Category Archives: Irish

The Strange Links Between Antisemites and Rightwing Zionists

Israel actually gets a lot of support from out and out fascists, including some anti-Semites and people with Nazi links. I know that Richard Spencer has praised Israel as a model for the racist Whites-only state he wants to create. Kevin MacDonald has also written a nice article on Israel as a model. Israel is indeed a model for anyone wanting to create a racist ethnic nationalist state. There’s not a lot of difference between a racist Jews-only state and a racist Whites-only state.

In this fascinating piece Judith Mirville discovers many more fascinating links between these two most unlikely allies.

I will tell you why fanatical antisemites and Protocol-centric conspiracy theorists love Trump, the arch-neocon, the Jewiest among the Noahides: there is no incompatibility at all between being a Nazi White Aryan supremacist and an ultra-Zionist, no matter if you are a Likud car-carrying member Jew or a Jew-outjewing gentile neocon.

You must first realize that first White supremacist theories sold to the Western World, especially most of the Anglo-Saxon ones, were pro-Jewish and justified themselves of Biblical Jewish origin: the most fanatical branch even claimed of descending, as all true White Anglo-Saxons, from the Biblical tribes of Judah and Israel. That form of racism which is responsible for the dehumanization of Irish, then of Negroes, then of Amerindians, then of East Indians, existed long before the more publicized one born in Central Europe and Germanic countries justifying itself of the Vedas, of the recent discovery of Sanskrit, and of the Aryan invasion theory of India and of Europe.

British Anglo-Saxons in India snub natives and see themselves as Jews or would-be Jews having conquered yet another non-Biblical people – they would dominate it as true Veda-perfect Aryans of the kind there no longer was in India due to caste miscegenation only later on, and even then this was only ideological enrichment, not reconversion: most of the first White Indo-Aryan supremacy theorists postulated that the authors of the Vedas and of the Jewish sacred scriptures were the same people as they pushed for invasion of heathen lands. O

ne very popular exponent of such a synthesis was Edouard Schuré, in his 1900-published semi-doc book The Great Initiates. The over the top rabid antisemitism of the Nazi party was a departure from, not a continuation of, the racist mainstream; actually it is rather the result of a late hurried electorally-tailored compromise of that ultra-right-wing party with the Austrian antisemitism of leaders such as Lueger who were clearly of the non-Marxist Left, not of the racist right, witness the fact the latter (and not the Marxist) had pushed for the most advanced social measures that were still being passed at municipal level in Vienna and around.

Rabid antisemitism was the original Left ingredient put in the Nazi witches’ pot so as to seduce working masses into fighting with their own bosses against the Reds (and their own interests), and most bourgeois German Jews laughed of such a feat of cunning on Hitler’s part. To get an idea of that little-mentioned fact, read the book or view the film The Serpent’s Egg.

Antisemitism has always been recuperated, not begotten, by the economic Right: I wouldn’t go as far as to say that antisemitism is a left-wing position, but it is not one of the Right neither, it is one that positions on the third axis of multi-factor analysis of the political spectrum.

The first factor in factorial explanation power as an eigenvalue is always, be the right-left one, i.e. whether you identify with the common man and with the victims or with the privileged and the conquerors to define yourself, and whether you identify with more general or particular interests — even most of the American Left actually classifies as more right-wing than the rest according to that definition with all shades of pink in between.

The second is authoritarian versus freedom-loving — the term Libertarian is now unusable for that meaning since most American so-called Libertarians are authoritarian personalities among other detestable traits. The third factor in factorial explanation power as an eigenvalue is localist (not nationalistic – it can be village-centred Sicilian Mafia or Basque anarchistic) versus globalist (not necessarily present-day globalist ideology, it can also be Marxist International or in favour of big social nation-states aiming at global reach) with all intermediate shades: Jews are globalist on that axis as we may expect, but nothing prevents a globalist from having right-wing egotistical and authoritarian personality.

There is even less incompatibility between a Nazi-like antisemite and a perfect Adelson twin brother neocon like Trump in that most Nazi-like antisemites in the US exist thanks to the Zionist establishment as a social management tool, not as an indigenous formation. The KKK, despite a few lone wolves like D Duke, has always been pro-Jewish in theory and favoured by Southern Jews against the Blacks, as has always been the Southern antebellum paradigm, not counting the fact it is anti-Catholic and anti-Irish Presbyterian Scottish by mystical reference and therefore Biblical-Zionist as regards magical rituals.

They are traditionally and most spectacularly used for Jewish-solidarity enhancing false flags, and they are also used by Jewish bosses to destroy worker solidarity so as to turn workers’ interest issues into racial ones.

The Great Divide in the US, apart from the class and left-right divide which has always been the first in importance everywhere except in the virtual media world of a few very maligned countries, has always been White (or better said general privileged newcomer)/Amerindian/Black, since the country was founded by the act of killing Indians to make room for Negro or Irish slave plantations. There are the conquering ones (the Whites), the ones targeted for elimination (the Indians), and the imported slaves (the Blacks), or if you will the superiors, the rebellious inferiors (the Indians), and the exploitable inferiors (the Blacks).

The superiors in America by tradition either are Jews, as was the case with the Southern plantation system where they were both the international traders in cotton and the educated professional elite, or fancy themselves as Biblical Jews of a more perfected kind. Antisemitism in the US only aims at renegade Jews, particularly those who harbour universalistic ideas or tendencies, which good Jews should never entertain under the pain of losing their status as such.

All antisemites in the US go to great lengths to explain that the only Jews they inveigh against are false Jews like Eastern European Khazarians. This is a very stupid position, by the way, as the most rabidly supremacist Jews are traditionally the Sephardics and Mizrachis ones, especially those of recent North African origin. Contrary to East European ones, they were never subject to left-wing ideas, and they were always proud to be concentrated in parasitical, predatory sectors of activity and of having participated in various slave trades.

On their own side, Jews have been most of the times White or pro-White racists of the grandest kind. Some say that Talmud-based Orthodox Judaism postulates that only Jews are actual real humans. That is not accurate or rather true by odor only.

The traditional (and most widespread among North African Orthodox Jews (whom I know well) position is that most bipeds now peopling Earth not being humans but animals or rather natural-born biological robots in apparent human form, only a minority of those bipeds being descendants of Biblical Adam and deserving the title of human.

There had been humanoids for hundreds of centuries before as modern archeology indicates, but humans as such existed only from the date Biblical fundamentalists agree upon to have been the beginning of the Jewish era. That is the way these Jews have always managed to conciliate Biblical literalism and archeological data.

Sub-Saharan Blacks are clearly non-humans according to their view – they are not even simian but reptilian by nature, and their erstwhile most cunning leader was none other than the great Tempter of Eve mentioned in Genesis. Not all humans are Jews according to that view, but the first human, Adam, was intended to be a Jew and to breed the rest of humanity as a Jews.

Non-Jewish humans, who would spontaneously serve the Jews by their own nature, were to be sired by Jewish lovers of non-human females, hence the fact that having a Jewish mother, not merely a father, makes one a Jew by default (a non-Jew can also desire to be a Jew or have a Jewish soul giving all the powers of a Jew).

A Jew is defined as some human having been promised by his creator the reversal of the one big punishment for the Fall which was the loss of the power of human speech to force obedience upon all animals, non-human humanoids, and even inert mineral beings and elements such as wind and clouds as by robots. By obeying the Law in a letter-perfect way, a Jew is supposed to recover the dictatorial power of his word over everybody and everything else. That is the only point for those North Africans in being Jewish.

Manifestly obeying the Law doesn’t make most of these Ultra-Orthodox Jews into people capable of granting all their wishes by merely uttering orders to every non-Jew and non-human being around. Many nevertheless try as if the thing were just normal. Don’t be surprised when so many of them speak to you as if you were their butler. They conclude that something is missing in their obedience to the Law that is the aspect of the Law for initiates only, that deals with magic: the Kabbalah.

North-African Jews believe in Judaism as being ideally the supreme form of witchcraft – their thing is not a religion in the common sense. The North African Jews believe they are the only true Whites. Adam was the first White who appeared; other humanoids were coloured of various hues. The ancient Jews were nearly as white as milk, the other peoples of the Earth are White inasmuch as there is a greater percentage of Jewish blood running in their veins, that is to say a greater percentage of Jewish males having originally sired them.

The reason why nowadays the best Jews are not so white is of course the partial degeneracy caused by their disobedience and lack of hard work in recuperating their magical powers as described by the Kabbalah. In addition, many North African Jewish groups and tribes are originally converts, not Hebrews, who are growing Whiter and Whiter with the generations passing as they manifest their virtues and powers.

People who betray their Jewishness or Whiteness cease to be Jews and Whites, and sometimes their skin darkens pretty fast, as is said was the case with Ham, the father of Ethiopians (not all Blacks – most of them not being human at all), but in general that result is achieved by encouraging those fallen ex-Whites or ex-Jews to breed with darker non-humans.

I for one see no incompatibility between Nazi-like antisemitism and Jewish supremacism, they actually strive to promote exactly the same people as they define them and to discriminate against the same people. It is two darshanas, two side-views of a same doctrine, and both fit in marvellously in greater caste-extolling Hinduism.

3 Comments

Filed under Amerindians, Anti-Semitism, Austria, Blacks, Britain, Conservatism, Europe, Europeans, Fascism, Germany, India, Irish, Israel, Jews, Judaism, Kabbalism, Left, Libertarianism, Middle East, National Socialism, Nazism, Neoconservatism, North Africans, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, Republicans, South, South Asia, US Politics, USA, White Nationalism, White Racism, Whites, Zionism

Why Do Alt-Right Antisemites Love Super-Jew Donald Trump, the Jewiest Gentile of Them All?

Trump is the worst neocon president that has ever lived. No President has ever been closer to Israel and no President has ever been as “Jewish” as Donald Trump. Everything about Trump screams the sleazy, debased, aggressive, lying, cheating and stealing culture that the Jews have created in New York. If you want to know why New Yorkers are so loud, brash, rude, arrogant, unpleasant and greedy then look no further than the fact that New York has the largest Jewish culture outside of Israel.

New York is about a lot of ethnicities, but to say it is not Jewish is not correct at all. Nevertheless, it is as Italian, Irish and now Dominican, Puerto Rican, and Black as it is Jewish and most of these ethnicities have damaged New York as much as the Jews if not more so. Further, most of them have adopted their own loud, brash, in your face culture which is also particular to Africanized or better yet Arabized Sicilians who form the base of New York Italian culture.

And I assure you that the Catholic Italians/Irish and the Jews hate each other, but it’s not because one group is crooked and the other is not. More precisely, it is that they are all three crooks and this is a case of nearly organized crime level ethnic criminal groups (almost gangs) or competition among criminal groups. There are no good guys in New York. Anyone with a shred of decency left that charnelhouse some time ago.

Considering that Trump has now made Israel nearly the official 51st state of Israel (it was de facto before and it is de jure now) and the fact that he out-Jews 90% of Jews (and not in a good way – put a skullcap on Trump and this lying, cheating, conspiring, swindling schemer would be quite at home in either The Protocols or Der Strumer) – one is mystified by the Alt Right’s support of this ultra-Jew called Donald Trump?

Does the Alt Right hate Jews? If so, why support the Jewiest Gentile around, Donald Trump?

Does the Alt Right love Jews? Well, that explains the Trump love but not their anti-Semitism.

Is Trump one of the good Jews and the rest part of the rat Jews? Hardly. If Trump converted tomorrow, millions of Jews would wring their hands and rue the day. “This is not a good day for the Jews!” They would cry.

It’s hard to understand why the fanatical anti-Semites on the Alt Right love this super-Jew Trump so much. I just don’t get it.

10 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Blacks, Conservatism, Crime, Culture, Dominicans, Hispanics, Irish, Israel, Italians, Jews, Middle East, Neoconservatism, Northeast, Organized Crime, Political Science, Politics, Puerto Ricans, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Republicans, The Jewish Question, US Politics, USA

America Has Never Been a Democracy, Nor Was It Ever Intended to Be One

Another wonderful comment by the great Francis Miville!

There is a problem with American identity: its founding mythology, its Constitution which is supposed to be the result of an Enlightenment-Inspired humanistic democratic republican revolution against a colonial empire. This can be understandable in as much as most scholars tend not to know too much was the real Enlightenment movement was: a movement of the filthy rich of their times who wanted first and foremost to do away with the various particular and limited rights many rather modest or middle-rank people had inherited from the Christian Middle Ages on a caste-basis most of the times.

American-style slavery was the epitome of the ideals of Enlightenment as applied to political economy, and if you care to have a look, you will see that the bulk of the clientele of those ideologues were the slaving classes on both sides of the Atlantic. But the problem now is that the truth about 18th-century Enlightenment cannot be sold due to popular hope worldwide.

Another big identification problem stems from the very word “democracy”: in ancient Greek, it did not mean at all the modern ideal (not the reality) of a government held in check by the commoners’ right to depose tyrants and vote down laws felt as abusive, it never meant government of the people by the people for the people, it meant government by a single governing party (dêmos, from verb daiomai, I divide, I take apart, like the Latinate word party which is related to the very partire meaning taking apart) Eastern European style (minus any form of social ideal however mendacious) or by a closed-access class, and moreover it meant that this ruling party or class had or felt no responsibility towards greater good but cared for their group interests only as a gated community is managed.

It was not different from the modern concept of oligarchy. The ancient concept of oligarchy was rather government by a team so small that everybody knew who did what and who ordered what: as soon as the elite, while comprising no more than 1 or 2%, was just big enough for the power it exerted to be anonymous and without any real possibility of influence from any single individual within it, it was called dêmokratia, and especially when the real leaders preferred to keep their identity secret thanks to the anonymous crowd they manipulated at will, which was the case in Athens, whose symbol of the owl meant that very ideal of secrecy and shady dealings.

When such a ruling class or body felt responsibilities towards the greater good, the regime was no longer called a democracy but a timocracy (government according to honor fostered by personal contribution to the greater good): timocracy was a government of takers and givers, a democracy of takers only, and if you check on ancient Athenian mentality, it considered any form of productive work (poiesis), even the production of poems, a dishonor (another gross insult was demiurge, which meant nothing more than a productive artisan at the city’s disposal).

Greek had a word to denote the right of the commoners to vote down tyrants and bad laws, it was called laodicea (the common people judging), but the city that used this system existed in Phrygia only, in Asia Minor, not in Greece proper, who had too high an opinion of themselves as a superior kind over all humans to stoop down to such a regime. In the 18th century most scholars still knew more or less what real Athens was about in the Classical times, a government where the rich and well to do were told by no one they too had duties towards a higher political or moral authority. The partisans of “democracy” just wouldn’t admit to being compelled to practice the same religion as was needed to keep their inferiors in line.

That was the real meaning of “democracy” under Jefferson’s pen. The ideal sold thereafter to the European commoners was meant as a propaganda trick for useful idiots only, exactly like the worst aspects of totalitarian Marxism later on. That is the identity problem I would like to terminate as regards America.

In a certain sense, I want that country to turn officially fascist – that would be actually more in tune with the real Founding Fathers’ will. This country should no longer be declared to owe its existence to the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution, nor even to the Mayflower Pilgrims – neither describe its real essence in the ears of most.

The US should officially declare that it owes its existence as the first White predator political entity on the American continent to the Viking invader Eric the Red. All Americans should idealize the conquering Viking as their ideal ancestor, thanks to whose blood and example the Wild West could be conquered as a prelude to the imperialistic conquest of the whole world.

America did not appear on the map devising a perfect constitution for the human gender; it appeared as a reality of the soil of its continent as an enterprise to genocide all Indians and all other all-too-romantic bums of that kind to make room for slaving plantations furnished with Negroes and Irishmen.

The main difference with Nazi Germany is that Nazi Germany postulated that the Germanic race was the only worthwhile and successful predator in the world and could propagate only through physical breeding. On the other hand, America postulates that the Viking predator, apart from having ideal blood, has even more value as the most perfect example anybody in the world can follow as a model of self-transformation into a monster, though some races like the Viking-descendant Wasps and some Jews are statistically nearer that ideal type than others.

The US should officially declare itself to be the fatherland of all predators of the world, and of all religions having declared war against common humanity. Any delinquent in the world committing vicious acts of predation or betrayal against their community of origin (as the Vikings were for instance, and as the Jews were according the American Protestant ideal of what a Biblical Jew should be) should be considered a de facto American citizen.

LBJ used to say, in order to justify his policy of desegregation and the temporary establishment of his Grand Society, that the real reason for his move was for the elite to be able to roll back America to official racism and segregation. This was badly needed prelude to get the White Trash ready for a future in which they would be prepared to jettison all human rights and accept a dictatorship together with an Indian-style caste society in exchange for their only real dearest right, that of knowing that however hard they have it, Blacks will have it ten times as hard as servants of the lowest of their own servants, as quoth the Bible.

And I think that time has come. Ideally, the future official religion of such a country formed during or after a second Civil War to come as a revenge for the first should be some form of Hinduism, with the Jews being the Brahmins, the Vikings being the Kshatriyas, and the contemporary Indians being the Vaishyas.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

24 Comments

Filed under American, Amerindians, Ancient Greece, Antiquity, Blacks, Civil Rights, Colonialism, Culture, Democrats, Europe, Europeans, Fascism, Germany, Government, History, Irish, Jews, Left, Marxism, Modern, National Socialism, Nazism, North America, Philosophy, Political Science, Politics, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, Sociology, US, US Politics, USA, Whites

Political Lean of Ethnic Whites in the US

Italian-Americans tend to lean Republican nowadays. So do French-Americans, Greek Americans, and Irish-Americans for that matter. Polish-Americans are 50-50, but they went for Trump. Greeks, Italians, Poles and the Irish were Democrats for a very long time in this country. I don’t have figures on any other groups.

Frankly, most if not all White ethnicities have been voting Republican for some time now in the US. This has been happening ever since the Reagan Democrats.

3 Comments

Filed under Democrats, French, Greeks, Irish, Italians, Poles, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Republicans, US Politics, USA, Whites

Is English a German or Scandinavian Language?

S. D. writes: I’m German American. Half my family is Prussian German and the other half is from Munich in the South. I can answer this, sort of.

English is actually from Denmark.

These folks were never from Germany, they were from Saxony and Angles They were Scandinavians.

Normans brought a great deal of Latin words into the English language but they themselves were Norwegians.

Brits have no German in them. They are Scandinavian and Celtic. Their language reflects this.

Wait a minute. English is a West Germanic language. It is in the same branch of Germanic as German. The most closely related language to English is Frisian, which is spoken as probably up to seven separate languages in Northwestern Netherlands and Northwestern and Far Northern Germany.

Scandinavian is North Germanic. All of these languages are straight up from Old Norse.

English is up from Old German, or more properly the Anglo-Frisian branch. Frisian is straight up from Old Saxon, which gives you a clue to what the Anglo-Saxons were speaking.

A man who knows how to speak Old English recently went to Frisia with a TV crew. He stopped and talked to an old farmer who was a Frisian speaker. He could actually communicate with this guy with him speaking Old English and the farmer speaking Frisian (“Modern Saxon”). If you look at Old English, it looks like German. If you hear a tape of someone reading Beowulf, it sounds like someone speaking German. Not only that, but you cannot understand a word.

The British are mostly a Celtic or even a pre-Celtic people. On top of that is layered some German (the Anglo-Saxons), some French (the Normans) and some Danish on the east and north, formerly the Daneland.

I have heard stories about the Normans being Vikings or Norwegians, but I am not sure about that. They were living in France when they invaded. One of my distant ancestors is Eleanor of Acquitaine, Queen of England. She was from the West Central Coast of France.

The Normans brought a lot of French words into English. Actually they spoke Norman, which is a completely separate language from French and is still alive to this day, though it is endangered. But it is related to French. Norman split off from Old French in ~800-1000 CE.

The Scottish and especially the Irish have a lot of Scandinavian blood in them due to a lot of Viking raids in those places. That is why there is all the red and blond hair and green and blue eyes there (red hair and green eyes in Ireland and blond hair and blue eyes in Scotland).

It is true that a lot of Latin borrowings came into English during the Norman period and even afterwards, as Latin was the language of science, technology and government. Some Danish words did go into English from the Daneland. Scots and a lot of the incomprehensible English dialects from northeastern English such as Geordie have heavy Danish influence.

However, there is a little something to your theory. The three tribes in that area that all invaded England were called the Angles, the Saxons and the Jutes. The Angles and Saxons lived from northeastern Netherlands through Northwestern and Far Northern Germany, but the Jutes actually did inhabit Far Southwest Denmark. They speak a language down there called South Jutish, and I am told that Danes cannot understand it at all. However, I have heard that a Jutish speaker and a Scots speaker from Scotland can actually somewhat communicate along the lines of the Old English speaker and the Frisian farmer!

39 Comments

Filed under Balto-Slavic-Germanic, Danish, English, English language, Europe, European, Europeans, French, Frisian, German, Germanic, History, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Irish, Language Families, Linguistics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Scots, Scottish

Waltham, Massachusetts

Repost from the old site.

Let us journey to Waltham, Massachusetts, home of the acclaimed Jewish Brandeis University. The population is 84% White, 9% Hispanic, 4% Black and 3% mixed race.

That’s not really remarkable, and personally, I would prefer to live in a mostly-White town for one main reason.

For, though it’s boring (repressed Whites are uptight, intolerant and dull), the cops are terrible because they have nothing to do (so they just harass people they don’t like) and the residents call the cops way too much (because there is no crime, so they call the cops for no reason), it’s better than living in the “Hood” with “niggas” of various races.

Despite the lunatic theories of White Nationalists that White people have some sort of inbred goodness, decency, law-abidingness and “altruism” about them, the record is quite a bit more dubious.

In the 1300’s in the UK, Steven Pinker notes that the homicide rate was about 50 times what it is today. Those were White folks doing all that killing, and that puts even East St. Louis, Philadelphia and New Orleans to shame.

The US homicide rate from 1910-1930 was about as high or higher than the sky-high rates that occurred when “US society broke down” after the counterculture, liberalism and civil rights unleashed Blacks, and uncivilized behavior in general, on peaceable White folks, according to the White Nationalist narrative.

Most of this crime was being committed, curiously enough, by White folks. One wonders how it is that “society broke down” from 1910-1930 during Mighty Whitey Paradise.

As you can see, the golden days of yore were not always so golden. Sure, the exams to graduate from high school were hard, but only about 1% of the population graduated, and almost all of them were White.

Blacks reeled under Jim Crow segregation and terror and American Indians were not even citizens. Hispanics had their own brand of apartheid to deal with in the Southwest. Racial hatred of Chinese, of all races, was peaking.

It was fashionable to drive animals into extinction, and women could not even vote. The rich were rich and the poor were poor, and there was hardly a chance to move between the two groups, such was US caste-ism. A real and true US imperialism, complete with colonies and the whole nine yards, was all the rage. Such is the wonderful world that the White Nationalists wish to recreate.

I recently read an online series about Five Corners, a neighborhood in New York in the 1800’s. Filled with Irishmen and a fair number of Blacks, it resembled in most ways our seething Underclass ghettos of today. Prostitution, pimping, drunkenness, unemployment, constant fighting, killing and thievery, vast numbers of humans packed into modest structures, no public services at all, such was our budding democracy.

The court dockets were filled with one White man after another going down big time for this or that petty crime. The names were all Irish. The Irish were for all practical purposes a criminalized race. Many if not most young Irish males could look forward to jail or prison. Irish and later Italian and Jewish street gangs terrorized the streets in a similar way to the Black and Brown idiots of today.

The Irish did have strong families somehow through all this mess, and they did have their religion. After decades of Underclassness, they slowly graduated to become just another non-problematic ethnic component of White America.

Around the same time, something funny happened in California. Gold was discovered. From all over the world, people came, almost all single men. From Polynesia, India, Latin America, China, Mexico and all over the US, young men came to make their fortune. They failed to bring any women with them. Mining camps composed of single men sprung up all over California. And a funny thing happened.

The crime rate went through the roof. Newly-found riches, lack of effective police force, dearth of the civilizing and male-controlling influence of women, and most especially the mere presence of so many single males in one place, made the crime rate go nuts, in particular the homicide rate.

Most of the criminals were White. Eventually, the law came and soon men were hung every week, to set an example and deter future offenses. Wild crowds gathered to watch the hangings, then went right back to the camps to drink, gamble, fight, whoremonger, steal and kill.

Alarmed by the mass degeneracy, preachers descended on the camps. Religion became wildly popular, and men crowded the sermons on every Sunday. Afterwards, they went back to their camps and the crime wave started anew.

After a while, more and more women started filtering into the scene and the Gold Rush itself started dying down. As men married and the state settled in, the crime rate went down. But never has the crime rate been so high in the US as in California during the Gold Rush. It makes the killing fields of the US streets in the 80’s and 90’s look like a picnic.

From the Gold Rush crime wave, we learn an important lesson: that of civilizing males via marriage. Every society has promoted marriage, for good reason.

Men, left unmarried, eat poorly, drink, take drugs, gamble, blow money, are promiscuous or whore around, refuse to take care of their health, and steal from, fight and especially kill each other. In other words, single males are bad for society, especially in large numbers.

Males in general are incapable of being both civilized and single, and a wife is necessary to tame the male beast. This is the rationale behind the often-harsh promotion of marriage by many societies: single guys are bad news. Working civilization is hardly possible unless most males marry.

And I say this as a lifelong heterosexual bachelor.

In the 1930’s, once again the US crime rate exploded, especially the homicide rate. It’s hard to say who was doing the killing, as we don’t have a lot of data about the era. But people felt safe: my mother’s family used to serve dinners to homeless men (all White) who came around to the back porch most nights. The were always nice and nothing bad ever happened. Can you imagine anyone doing that today?

Yet the homicide rate in the 1930’s was high all through the Depression – as high or higher than the nastiest years of 1970-1995. Probably just a case of a lot of poor White men killing each other for stupid reasons.

There was probably a lot of gangland homicide too – the murder rate had been very high all through those Roaring 20’s we were taught to adore (though only the richest 20% of the nation made money and had a roaring time, and the bottom 80% got royally screwed).

What does all this tell us? That White folks, obviously capable of tons of Organized Violence (war) are also capable of tons of Disorganized Violence (crime). There is no White gene for altruism or law-abidingness, helping little old ladies across the street, buying Girl Scout cookies, or any of that crap. True, US Whites are relatively law-abiding today, but they can turn Underclass in a New York minute.

And what does this long excursion tell us about Waltham, Massachusetts? Well, let us click the link. Note that the city is 84% White. Making up only 9% of the population, Hispanics are a full 62% of the wanted criminals in town. Blacks, only 4% of the population, make up 25% of the wanted criminals. Whites, with 84% of the population, make up only 8% of the wanted criminals.

Blacks are 65 TIMES more likely to be a wanted criminal in this town than Whites. Hispanics, almost all of whom are Guatemalans (I assure you that 85% of them, minimum, are illegal aliens), are 72 TIMES more likely to be a wanted criminal in this town that Whites are.

People wonder about White Flight and White opposition to illegal immigration,or even White Nationalist opposition to resettling Black African refugees in the US. Those figures speak for themselves. This is what White Rage is all about – crime. Forget racism and all that.

We can go on and on about all the law-abiding Hispanics (even illegals) and Blacks. Lord knows I’ve met enough of them in my time (I taught in LA schools for years, including Compton). But at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter that most Blacks or Hispanics are ok or even morally exceptional. Like apples in a bag, it only takes a certain number to spoil the bunch.

And as long as Hispanics and Blacks will tend to have more gang-members, graffiti-sprayers and criminals than Whites, Whites are going to run away.

We can also go on about whether these varying crime rates are due to genes, culture, poverty, racism or this or that. When it comes down to brass tacks, none of this ivory tower stuff matters.

Genes, environment, culture and all sorts of other variables combine to create phenotype. Phenotype is what you see when you look at culture from afar, as if in a telescope. Some combination of genes and environment, ranging from 0% to 100% for each, combines to produce phenotype. But leave the number-crunching to the eggheads.

The only important variable is that US Blacks and Hispanics (mostly poor Blacks and Hispanics) have a phenotype that has a crime rate that is vastly higher than US Whites. The difference is explained completely by neither poverty nor racism, not that it matters anyway. All that matters are raw numbers, and those numbers make White folks run.

I am convinced that in the US today, most other races also with to live around Whites. Most Blacks, when interviewed, say they want to live in a “diverse” neighborhood – in other words, not a Black one. In California we are starting to see Hispanics fleeing Hispanic-wrecked cities for White small towns – I know this because I have met some of these fleeing Hispanics engaging in “Hispanic flight”.

A low crime rate is appealing to law-abiding folks of all races.

My grandparents lived in South Los Angeles, near Westchester. It was a very nice neighborhood with low crime, on 77th Street. At some point in the 1960’s, the first Black family moved in. Instead of being a tragedy, it was a reason to throw a party. The woman was a schoolteacher, the man was a janitor and the kids were wonderful. My grandma adored the two boys and practically adopted them.

Slowly, more and more Blacks moved in and the neighborhood characteristically declined, as it so typically does. At some point, these places hit something called “critical mass” where Black culture takes over, White flight accelerates, and the road to ruin gets paved. Sometime around then, that wonderful Black couple decided to move.

When asked why he was moving, the man gritted his teeth and looked at the ground. The neighborhood had become “too Black”, with all the attendant baggage that often carries, and he couldn’t take it anymore. The couple packed for new pastures, probably Whiter pastures, and became participants in the Black corollary of White Flight – Black Flight.

I wish I could offer you solutions, but that is not the way of this blog. I toss out thorny problems, throw the whole barbed wire mess into your lap and tell you to figure it out if you wish or can. For today, let us call it an early Christmas present. Further, we hope to explicate thorny and confusing matters with some clear light and pour scorn on idiotic theories and viewpoints.

But the truth is, Presidential debates notwithstanding, there really are no solutions for most of the problems facing man or society. There are only ameliorizations, exacerbations or recrudescences.

6 Comments

Filed under Asians, Blacks, California, Crime, Culture, Europeans, Gender Studies, Hispanics, History, Irish, Italians, Jews, Massachusetts, Modern, North America, Northeast, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, Reposts From The Old Site, Social Problems, Sociology, US, USA, West, White Nationalism, White Racism, Whites

Very Nice New Piece on Race in Mexico

Here.

The site is actually named after me, which has me shaking my head in amazement.

The piece, and the site itself, was inspired by my site, in particular my pieces on race in Mexico and on the major and minor races of man.

Most Mexicans are mestizos, but there are large minorities of more or less pure Europeans and Indians. He describes most of the significant White groups in Mexico and puts Whites at ~17% of the population, higher than some other recent estimates.

Although most Whites have Spanish roots, there are also significant French, Portuguese, German, Italians and Irish minorities. I met a young woman who is Mexican-American, but she is mostly Portuguese. The village she was born in in Mexico is made up of primarily Portuguese people! There are also quite a few Jews in Mexico.

More or less pure Indians make up ~12% of the population. This seems a bit lower than some other estimates. They are very different and speak up to ~90 different languages. In Yucutan, many Indians are actually mestizos, but they still speak Indian languages and identify as Indian.

Mestizos make up ~67% of the population, and are divided between Euro-mestizos, Indo-mestizos and pure mestizos. He has a nice map towards the end dividing Mexico by state on the basis of which of these 3 groups predominates in the state.

There are what he calls 3 occult roots in Mexico: Blacks, Asians and Arabs.

The first root, the Blacks, has its basis in African slaves who were brought to the east coast of Mexico. This affair did not last long as a slave who married a free Mexican had children who were free. So, slavery quickly went out and the Blacks disappeared via mixed breeding as slaves quickly took free, non-Black Mexicans as spouses.

The result was that pure Blacks nearly disappeared and the remainder are mostly mulattos, zambos (Indian-Black) and triracials. In addition, your average Mexican mestizo now is ~4-5% Black, although in general, it does not show up on phenotype. The author has a photo of some Mexican Blacks that shows that they are heavily mulattoized. They also look quite attractive, I must say.

The next root is Asians. In the early days, quite a few Filipinos came to Mexico when it was part of Spain via the colony of the Philippines. By this time, they are heavily mixed with other races in Mexico. In the early 20th Century, many Chinese came to Mexico. Unfortunately, most were tossed out in the 1930’s in a wave of nativism, but in Mexico city and Mexicali, there are still quite a few Chinese and part-Chinese, as the Chinese also married heavily into the mix.

The last root is Arabs. Most of these Arabs are Christians from Mesopotamia, the Levant and Egypt. They came in response to anti-Christian attacks waged by the Ottoman Empire at the end of WW1. Since they came from the Ottoman Empire, many Mexicans referred to them as “Turks.” Carlos Slim, Mexico’s richest man, is Lebanese, as is Salma Hayek.

All three of these occult roots each make up ~1% of Mexico’s population.

There have been various studies of Mexico’s admixture, but they tend to come up with quite different results. I agree with the the author that the best studies show Mexico’s genome to be 52% White, 44% Indian and 4% Black. So Mexico is probably just barely a majority-White country, but it is best describes ad a White-Indian mixed race country.

Most self-identified Mexican Indians have some White in them, in addition to a bit of Black. Percentages range from 1% White, 1% Black among Guerrero Zapotecs to 37% White and Black among Huastecs.

The author notes that Mexican-Americans have traditionally been a lot Whiter than Mexicans, because they tend to come from the Whiter regions of Northern Mexico. Southwest Mexicans have usually tested out at 66% White and 34% Indian. California Mexicans have gone from 68% White, 30% Indian and 2% Black in 1984 to 47% White, 41% Indian and 12% Black in 2000. The reason for the high Black % is not known, but it should be clear to any Californian that the Mexicans in the state have gotten a lot darker recently. In recent years, many more Mexicans have come from further south, whereas in the past, they tended to come from the Whiter states near the border.

A photo on his site of Chicano gangbangers shows that they are mostly White, something we have always known here.

Towards the end he makes up a list of racial categories of Mexicans, following my lead in this piece, even adopting my formulae and marking scheme.

He lists five major races in Mexico – Whites, Indians, Mestizos, Blacks and Asians.

No major disagreement there.

I have been regarded as a mad splitter in my piece above. One critic said that if Lindsay doesn’t stop soon, he’s going to have as many races as there are languages. This criticism, in addition to endless bashing by race deniers, hurt my feelings, as a result, I have made few new updates to my races of man post.

However, the author is much worse of a splitter than I have ever been, splitting off all sorts of groups that I probably would not have split off. Hence, his scheme is better seen as a view towards Mexican ethnies or ethnic groups than races per se. For instance, he divides Mexican mestizos and Mexican Whites into quite a few different races, on what basis I am not sure. Are they ethnies? Quite possibly. Races? Dunno about that.

In my scheme, I actually adopted a conservative scheme in which I tried not to split off new races unless I couldn’t help it. I wanted some significant genetic distance between a group or ethny before I would split them off. Hence, I lumped most Europeans into a single race because there isn’t much genetic distance between them. I am wondering if the author has any genetic data to back up splitting many of these groups into different races, because I only split based on hard genetic data.

At the end, I think we have two different schemes here. One is dividing races based on hard genetics and the other is splitting racers and also ethnies on the basis of partly genetics but also subjective factors. On the other hand, there probably is not much genetic data on the various different Mexican mestizos and Whites.

All in all, a very commendable piece, the fruit of long research. By the way, the photos are excellent. Make sure to check them out.

11 Comments

Filed under Americas, Amerindians, Arabs, Asians, Black-White (Mulattos), Blacks, California, Chinese (Ethnic), Christianity, Europeans, Filipinos, French, Genetics, Germans, Hispanics, Irish, Italians, Jews, Latin America, Lebanese, Mestizos, Mexicans, Mexico, Mixed Race, North America, Portuguese, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Scholarship, SE Asians, USA, West, Whites, Zambos

Down With Race, Up With Ethnicity

Repost from the old site.

In the comments threads, James Schipper, one our fine commenters who usually has something brilliant to say, opines:

One of the most politically correct countries in the world is Sweden. How many Jews are there in Sweden? The Netherlands also used to be very PC, but its Jewish minority is not even 0.5% of population. As you said, it is to easy to blame PC on Jews. It makes Gentiles look like innocent children that can be manipulated at will by the Chosen Ones. 

I don’t think that we should confuse ethnocentricity with racism. An ethnic group is not a race. An ethnic group can be composed of several races and a race can be divided into many ethnic groups. The Brazilians are an ethnic group, but they aren’t one race.

Europeans in 1950 were for practical purposes all white, but they were divided in numerous ethnic groups. Nobody in the British Isles, for instance, said: “We are all one ethnic group because we are all white. The French across the Channel are white too, so they are also part of our ethnic group.”

It is only in the Americas and the colonies that Whites started to think racially and to confuse race and ethnicity. Remember, if two groups are racially different, they are usually also ethnically different.If that is the case, the ethnic rivalry will also acquire a racial coloration. If the French were black, the ethnic rivalry between the English and French would also have acquired a racial dimension, even though it is ethnic at bottom.

It is inevitable that human beings will be ethnocentric to some extent, but it is not inevitable that this ethnocentricity will be expressed racially. If multiracial countries want to acquire cohesion, they should practice racially inclusive ethnocentricity.

This is also why race-based rights such as affirmative action should be abolished. They undermine ethnic unity and promote racial solidarity instead of multiracial ethnic solidarity. Down with race and up with ethnicity.

He makes some very interesting comments. Growing up in California in the 1960’s and 1970’s, no one of us ever thought of ourselves as White. We more or less assimilated to a California culture, which, as I think back on it now, was largely a White culture. But I never realized it at the time.

White culture was married with California or American culture to the point where one scarcely knew where one ended and the other began. No one even thought of themselves as White, and we had many friends who were non-Whites. I even dated non-Whites, in particular American Indians and Hispanics.

The American Indians, NE Asians, Filipinos, Hispanics and Puerto Ricans were for all intents and purposes “White” because they didn’t really behave any differently from anyone else, mostly because they were not recent immigrants and were very well assimilated. Maybe they ate some ethnic food; maybe their parents spoke some of the old tongue. We were all just “Californians” and then “Americans”.

I think what made Whites junk this and start seeing themselves as White was the mass immigration that flooded our state. In my city, it becomes obvious to me very quickly that I am a minority. Due to my UK, French and German heritage? No, because I am a “non-Hispanic White”.

With a little bit of multiculturalism, national identity is still possible and can transcend ethnic identity. With overnight mass immigration, it becomes harder and harder.

Mass immigration also forced many of us Whites to reminisce about the California we grew up in and how and why it is not like that anymore. It also reminds us that what we grew up with, now gone forever, was something of real value. What did we grow up with? Not so much a White California, but a California with a White culture that most others just de facto embraced.

The reason it’s gone, and replaced with something inferior, is due to mass immigration transforming this state into Tijuana North. We never thought about Hispanics much before, but now the issue is so shoved in our faces 24-7 that we can scarcely ignore it.

When a poor White neighborhood continues to be a better place to live than a poor Hispanic neighborhood, which in turn is a much better place to live than a poor Black neighborhood, it’s hard not to think of “White” as a race. Whatever it is, even if not a race, it’s something tangible and real, with hard reality consequences all the way down the line.

James is correct that many ethnic Whites have only recently been taken into the White fold and have started to think of themselves as White, instead of Irish, Portuguese, Italian, Armenian or whatnot. That’s an interesting subject right there. How The Irish Became White is supposed to be a good book on that.

Noel Ignatiev, a Harvard professor, is a difficult and disturbing thinker, but this looks like a good book.

Anyway, Ignatiev’s position is similar to Schipper’s above. He doesn’t want to get rid of Whites physically. Like Schipper, he just wants to get rid of the whole notion and category of White people, which he says has no meaning. Ignatiev has aroused fury in White nationalist circles due to his publishing a journal called Race Traitor. Ignatiev is Jewish. The reviews at the link are very interesting.

27 Comments

Filed under Amerindians, Asians, Blacks, Europeans, Filipinos, Hispanics, Immigration, Irish, Northeast Asians, Puerto Ricans, Race/Ethnicity, Reposts From The Old Site, Scholarship, SE Asians, Whites

Who Are the Smartest White Europeans?

A commenter suggests that Russians are the smartest Whites.

It’s not the case. Russians are not at all the smartest Whites. Here are some recent scores. There is a North-South cline, but it’s not perfect at all. Italian is a very much a Med state, and it’s IQ is very high. France is mostly a Northern state, and it’s IQ is not so hot. Spain is a Med state with a high IQ. Ireland is a Northern state with a lower IQ than the rest.

Notice I title this piece White Europeans, because as a Pan-Aryanist, I not only believe that most all Caucasoids of Europe are White, but I also believe that there are Whites outside of Europe who are just as White as those of Europe.

Germany        107
Netherlands    107
Poland         106
Sweden         104
Italy          102
Austria        101
Switzerland    101
UK             100
Norway         100
Belgium        99
Denmark        99 (median)
Finland        99
Americans      98 (for comparison purposes)
Czech Republic 98
Hungary        98
Spain          98
Ireland        97
Russia         96
Greece         95
France         94
Bulgaria       94
Romania        94
Turkey         90
Serbia         89

I don’t have much to say about these scores. If France can produce such a great nation with an IQ of 94, then others with similar scores can do well too. Bulgaria, Romania, Russia, Hungary and the Czech Republic should be able to create some fine modern societies. They are surely smart enough to. These others listed below are certainly intelligent enough to do well for themselves. IQ is certainly not holding them back at any rate.

Mongolia                              100
Vietnam                               99.5
Estonia                               99
Latvia                                97.5
Ukraine                               96
Belarus                               96
UK East Indian                        96
Uruguay                               96
Moldova                               95.5
US Mexican-American (2nd generation)  95
Argentina                             94.5
Lithuania                             94
US Filipino                           94

Even Serbia has created an excellent modern society with an IQ of only 89. If you go to Belgrade, you would think you are in any modern US or European city. Even the countryside is not really backwards. Its health, education and development figures are excellent. There’s nothing inferior about the place other than their morals. If we take Serbia as the IQ at which one ought to be able to create a fine, modern, European-type society, things get a lot more interesting, and a lot more countries have the brains to do well.

Armenia                 93.5
Georgia                 93.5
Kazakhstan              93.5
Malaysia                92
Macedonia               92
Brunei                  91.5
Cyprus                  91.5
Chile                   91.5
Thailand                91
Albania                 90
Bermuda                 90
Croatia                 90
Costa Rica              90
Bosnia and Herzegovina  90
Cambodia                90
Cook Islands            89
Laos                    89
Suriname                89

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

209 Comments

Filed under Albanians, Argentines, Armenians, Asians, Austrians, Belgians, Belorussians, Bermudans, Bosnians, Bruneians, Bulgarians, Central Asians, Chileans, Cook Islanders, Costa Ricans, Croatians, Cypriots, Czechs, Danes, Dutch, English, Estonians, Europeans, Filipinos, Finns, French, Georgians, Germans, Greeks, Hispanics, Hungarians, Intelligence, Irish, Italians, Kazakhs, Khmer, Lao, Latvians, Lithuanians, Macedonians, Malays, Mexicans, Moldovans, Mongolians, Near Easterners, Northeast Asians, Norwegians, Oceanians, Poles, Polynesians, Psychology, Race Realism, Race/Ethnicity, Romanians, Russians, SE Asians, Serbs, Siberians, South Asians, Spaniards, Swedes, Swiss, Thai, Turks, Ukrainians, Uruguayans, Vietnamese, Whites

Excellent Shot Across the Bow at the Nordicists

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.

30 Comments

Filed under Ancient Greece, Antiquity, English, Eurasia, Europe, European, Europeans, Hispanics, History, Irish, Mestizos, Mixed Race, Nordicism, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Roman Empire, Russians, Sane Pro-White, Spaniards, White Nationalism, White Racism, Whites