshall Islands and its sick little puppy dog the Zionist entity to go along.

Which incidentally shows you just how sick the idea of Israel being a progressive country is. Instead, Israel is a world center of reaction, fascism and imperialism. It has a deep alliance with US imperialism, and it has always reinforced the most fascist and genocidal US policies.

Wherever on Earth rightwing death squads needed to be trained and armed, the US sent it’s puppy dog the Zionist entity to do the deed. There was a genocidal Israeli hand behind so many of the recent rightwing mass murders in Guatemala, Colombia, El Salvador, East Timor, Guatemala and Peru. Israel is a sick little country!

Castro’s ebullient and engaging personality shines through the whole movie. He’s charming as Hell. Even some of his erstwhile enemies seem to fall into his snake charmer trance.

The Latest Anti-Black Diatribe on the Site

Dwayne, a resident of the Alt-Right Sphere, spouts off the latest anti-Black outburst on the site:

Where do you get the IQ 107 figure for African immigrants? That seems way off. What about all of the research by Lynn, Vanhanen, Rushton etc., often discussed on “alt right” blogs, that suggests that the average sub-Saharan African has an IQ of 70, and US blacks have a slightly higher average IQ (due mainly to more white genetic material) of 84. It wouldn’t bother me if black people were just dumb, but honest and hard-working. Unfortunately, they are not just dumb.

They exhibit extreme lack of impulse control, increased aggressiveness and increased narcissism, compared to non-blacks. This has all been demonstrated empirically and correlated to e.g. MAO allele frequencies in different populations. Just yesterday a study was released showing that black U.S. females are three times as likely to consider themselves “hot” than women of other races.

As if Black people didn’t have enough problems as it is, they have to deal with guys like this.

First of all, the US African immigrant IQ figure is not way off. In fact, it is correct. Apparently African immigrants are a highly select bunch, and we only let in the best of the best.

Second of all, in my opinion, the US Black IQ is 87, not 84. The African IQ is actually ~67. Caribbean IQ is ~71, and Caribbeans are ~ 9% White.

There is a gigantic lie spread all over the White nationalist sphere that the US Black IQ of ~85 is “due to White admixture.” Not so! Given a base genetic IQ of 67, with ~15% White admixture, US Blacks should have IQ’s of ~71.5. Yet their IQ’s are somehow 87. By the same token, Jamaican Black IQ’s are 71.5 in Jamaica, but after they move to the UK, by the 2nd generation, their IQ’s are 86. So the Jamaicans in the UK somehow get a 14.5 point boost merely by moving to a Western country.

The US Black IQ contains 14.5 extra points that are not accounted for by genes. This rise may be due to living in a Western country, better diet or other factors. The head sizes of US Blacks have increased dramatically since 1900. Part of this is due to diet, but part of it is genetic. It appears that Blacks in the US have been eugenically selecting for higher IQ’s for the last 100 years.

            Expected IQ*   Actual IQ*  Difference*

US Blacks   72.5           87          14.5
UK Blacks*  71.5           86          14.5 

Notes:
UK Blacks are mostly Jamaicans.
Expected IQ = expected by genes alone.
Actual IQ = tested.
Difference = unexplained by genetics alone.

I really doubt if Black racial factors have been adequately accounted for by MAO allele frequencies. I would very much like to see that data.

Dwayne say that Blacks have increased aggressiveness and impulsiveness compared to “non-Blacks.” I do not agree with that statement. Which specific non-Blacks are are being referred to here?

Granted, no doubt Blacks  have increased aggressiveness and impulsiveness compared to Whites and Asians, but all non-Blacks? Forget it. Prove it. Let’s line up Blacks with various other races and see how they compare. As far as I can tell, the most criminal and violent part of the world right now is Latin America. The residents of that region are generally Amerindian-White mixes, or Mestizos, as opposed to Blacks.

Finally, do Blacks really display “extreme” lack of impulse control and “extremely” elevated aggressiveness compared to non-Blacks? Show us the data. Surely it’s elevated for Blacks, but how much? Is it really “extremely” increased?

Lastly, I am glad that Black women feel so good about themselves in spite of everything.

Blacks Versus Hispanics, Introverts Versus Extroverts.

Film at 11.

A commenter writes:

I find the comparisons HBD enthusiasts (like Steve Sailer) make between Mexicans and blacks pretty interesting. Many of them seem to regard mestizos as somewhat more intelligent and docile than blacks, though not nearly as bright as whites. On the other hand, they often view Afro-descended people as being much more charismatic and creative than Mexicans.

There may be some truth to this latter observation. Non-Hispanic black and biracial celebrities and other prominent figures seem to vastly outnumber noteworthy individuals of Hispanic origin, despite the Hispanic population being larger.

Even among Hispanics, there appear to be a greater number of famous mulattoes (i.e. from Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, or Cuba) than famous mestizos. The only famous Mexican Americans I can think of off the top of my head are Salma Hayek (half Lebanese) and George Lopez.

The first paragraph is correct. That they are somewhat more intelligent and much more docile than Blacks, but much less so than Whites, is due to the Indian in them. Hispanics commit 3X as much crime as Whites. That’s a lot! But Blacks commit 8X more crime than Whites. That’s a lot more! In order not to be White supremacists here, we must point out that Whites commit 4-5X as much crime as Asians. That’s a lot! In an Asian society with a large White minority, Whites may well be the “niggers” of society.

This may come back to extroversion. That Blacks are the most extroverted race of all and also commit the most crime may not be an accident. Extroverted people simply express their energy directed outwards at the world in all sorts of ways, good and bad.

We introverts just move it all inwards. Most of us simply don’t even have enough outward directed energy period left over from the inward flood to commit much crime. Hell, we have a hard enough time raising our voices.

When someone has an argument with me, I often feel bad for days afterwards. The extrovert feels bad for 10 minutes, at 12-24 hours. After that, it’s, “What argument?” With me, I have a bad fight with someone, don’t see them for three years. They’re all, “Hi there!” I’m like, “You fucker. I still remember that shitty fight from three years ago! Give me 10 good reasons why I should trust you now? Or 2? Or 1?”

Pure introverts might commit 5% of all crime, if that.

Most criminals are extroverts. Everyone knows that. If prisoners were introverted, they’d behave better and we could have Hilton San Quintins with few to no problems.

Same with the relative lack of extroverted creativity in Hispanics. Blacks have much more of this than Indians. The Indian can be creative, especially in art, as in painting. These are the introverted or visual arts. The more expressive arts, the performance arts, will favor the more extroverted Blacks.

Blacks are better at music too. Black poetry has a rapping, jazz and blues like, rapid pace to it. It can be very high quality, but mostly when read aloud. On the page it suffers. Black poetry is meant to be noisy.

Does Multilingualism Equal Separatism?

Repost from the old site.

Sorry for the long post, readers, but I have been working on this piece off and on for months now. It’s not something I just banged out. For one thing, this is the only list that I know of on the Net that lists all of the countries of the world and shows how many languages are spoken there in an easy to access format. Not even Wikipedia has that (yet).

Whether or not states have the right to secede is an interesting question. The libertarian Volokh Conspiracy takes that on in this nice set of posts. We will not deal with that here; instead, we will take on the idea that linguistic diversity automatically leads to secession.

There is a notion floating around among fetishists of the state that there can be no linguistic diversity within the nation, as it will lead to inevitable separatism. In this post, I shall disprove that with empirical data. First, we will list the states in the world, along with how many languages are spoken in that state.

States with a significant separatist movement are noted with an asterisk. As you can see if you look down the list, there does not seem to be much of a link between multilingualism and separatism. There does seem to be a trend in that direction in Europe, though.

Afterward, I will discuss the nature of the separatist conflicts in many of these states to try to see if there is any language connection. In most cases, there is little or nothing there.

I fully expect the myth of multilingualism = separatism to persist after the publication of this post, unfortunately.

St Helena                        1
British Indian Ocean Territories 1
Pitcairn Island                  1
Estonia                          1
Maldives                         1
North Korea                      1
South Korea                      1
Cayman Islands                   1
Bermuda                          1
Belarus                          1
Martinique                       2
St Lucia                         2
St Vincent & the Grenadines      2
Barbados                         2
Virgin Islands                   2
British Virgin Islands           2
Gibraltar                        2
Antigua and Barbuda              2
Saint Kitts and Nevis            2
Montserrat                       2
Anguilla                         2
Marshall Islands                 2
Cuba                             2
Turks and Caicos                 2
Guam                             2
Tokelau                          2
Samoa                            2
American Samoa                   2
Niue                             2
Jamaica                          2
Cape Verde Islands               2
Icelandic                        2
Maltese                          2
Maltese                          2
Vatican State                    2
Haiti                            2
Kiribati                         2
Tuvalu                           2
Bahamas                          2
Puerto Rico                      2
Kyrgyzstan                       3
Rwanda                           3
Nauru                            3
Turkmenistan                     3
Luxembourg                       3
Monaco                           3
Burundi                          3
Seychelles                       3
Grenada                          3
Bahrain                          3
Tonga                            3
Qatar                            3
Kuwait                           3
Dominica                         3
Liechtenstein                    3
Andorra                          3
Reunion                          3
Dominican Republic               3
Netherlands Antilles             4
Northern Mariana Islands         4
Palestinian West Bank & Gaza     4
Palau                            4
Mayotte                          4
Cyprus*                          4
Bosnia and Herzegovina*          4
Slovenia and Herzegovina*        4
Swaziland                        4
Sao Tome and Principe            4
Guadalupe                        4
Saudi Arabia                     5
Cook Islands                     5
Latvia                           5
Lesotho                          5
Djibouti                         5
Ireland                          5
Moldova                          5
Armenia                          6
Mauritius                        6
Lebanon                          6
Mauritania                       6
Croatia                          6
Kazakhstan                       7
Kazakhstan                       7
Albania                          7
Portugal                         7
Uzbekistan                       7
Sri Lanka*                       7
United Arab Emirates             7
Comoros                          7
Belize                           8
Tunisia                          8
Denmark                          8
Yemen                            8
Morocco*                         9
Austria                          9
Jordan                           9
Macedonia                        9
Tajikistan                       9
French Polynesia                 9
Gambia                           9
Belgium                          9
Libya                            9
Fiji                             10
Slovakia                         10
Ukraine                          10
Egypt                            11
Bulgaria                         11
Norway                           11
Poland                           11
Serbia and Montenegro            11
Eritrea                          12
Georgia*                         12
Finland*                         12
Switzerland*                     12
Hungary*                         12
United Kingdom*                  12
Mongolia                         13
Spain                            13
Somalia*                         13
Oman                             13
Madagascar                       13
Malawi                           14
Equatorial Guinea                14
Mali                             14
Azerbaijan                       14
Japan                            15
Syria*                           15
Romania*                         15
Sweden*                          15
Netherlands*                     15
Greece                           16
Brunei                           17
Algeria                          18
Micronesia                       18
East Timor                       19
Zimbabwe                         19
Niger                            21
Singapore                        21
Cambodia                         21
Iraq*                            21
Guinea-Bissau                    21
Taiwan                           22
Bhutan                           24
Sierra Leone                     24
South Africa                     24
Germany                          28
Namibia                          28
Botswana                         28
France                           29
Liberia                          30
Israel                           33
Italy                            33
Guinea                           34
Turkey*                          34
Senegal                          36
Bangladesh                       39
New Caledonia                    39
Togo                             39
Angola*                          41
Gabon                            41
Zambia                           41
Mozambique                       43
Uganda                           43
Afghanistan                      47
Guatemala                        54
Benin                            54
Kenya                            61
Congo                            62
Burkina Faso                     68
Central African Republic         69
Solomon Islands                  70
Thailand*                        74
Iran*                            77
Cote D'Ivoire                    78
Ghana                            79
Laos                             82
Ethiopia*                        84
Canada*                          85
Russia*                          101
Vietnam                          102
Myanmar*                         108
Vanuatu                          109
Nepal                            126
Tanzania                         128
Chad                             132
Sudan*                           134
Malaysia                         140
United States*                   162
Philippines*                     171
Pakistan*                        171
Democratic Republic of Congo     214
Australia                        227
China*                           235
Cameroon*                        279
Mexico                           291
India*                           415
Nigeria                          510
Indonesia*                       737
Papua New Guinea*                820

*Starred states have a separatist problem, but most are not about language. Most date back to the very formation of an often-illegitimate state.

Canada definitely has a conflict that is rooted in language, but it is also rooted in differential histories as English and French colonies. The Quebec nightmare is always brought up by state fetishists, ethnic nationalists and other racists and nationalists who hate minorities as the inevitable result of any situation whereby a state has more than one language within its borders.

This post is designed to give the lie to this view.

Cyprus’ problem has to do with two nations, Greeks and Turks, who hate each other. The history for this lies in centuries of conflict between Christianity and Islam, culminating in the genocide of 350,000 Greeks in Turkey from 1916-1923.

Morocco’s conflict has nothing to do with language. Spanish Sahara was a Spanish colony in Africa. After the Spanish left in the early 1950′s, Morocco invaded the country and colonized it, claiming in some irredentist way that the land had always been a part of Morocco. The residents beg to differ and say that they are a separate state.

An idiotic conflict ensued in which Morocco the colonizer has been elevated to one of the most sanctioned nations of all by the UN. Yes, Israel is not the only one; there are other international scofflaws out there. In this conflict, as might be expected, US imperialism has supported Moroccan colonialism.

This Moroccan colonialism has now become settler-colonialism, as colonialism often does. You average Moroccan goes livid if you mention their colony. He hates Israel, but Morocco is nothing but an Arab Muslim Israel. If men had a dollar for every drop of hypocrisy, we would be a world of millionaires.

There are numerous separatist conflicts in Somalia. As Somalians have refused to perform their adult responsibilities and form a state, numerous parts of this exercise in anarchism in praxis (Why are the anarchists not cheering this on?) are walking away from the burning house. Who could blame them?

These splits seem to have little to do with language. One, Somaliland, was a former British colony and has a different culture than the rest of Somalia. Somaliland is now de facto independent, as Somalia, being a glorious exercise in anarchism, of course lacks an army to enforce its borders, or to do anything.

Jubaland has also split, but this has nothing to do with language. Instead, this may be rooted in a 36-year period in which it was a British colony. Soon after this period, they had their own postage stamps as an Italian colony.

There is at least one serious separatist conflict in Ethiopia in the Ogaden region, which is mostly populated by ethnic Somalis. Apparently this region used to be part of Somaliland, and Ethiopia probably has little claim to the region. This conflict has little do with language and more to do with conflicts rooted in colonialism and the illegitimate borders of states.

There is also a conflict in the Oromo region of Ethiopia that is not going very far lately. These people have been fighting colonialism since Ethiopia was a colony and since then have been fighting against independent Ethiopia, something they never went along with. Language has a role here, but the colonization of a people by various imperial states plays a larger one.

There was a war in Southern Sudan that has now ended with the possibility that the area may secede.

There is a genocidal conflict in Darfur that the world is ignoring because it involves Arabs killing Blacks as they have always done in this part of the world, and the world only gets upset when Jews kill Muslims, not when Muslims kill Muslims.

This conflict has to do with the Sudanese Arabs treating the Darfurians with utter contempt – they regard them as slaves, as they have always been to these racist Arabs.

The conflict in Southern Sudan involved a region in rebellion in which many languages were spoken. The South Sudanese are also niggers to the racist Arabs, plus they are Christian and animist infidels to be converted by the sword by Sudanese Arab Muslims. Every time a non-Muslim area has tried to split off from or acted uppity with a Muslim state they were part of, the Muslims have responded with a jihad against and genocide of the infidels.

This conflict has nothing to do with language; instead it is a war of Arab Muslim religious fanatics against Christian and animist infidels.

There is a separatist movement in the South Cameroons in the nation of Cameroon in Africa. This conflict is rooted in colonialism. During the colonial era, South Cameroons was a de facto separate state. Many different languages are spoken here, as is the case in Cameroon itself. They may have a separate culture too, but this is just another case of separatism rooted in colonialism. The movement seems to be unarmed.

There is a separatist conflict in Angola in a region called Cabinda, which was always a separate Portuguese colony from Angola.

As this area holds 60% of Angola’s oil, it’s doubtful that Angola will let it go, although almost all of Angola’s oil wealth is being stolen anyway by US transnationals and a tiny elite while 90% of the country starves, has no medicine and lives unemployed amid shacks along former roads now barely passable.

The Cabindans do claim to have a separate culture, but language does not seem to be playing much role here – instead, oil and colonialism are.

Syria does have a Kurdish separatist movement, as does Iran, Iraq, and Turkey – every state that has a significant number of Kurds. This conflict goes back to the post-World War 1 breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The Kurds, with thousands of years of history as a people, nominally independent for much of that time, were denied a state and sold out.

The new fake state called Turkey carved up part of Kurdistan, another part was donated to the British colony in Iraq and another to the French colony in Syria, as the Allies carved up the remains of the Empire like hungry guests at a feast.

This conflict is more about colonialism and extreme discrimination than language, though the Kurds do speak their own tongue. There is also a Kurdish separatist conflict in Iran, but I don’t know much about the history of the Iranian Kurds.

There is also an Assyrian separatist movement in Iraq and possibly in Syria. The movement is unarmed. The Assyrians have been horribly persecuted by Arab nationalist racists in the region, in part because they are Christians. They have been targeted by Islamo-Nazis in Iraq during this Iraq War with a ferocity that can only be described as genocidal.

The Kurds have long persecuted the Assyrians in Iraqi Kurdistan. There have been regular homicides of Assyrians in the north, up around the Mosul region. This is just related to the general way that Muslims treat Christian minorities in many Muslim states – they persecute them and even kill them. There is also a lot of land theft going on.

While the Kurdish struggle is worthwhile, it is becoming infected with the usual nationalist evil that afflicts all ethnic nationalism. This results in everyone who is not a Kurdish Sunni Muslim being subjected to varying degrees of persecution, disenfranchisement and discrimination. It’s a nasty part of the world.

In Syria, the Assyrians live up near the Turkish and Iraqi borders. Arab nationalist racists have been stealing their land for decades now and relocating the Assyrians to model villages, where they languish in poverty. Assad’s regime is not so secular and progressive as one might suspect.

There is a separatist conflict in Bougainville in New Guinea. I am sure that many different tongues are spoken on that island, as there are 800 different tongues spoken in Papua New Guinea. The conflict is rooted in the fact that Bougainville is rich in copper, but almost all of this wealth is stolen by Papua New Guinea and US multinationals, so the Bougainville people see little of it. Language has little or nothing to do with it.

There are separatist movements in the Ahwaz and Balochistan regions of Iran, along with the aforementioned Kurdish movement. It is true that different languages are spoken in these regions, but that has little to do with the conflict.

Arabic is spoken in Khuzestan, the land of the Iranian Arabs. This land has been part of Persia for around 2,000 years as the former land of Elam. The Arabs complain that they are treated poorly by the Persians, and that they get little revenue to their region even though they are sitting on a vast puddle of oil and natural gas.

Iran should not be expected to part with this land, as it is the source of much of their oil and gas wealth. Many or most Iranians speak Arabic anyway, so there is not much of a language issue. Further, Arab culture is promoted by the Islamist regime even at the expense of Iranian culture, much to the chagrin of Iranian nationalists.

The Ahwaz have been and are being exploited by viciously racist Arab nationalists in Iraq, and also by US imperialism, and most particularly lately, British imperialism, as the British never seem to have given up the colonial habit. This conflict is not about language at all. Most Ahwaz don’t even want to separate anyway; they just want to be treated like humans by the Iranians.

Many of Iran’s 8% Sunni population lives in Balochistan. The region has maybe 2% of Iran’s population and is utterly neglected by Iran. Sunnis are treated with extreme racist contempt by the Shia Supremacists who run Iran. This conflict has to do with the fight between the Shia and Sunni wings of Islam and little or nothing to do with language.

There is a separatist movement in Iran to split off Iranian Azerbaijan and merge it with Azerbaijan proper. This movement probably has little to do with language and more to do with just irredentism. The movement is not going to go very far because most Iranian Azeris do not support it.

Iranian Azeris actually form a ruling class in Iran and occupy most of the positions of power in the government. They also control a lot of the business sector and seem to have a higher income than other Iranians. This movement has been co-opted by pan-Turkish fascists for opportunistic reasons, but it’s not really going anywhere. The CIA is now cynically trying to stir it up with little success. The movement is peaceful.

There is a Baloch insurgency in Pakistan, but language has little to do with it. These fiercely independent people sit on top of a very rich land which is ruthlessly exploited by Punjabis from the north. They get little or no return from this natural gas wealth. Further, this region never really consented to being included in the Pakistani state that was carved willy-nilly out of India in 1947.

It is true that there are regions in the Caucasus that are rebelling against Russia. Given the brutal and bloody history of Russian imperial colonization of this region and the near-continuous rebellious state of the Muslims resident there, one wants to say they are rebelling against Imperial Russia.

Chechnya is the worst case, but Ingushetia is not much better, and things are bad in Dagestan too. There is also fighting in Kabardino-Balkaria and Karachay-Cherkessia. These non-Chechen regions are getting increasingly radicalized as consequence of the Chechen War. There has also been a deliberate strategy on the part of the Chechens to expand the conflict over to the other parts of the Caucasus.

Past rebellions were often pan-Caucasian also. Although very different languages are spoken in these areas, different languages are still spoken all across Russia. Language has little to do with these conflicts, as they have more to do with Russian imperialism and colonization of these lands and the near 200-year violent resistance of these fierce Muslim mountain tribes to being colonized by Slavic infidels.

There is not much separatism in the rest of Russia.

Tuva reserves the right to split away, but this is rooted in their prior history as an independent state within the USSR (Tell me how that works?) for two decades until 1944, when Stalin reconquered it as a result of the conflict with the Nazis. The Tuvans accepted peacefully.

Yes, the Tuvans speak a different tongue, but so do all of the Siberian nations, and most of those are still with Russia. Language has little to do with the Tuvan matter.

There is also separatism in the Bashkir Republic and Adygea in Russia. These have not really gone anywhere. Only 21% of the residents of
Adygea speak Circassian, and they see themselves as overrun by Russian-speaking immigrants. This conflict may have something to do with language. The Adygean conflict is also peripherally related the pan-Caucasian struggle above.

In the Bashkir Republic, the problem is more one of a different religion – Islam, as most Bashkirs are Muslim. It is not known to what degree language has played in the struggle, but it may be a factor. The Bashkirs also see themselves as overrun by Russian-speaking immigrants. It is dubious that the Bashkirs will be able to split off, as the result will be a separate nation surrounded on all sides by Russia.

The Adygean, Tuvan and Bashkir struggles are all peaceful.

The conflict in Georgia is complex. A province called Abkhazia has split off and formed their own de facto state, which has been supported with extreme cynicism by up and coming imperialist Russia, the same clown state that just threatened to go to war to defend the territorial integrity of their genocidal Serbian buddies. South Ossetia has also split off and wants to join Russia.

Both of these reasonable acts prompted horrible and insane wars as Georgia sought to preserve its territorial integrity, though it has scarcely been a state since 1990, and neither territory ever consented to being part of Georgia.

The Ossetians and Abkhazians do speak separate languages, and I am not certain why they want to break away, but I do not think that language has much to do with it. All parties to these conflicts are majority Orthodox Christians.

Myanmar is a hotbed of nations in rebellion against the state. Burma was carved out of British East India in 1947. Part of Burma had actually been part of British India itself, while the rest was a separate colony called Burma. No sooner was the ink dry on the declaration of independence than most of these nations in rebellion announced that they were not part of the deal.

Bloody rebellions have gone on ever since, and language has little or nothing to do with any of them. They are situated instead on the illegitimacy of not only the borders of the Burmese state, but of the state itself.

Thailand does have a separatist movement, but it is Islamic. They had a separate state down there until the early 1800′s when they were apparently conquered by Thais. I believe they do speak a different language down there, but it is not much different from Thai, and I don’t think language has anything to do with this conflict.

There is a conflict in the Philippines that is much like the one in Thailand. Muslims in Mindanao have never accepted Christian rule from Manila and are in open arms against the state. Yes, they speak different languages down in Mindanao, but they also speak Tagalog, the language of the land.

This just a war of Muslims seceding because they refuse to be ruled by infidels. Besides, this region has a long history of independence, de facto and otherwise, from the state. The Moro insurgency has little to nothing to do with language.

There are separatist conflicts in Indonesia. The one in Aceh seems to have petered out. Aceh never agreed to join the fake state of Indonesia that was carved out of the Dutch East Indies when the Dutch left in 1949.

West Papua is a colony of Indonesia. It was invaded by Indonesia with the full support of US imperialism in 1965. The Indonesians then commenced to murder 100,000 Papuans over the next 40 years. There are many languages spoken in West Papua, but that has nothing to do with the conflict. West Papuans are a racially distinct people divided into vast numbers of tribes, each with a separate culture.

They have no connection racially or culturally with the rest of Indonesia and do not wish to be part of the state. They were not a part of the state when it was declared in 1949 and were only incorporated after an Indonesian invasion of their land in 1965. Subsequently, Indonesia has planted lots of settler-colonists in West Papua.

There is also a conflict in the South Moluccas , but it has more to do with religion than anything else, since there is a large number of Christians in this area. The South Moluccans were always reluctant to become a part of the new fake Indonesian state that emerged after independence anyway, and I believe there was some fighting for a while there. The South Moluccan struggle has generally been peaceful ever since.

Indonesia is the Israel of Southeast Asia, a settler-colonial state. The only difference is that the Indonesians are vastly more murderous and cruel than the Israelis.

There are conflicts in Tibet and East Turkestan in China. In the case of Tibet, this is a colony of China that China has no jurisdiction over. The East Turkestan fight is another case of Muslims rebelling against infidel rule. Yes, different languages are spoken here, but this is the case all over China.

Language is involved in the East Turkestan conflict in that Chinese have seriously repressed the Uighur language, but I don’t think it plays much role in Tibet.

There is also a separatist movement in Inner Mongolia in China. I do not think that language has much to do with this, and I believe that China’s claim to Inner Mongolia may be somewhat dubious. This movement is unarmed and not very organized.

There are conflicts all over India, but they don’t have much to do with language.

The Kashmir conflict is not about language but instead is rooted in the nature of the partition of India after the British left in 1947. 90% of Kashmiris wanted to go to Pakistan, but the ruler of Kashmir was a Hindu, and he demanded to stay in India.

The UN quickly ruled that Kashmir had to be granted a vote in its future, but this vote was never allowed by India. As such, India is another world-leading rogue and scofflaw state on a par with Israel and Indonesia. Now the Kashmir mess has been complicated by the larger conflict between India and Pakistan, and until that is all sorted out, there will be no resolution to this mess.

Obviously India has no right whatsoever to rule this area, and the Kashmir cause ought to be taken up by all progressives the same way that the Palestinian one is.

There are many conflicts in the northeast, where most of the people are Asians who are racially, often religiously and certainly culturally distinct from the rest of Indians.

None of these regions agreed to join India when India, the biggest fake state that has ever existed, was carved out of 5,000 separate princely states in 1947. Each of these states had the right to decide its own future to be a part of India or not. As it turned out, India just annexed the vast majority of them and quickly invaded the few that said no.

“Bharat India”, as Indian nationalist fools call it, as a state, is one of the silliest concepts around. India has no jurisdiction over any of those parts of India in separatist rebellion, if you ask me. Language has little to do with these conflicts.

Over 800 languages are spoken in India anyway, each state has its own language, and most regions are not in rebellion over this. Multilingualism with English and Hindi to cement it together has worked just fine in most of India.

Sri Lanka’s conflict does involve language, but more importantly it involves centuries of extreme discrimination by ruling Buddhist Sinhalese against minority Hindu Tamils. Don’t treat your minorities like crap, and maybe they will not take up arms against you.

The rebellion in the Basque country of Spain and France is about language, as is Catalonian nationalism.

IRA Irish nationalism and the Scottish and Welsh independence movements have nothing to do with language, as most of these languages are not in good shape anyway.

The Corsicans are in rebellion against France, and language may play a role. There is an independence movement in Brittany in France also, and language seems to play a role here, or at least the desire to revive the language, which seems to be dying.

There is a possibility that Belgium may split into Flanders and Wallonia, and language does play a huge role in this conflict. One group speaks French and the other Dutch.

There is a movement in Scania, a part of Sweden, to split away from Sweden. Language seems to have nothing to do with it.

There is a Hungarian separatist movement, or actually, a national reunification or pan-Hungarian movement, in Romania. It isn’t going anywhere, and it unlikely to succeed. Hungarians in Romania have not been treated well and are a large segment of the population. This fact probably drives the separatism more than language.

There are many other small conflicts in Europe that I chose not to go into due to limitations on time and the fact that I am getting tired of writing this post! Perhaps I can deal with them at a later time. Language definitely plays a role in almost all of these conflicts. None of them are violent though.

To say that there are separatists in French Polynesia is not correct. This is an anti-colonial movement that deserves the support of anti-colonial activists the world over. The entire world, evidenced by the UN itself, has rejected colonialism. Only France, the UK and the US retain colonies. That right there is notable, as all three are clearly imperialist countries. In this modern age, the value of retaining colonies is dubious.

These days, colonizers pour more money into colonies than they get out of them. France probably keeps Polynesia due to colonial pride and also as a place to test nuclear weapons and maintain military bases. As the era of French imperialism on a grand scale has clearly passed, France needs to renounce its fantasies of being a glorious imperial power along with its anachronistic colonies.

Yes, there is a Mapuche separatist movement in Chile, but it is not going anywhere soon, or ever.

It has little to do with language. The Mapudungan language is not even in very good shape, and the leaders of this movement are a bunch of morons. Microsoft recently unveiled a Mapudungan language version of Microsoft Windows. You would think that the Mapuche would be ecstatic. Not so! They were furious. Why? Oh, I forget. Some Identity Politics madness.

This movement has everything to do with the history of Chile. Like Argentina and Uruguay, Chile was one of the Spanish colonies that was settled en masse late. For centuries, a small colonial bastion battled the brave Mapuche warriors, but were held at bay by this skilled and militaristic tribe.

Finally, in the late 1800′s, a fanatical and genocidal war was waged on the Mapuche in one of those wonderful “national reunification” missions so popular in the 1800′s (recall Italy’s wars of national reunification around this same time). By the 1870′s, the Mapuche were defeated and suffered a devastating loss of life.

Yet all those centuries of only a few Spanish colonists and lots of Indians had made their mark, and at least 70% of Chileans are mestizos, though they are mostly White (about 80% White on average). The Mapuche subsequently made a comeback and today number about 9% of the population.

Because they held out so long and so many of them survived, they are one of the most militant Amerindian groups in the Americas. They are an interesting people, light-skinned and attractive, though a left-wing Chilean I knew used to chortle about how hideously ugly they were.

Hawaiian separatism is another movement that has a lot to do with colonialism and imperialism and little to do with language. The Hawaiian language, despite some notable recent successes, is not in very good shape. The Hawaiian independence movement offers nothing to non-Hawaiians (I guess only native Hawaiians get to be citizens!) and is doomed to fail.

Hawaiians are about 22% of the population, and they are the only ones that support the independence movement. No one else supports it. It’s not going anywhere. The movers and shakers on the island (Non-Hawaiians for the most part!) all think it’s ridiculous.

There are separatists in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh, but I doubt that language has much to do with it. Like the myriad other separatist struggles in the NE of India, these people are ethnically Asians and as such are not the same ethnicity as the Caucasians who make up the vast majority of the population of this wreck of a state.

This is another conflict that is rooted in a newly independent fake state. The Chittagong Hill Tracts were incorporated into Bangladesh after its independence from Pakistan in 1971. As a fake new state, the peoples of Bangladesh had a right to be consulted on whether or not they wished to be a part of it. The CHT peoples immediately said that they wanted no part of this new state.

At partition, the population was 98.5% Asian. They were Buddhists, Hindus and animists. Since then, the fascist Bangladesh state has sent Bengali Muslim settler-colonists to the region. The conflict is shot through with racism and religious bigotry, as Muslim Bengalis have rampaged through the region, killing people randomly and destroying stuff as they see fit. Language does not seem to have much to do with this conflict.

I don’t know much about the separatist struggle of the Moi in Vietnam, but I think it is more a movement for autonomy than anything else. The Moi are Montagnards and have probably suffered discrimination at the hands of the state along with the rest of the Montagnards.

Zanzibar separatism in Tanzania seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with language, but has a lot more to do with geography. Zanzibar is a nice island off the coast of Tanzania which probably wants nothing to do with the mess of a Tanzanian state.

The conflict also has a lot to do with race. Most residents of Zanzibar are either Arabs or descendants of unions between Arabs and Africans. In particular, they deny that they are Black Africans. I bet that is the root of the conflict right there.

There were some Talysh separatists in Azerbaijan a while back, but the movement seems to be over. I am not sure what was driving them, but language doesn’t seem to have been a big part of it. Just another case of new members of a fake new state refusing to go along for the ride.

There were some Gagauz separatists in Moldova a while back, but the movement appears to have died down. Language does seem to have played a role here, as the Gagauz speak a Turkic tongue totally unrelated to the Romance-speaking Moldovans.

Realistically, it’s just another case of a fake new state emerging and some members of the new state saying they don’t want to be a part of it, and the leaders of the fake new state suddenly invoking inviolability of borders in a state with no history!

In summary, as we saw above, once we get into Europe, language does play a greater role in separatist conflict, but most of these European conflicts are not violent. In the rest of the world, language plays little to no role in the vast majority of separatist conflicts.

The paranoid and frankly fascist notion voiced by rightwing nationalists the world over that any linguistic diversity in the world within states must be crushed as it will inevitably lead to separatism at best or armed separatism at worst is not supported by the facts.

White Pride Latin America

Interesting comments from the comments section. First a fellow named Robert posts a comment, then a White Mexican named Rafa responds. I very much enjoyed their interchange, and I will comment at the end:

Robert: As a White Latin American, I think a lot of the information you put was wrong. At least the part about White Latin Americans disappearing. The CIA World Factbook puts Mexico White population at 9%, but I heard its really 15% to 18%. And Mexico’s White population wasn’t 40% during the colonial period it was more like close to 20%. I’ve heard that there are migrants heading to northern Mexico, but the majority of Northeast Mexico is still White.

You can talk to a lot of Latin Americans about that. They’ll tell you the same thing. My friend who goes to Mexico says the same thing. And as for Brazil, Sao Paulo is 70% non white? SAY WHAT!!!! I’m sorry, I haven’t been there yet, but that is just purely wrong. I’ve read in the census that its 70% White.

Personally I AM GLAD there are a lot of white people in Latin America. But then again, I personally think that if a person looks White, then they are obviously white. Even if they are 20% black or whatever. I may have been born and grown up in the U.S., but in the end, I guess I haven’t assimilated I guess.

I don’t mean to come off as if I am insulting you but I think at least half the information you got was wrong. At least when it came to the decline of White population. However, remember, all mestizos do not look the same. The phenotype can range from more European to more Indian. The White upper class of Mexico and Brazil may be mixed, but the non-white ancestry may not be enough to show and vice-versa.

Basically its a color continuum.

Rafa: I find it interesting that you said that if a person is 20% Black but looks White, then they are obviously White. By that standard, I would have to say that Mexico is between 33-40% White. The reason is simple. Amerindian features are more easily diluted than are Black African features.

There are even White Americans who are known to have claimed some sort of native indigenous ancestry such as Chuck Norris, the late Patrick Swayze, and Johnny Depp (this last one actually looks like a lot Mexicans I grew up with). The term Euro-Mestizo has even entered the lexicon of American English terms used to describe people according to their race, specifically light-skinned Mexicans who are predominantly White in appearance.

I don’t know about you, but I think that ever since the world got smaller through the invention of broadcast television and the internet, Latin Americans have gotten into a tendency of competing with each other to see whose country is whiter or has a larger population of Whites. What do you think?

By the way, as far as Northeastern Mexico being majority White, I would have to say that I agree with that statement. As you might have already guessed, I am in fact Mexican and from the Northeastern border city of Nuevo Laredo,Tamaulipas.

I grew up across the border in Laredo, Texas and it is basically an explicit fact that my native region is not as White as it used to be. Many people from Southern Mexico, and even some from Central America have established themselves in Nuevo Laredo, Reynosa, Matamoros, and Monterrey in neighboring Nuevo Leon state.

Most Mexican nationals who reside in Laredo, Texas are in fact White (as are most of their Mexican-American brethren in the region), and this often shocks non-Mexican Hispanics coming from the East Coast and California.

This is a sort of Latin American White Pride that I do not have a whole lot of issues with. To me, it resembles Black Pride in the US, which is generally healthy because it avoids some extremes and pitfalls. Some of the benefits vis a vis nasty US White Pride:

No emphasis on purity: If anything, in Black Pride there is an emphasis on less purity due to Black America’s obsession with light skin. That is, the less Black you have in you, the more proud you are, paradoxically. Now, that is not necessarily a good thing, but at least it gets us away from the purity poison.

Your average Black person in the US is 15% White. Most sane Blacks have not issues with this figure at all, and sane Black society does not regard US Blacks as impure or demand any kind of racial purity from them. You don’t have to be 100% Black to be Black in the US! Three cheers for that!

In contrast, US White Pride is utterly toxic in terms of racial “contamination.” If you have the tiniest bit of non-White in you, you’re automatically non-White. Even a lot of White ethnics are ruled out as Whites and described as non-Whites. Examples include Jews, Armenians, Turks, Eastern Aryans, Iranians, White Berbers, White Arabs, Georgians, the Caucasus, Albanians and Southern Europeans in general.

It’s absurd. Another thing to note is that in general, among races, the more emphasis there is on purity, the more violent, fascist and even genocidal the group is. It’s no accident that the Germans and Japanese were both genocidal and strongly emphasized purity of race. The two things go together quite well. As you get away from the purity trap, you become more loving and inclusive and less likely to engage in race-based violence, much less genocide. This is because, as a “contaminated” person yourself, you can’t much demand purity from others.

Increased love for others: Most White Latin Americans don’t hate the small amount of Indian or Black in themselves. It’s not the end of the world. They have a more relaxed attitude towards race, and they often love the non-White in themselves. If you love the Other in yourself, you are more likely to love the Other in others.

No demands for segregation. Latin American Whites don’t demand segregation. There was some segregation in Latin America, especially in Cuba and Ecuador, but it’s long gone. In Cuba, it lasted as long as the Revolution.

Let’s get real here for a second. What’s behind the demands for segregation? They are about fears of racial annihilation. This is what the fears of race-mixing and miscegenation were all about. But White Latin Americans are already somewhat mixed, so in a sense, they are already an annihilated race. There’s nothing to fear from dilution if you’re already diluted yourself, so there’s no need for segregation. Let the mixing begin!

A more relaxed attitude about race. White nationalists go on and on about colorism in Latin America, but at the end of the day, it’s not as big a deal as racism is here in the US. Colorism is simply not as virulent and nasty as White racism here in the US. It’s all a continuum, a sliding scale.

Thinking in a grey or continuum type manner is healthier than thinking in a black and white Manichean manner. Grey thinking is more relaxed and adaptive and leads to more tolerance and flexibility.

What problems there are in Latin America regarding race are ll tied up with class. Many Latin American so-called Whites don’t even look all that White. Indians are disliked due to class hatred, not necessarily racial hatred. The most hardened attitudes are found in South America, especially in the Andes.

It’s not that Latin America has overcome the race issue, but more that they have more or less transmuted it into a class issue. In a region where you can trade in your Indian clothes, stop speaking Indian, move to the city and then start wearing mestizo clothing and speaking Spanish and thereby automagically transform yourself from an Indian into a mestizo is a place were biological race is not so important anymore. It has been replaced by social race.

Less fear of miscegenation. I am not aware that Latin American Whites are zealously guarding their bloodlines anymore. If they are, let me know. You can hardly demand that others marry White if you are not pure White yourself. There are some Latin American Whites who would like it to be this way, but they are going against nature. In particular, Latin American White males are increasingly marrying and breeding with relatively light-skinned mestizas. The purists lament this, but what can you do? A man will be a man.

In addition, there  is another operative trend, and that is the widespread tendency among Latin American mestizas to try to “marry White” in an effort to move up in the world themselves and to create a better future for their offspring. This is highly adaptive female thinking, and it leads to a paradoxical “Whitening” effect among mestizos that occurs concurrently with whatever “darkening” effect is going on among Latin American Whites.

It’s the wave of the future. As the world’s population gets more mixed, the sort of White Pride seen in Latin America will become more the norm for all groups. True, pure races will slowly die out and become more rare, but that’s neither good nor bad, it just is. If US Blacks, a mixed group, can be proud, then anyone can be proud of their racial elements. The progeny of a racial stew can feel proud of all of the elements that went into that stew. The result is an ethnic pride that is more tolerant, loving and unconditional.

White Gangbangers in Argentina

Here.

Click on the photo album to see more of these idiots acting all tough and throwing gang signs. They are from Cordoba, Argentina, which is in the west of Argentina. Known from growing wine grapes, relatively dry climate in the rain shadow of the Andes. These folks look like Whites, which seemed strange to me. An Argentine friend of mine told me that they were typical Argentine mestizos. If that is so, then your Argentine mestizo looks awfully damned White.

I knew that Hispanic-Black US gang culture was spreading to other areas, particularly mestizo and Indian populations in Latin America and I believe Black and mulatto populations in the Caribbean. I have also seen pics of Filipinos and Negritos in the Philippines who have adopted US gang culture. There are some Australian Aborigines and Polynesians who have adopted it too. The Polynesians like to imitate US Black culture, possibly because they feel closer to Blacks. In gang fights at LA schools, the Samoans would always line up with the Blacks.

If you have any information on other regions where US gang culture is spreading, please let us know in the comments. I guess this is one of the only products were are exporting anymore.