Category Archives: Russians

Repost: What Is Pan-Aryanism?

This one from six years ago is getting posted around a lot lately. Most of you have not read it.

A friend of mine went over to the Skadi Forum (basically Nordicists or Germanicists) and read an essay on Pan-Aryanism. I don’t know what sort of Pan-Aryanism they referred to, but I doubt it was the kind that I subscribe to. They were upset that the essay opposed race-mixing. Well, I’m a Pan-Aryanist, and I don’t oppose race-mixing.

Pan-Aryanism just means taking pride in your racial family. Just as the Blacks, various Asians, Amerindians, Arabs, East Indians, Hispanics, etc. take pride in their various racial families, such as they may be. Most folks you meet in the US, who are “Priders” of this sort, while often strongly ethnocentric, are not opposed to race-mixing or inter-ethnic breeding. So support for race-mixing can and does go hand in hand with ethnocentrism, even extreme ethnocentrism. In fact, that has probably been the tribal human norm for a very long time now.

The Pan-Aryanism that I subscribe to is found on the Pan-Aryanist Forum (now members-only I think). They say that all natives of Europe are White. Also that there are White Turks (35%), White Arabs and White Berbers. Also a few Whites in North India, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

They also hold that all Georgians, Armenians, the Caucasus and Iranians are White.

I just like it for their expanded definition of White. It would be like, say if you were Black, and some small group of Blacks decided that they were the only real pure Blacks. And they ruled out maybe 50% of Blacks as being some sort of inferior or mongrelized scum race. So the Pan-Africanists (the Black analogue of Pan-Aryanism) would be about uniting all of the Blacks into one Black Race and screw all the superior-inferior stuff. If you were Black, you would go along with that I am sure. In fact, if you are Black, I think you already do.

It’s all about being part of a family. In the last few years anyway, my race is my family. I simply want to extend the rather limited idea of my family to take in a lot more extended relatives. Why? Because I like having a great big family!

The other races: the NE Asians, SE Asians, Aborigines, Papuans, Oceanians, Amerindians, Africans, mestizos, mulattos, well, a lot of them are perfectly fine people. Often better than my racial family on an individual basis. But it’s the difference between friends (or lovers) and family. They can never be part of my family. They can only be friends, or at best lovers.

I expand the Net Pan-Aryanist definition thus such that most anyone who looks like they could have come from Europe is White.

Whites are:

All native Europeans
All Europoid Russians
All Turks
All Jews
All Assyrians and Kurds
Many Berbers
Most Arabs
All Georgians, Armenians, Azeris, Caucasus
All Iranians
Many Afghans (especially Pashtuns)
All Nuristanis
NW Pakistanis
Some Indians (mostly NW Indians)

All of the other Caucasian or quasi-Caucasian types are non-White Caucasians. They might be part of the family, but they are sort of like 2nd or 3rd cousins, so far apart they are almost more friends than family.

As far as the real Net Pan-Aryanists, they are a bunch of assholes. Sure they are against mixing, but they allow European Whites to mix with 100’s of millions of more humans! And most of them are a bunch of Nazis too. Bastards.


Filed under Afghans, Arabs, Armenians, Assyrians, Azeris, Berbers, Caucasus, Central Asians, East Indians, Europe, Europeans, Georgians, Iranians, Jews, Kurds, Near East, Near Easterners, North Africans, Pakistanis, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Russians, South Asia, South Asians, Turks, Whites

Most Caucasian Populations Have Significant Non-Caucasian Elements

I received this comment today. I deleted the comment and banned the poster because he insulted me, but his comments are interesting nonetheless. His position is that most Caucasian populations are significantly admixed with non-Caucasian, and I am afraid he is right. There are probably few if any pure Whites or pure Caucasians.

The guy appears to be some sort of a Hindu nationalist type and he seems to be making a big deal out of the fact that Indians are mostly White, especially high caste ones of which he seems to be a part. He is quite offended by the idea that Indians are part-Australoid, but that is how they show up on some charts.

He says the Australoid component is more similiar to SE Asians such as Thai people. However, this Asian component also looks something like the Asian part of the Ancient Northeast Asian group. The Asian part of the ANE’s has been called different things, but to me they look Ainuid. So the Asian part of Indians looks like Ainuids/Thais. I think he may really be onto something here. It is a good hypothesis.

He is just wrong about some things below. ANE did not originate in Amerindians (How did that happen? Did it move back from the Americas to Asia?); instead, Amerindians are obviously partly derived from ANE from Northeast Asia itself. The Karitiana of Brazil have the highest ANE ever found. They may be the remains of some of the earliest settlers to the Americans.

The Chukchi are probably also heavily ANE somehow because these very Asian-looking Eskimo like people actually plot Caucasian on some charts! So in Far Northeastern Asia, early Caucasoids and early Asians have been mixing it up for some time. He also notes that Berbers have a lot of Black blood. This is correct. In fact, on some charts, Berbers plot outside of Caucasian altogether and end up slightly into the the Black or African quadrant.

He also says that Ashkenazi Jews have a lot of Asian and Black in them. Asian maybe (ancient Asian). Black, no way. I have seen charts showing that Ashkenazi Jews and other people of the Caucasus have the least amount of Black of any White group on Earth. How hilarious for Stormfronters that Jews are the most pure of all the Whites. Australoids are absolutely not archaic Whites or archaic Caucasians.

This is an interesting blog. What I’d like to point out, however, is that there is quite a bit of misinformation regarding the genetic makeup/ancestry of races and ethnic groups/castes found in India on this blog. I noticed you implied in some of your posts here that Indians are hybrid population between two groups, one most similar to present-day non-White Caucasoids, and one most similar to Australian Aboriginals.

Let me explain what the genetic/latest research has actually shown, as far as India’s demographics and the genetic composition of its castes is concerned. What follows is a detailed explanation of South Asian genetics and therefore, I must warn you, it is a long wall of text but completely accurate and supported by the latest research, despite containing a lot of jargon that may give you a headache. Bear with me here.

Indians are composed of two composite groups: ANI or the Ancestral North Indians, a group which itself is a composite of two or more different Caucasoid populations, that are on average, closest to present-day Georgians in genetic makeup, and ASI, or the Ancestral South Indians, a group which is also a composite of two or more different populations, at least half of which is Caucasoid in nature, with the other half varying in composition from one ethnic group to another.

In other words, while ANI is completely Caucasoid in nature, ASI is 50-60% Caucasoid in nature depending on the caste in question, and the remainder of ASI ancestry is either composed of Mongoloid, proto-Mongoloid, proto-Caucasoid or in exceptionally rare, isolated cases like the Paniya tribe of South India, of proto-Australoid-like ancestry which still isn’t the same as having Australoid ancestry. Keep in mind that Australoids themselves are at least 80% Mongoloid in genetic makeup and are considered to be archaic Whites themselves.

They are also the furthest group genetically on Earth, from the Negroids/Congoids/Bantuids of Sub-Saharan Africa. So, apart from a minority of untouchables of South India and parts of East India who are not even a part of the caste system to begin with, no other group in South Asia has any proto-Australoid-like admixture to speak of. And Indians are predominantly Caucasoid and group with other Caucasoids according to every genetic test/anthropometric study since the dawn of time. More information here.

It is crucial to remember that Indians have nothing to do with Australoids – those people are completely different apart from a very few isolated tribes in India that have real proto-Australoid-like admixture due to their status and extreme isolation. And this admixture has nothing to do with ASI admixture – ASI is just like the paleolithic ANE influence in Europeans, and half of it is Caucasian (at least half, if not more, it varies for different people in India) and it is a composite just like ANI is with different components for different people/castes in India.

The Reich et al paper even pointed out that the Onge were at best a poor proxy to get something without ANI admixture and little ASI admixture, and even then, it was a worse proxy than the Han Chinese. In other words, East Asians were a better proxy than the Onge themselves.

The reason they picked the Onge as a (poor) proxy was because they were the only group they could find in that region without ANI admixture and because they are such an old population that has been isolated and separated from mainland populations for a very long period of time. They also have very few individuals left, so owing to the problems of genetic drift, they assume ownership of a component, and the admixture program tries to force the Onge component in an admixture model of South Asians.

In more recent papers, this has been clarified further and it has been stated that they were simply making a poor guess when using the Onge as a proxy in the model.

Furthermore, to illustrate just how poor of a guess it was, they pointed out that ASI is massively separated from the Onge. In fact, ASI is just as far from the Onge as the Utah Whites (a group of random Euro-descent samples from Utah in the States) are from the Onge, indicating that ASI is as related to Onge as Utah Whites are.

Papuans and Onge have no relation to India at all – the Onge are in SE Asia. Han are a much better proxy. In addition, Indians lack Denisovan admixture and other crucial haplogroups found commonly in the Onge as well.

It must also be said that if Indians are erroneously assumed to have proto-Australoid-like ancestry, so are Europeans.

You might be under the false assumption that Europeans are somehow a “pure” Caucasoid population, when in fact that couldn’t be further from the truth. The latest genetic research conclusively shown that Europeans are all admixed to different degrees between at least four main populations of people: West European Hunter-Gatherer (WHG), Early European Farmer (EEF), Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherer (SHG), and Ancient North Eurasian (ANE).

It has also conclusively shown that all populations of Europeans and other “White” Caucasoids have significant to huge amounts of non-Caucasoid ancestry due to the fact that the ANE/Ancient North Eurasian component is at least 45% East Asian/Mongoloid in ancestry. The ANE component is based on the genome of the infamous Mal’ta boy or MA-1.

In Europe today, it peaks among Estonians at just over 18%, and intriguingly, reaches a similar level among Scots. Finns, Russians and Mordovians also carry very high ANE in addition to very high amounts of much more recent Siberian admixture. What’s even more interesting is that this ANE influence is the very influence found among South Asians, albeit in a slightly different variety known as ASI.

What the aforementioned information means is the following: Indians are not a hybrid population between Caucasoids and Australoids. In reality, the vast majority of Indians are an admixed population between Caucasoids and Mongoloids – except in this case, the Mongoloids are most similar in phenotype and genotype to SE Asians like the Thai.

According to the latest research, the average Indian is at least 75% Caucasian and 25% Asian – these figures have been substantiated by multiple reports including the National Geographic Project’s Geno 2.0 DNA ancestry test samples, the 23andme test samples, and even the Reich et. al paper published in the highly-cited/high impact factor scientific journal Nature.

It has been conclusively proven that South Asians/Indians range from 5-10% Asian to 35% Asian or in other words from 65% Caucasian to 95% Caucasian. The most Caucasian people in the region are from the northwest of the Indian subcontinent, and the least Caucasian people are from the east and south. Only one person broke the magic 35% barrier, and he was a Bangladeshi (38%).

If you’d like a layman’s interpretation of the data in the aforementioned sources, check out this article by Razib Khan, one of the pioneers in the field of population genetics, particularly as it pertains to the archaeogenetics of South Asia as a whole – he writes articles for Discover Magazine, which is a well respected source. He is also a PhD student at UC Davis. Here is a post describing the general findings of genetic research into South Asian populations

In addition to the Reich et. al paper and other landmark papers in this field, the Harappa Ancestry Project, which is helmed by a genetic expert and is working in combination with Reich’s data is also another landmark study into the archaeogenetics of South Asia. It has conclusively proven and further substantiated the results I aforementioned.

According to the samples collected by the project, there is a sharp correlation between caste/location and Caucasian ancestry in India, with the upper castes in all parts of India being significantly more Caucasian than the lower castes, and the North-West Indian/South Asian upper castes being the most Caucasian of all – up to 95%.

All of the Northwest Indian/Pakistani/Nepali/Afghani upper castes are between 5-18% admixed with East Eurasians/Mongoloids; in other words all of them are between 82-95% Caucasian. These castes would include the Rajputs, Jatts, Khatris, Gujjars, Sindhis, Brahmins, Bhumihars, Balochis, Brahuis, and certain upper caste Punjabis, and Pathans. Note that this is only applicable to the upper castes aforementioned that are in the North and North-West of India as well as Pakistan and Nepal.

As for the rest of India (and Bangladesh/Sri Lanka), as I mentioned earlier, the average South Asian is 75% Caucasian and 25% Asian, so a good amount of South Asians are more Caucasian than 75%, and a good amount are less Caucasian.

For instance, the average Tamil (from South India, and well represented in the diaspora in the USA as the “typical Indian” stereotype) is 33-34% non-Caucasian, and the average Bengali/Bangaladeshi is closer to 55-60% Caucasian. The dalits of Tamil Nadu or the lowest caste Tamils (also well represented in the States), are at least 40% non-Caucasian. The lowest castes of India, the Chamars, who are found all over India (also in the States) are also in the 50-60% Caucasian range. Upper caste Indians in the rest of India (apart from the Northwest) tend to be 70-80% Caucasian.

If you’d like to see the data for yourself, here is the link to the spreadsheet.

For reference, the “South Indian” component is 50-60% Caucasian, and the ANE/NE Asian component is 45% non-Caucasian. The SE Asian, Siberian, Papuan, American and Beringian components are all Mongoloid, and the E. African, San, Pygmy and W. African components are all Negroid. Keep in mind that the data here is accurate only for South Asians, other regions are too under-sampled in the project.

Now you might be wondering, if South Asians, particularly the upper castes in the North and Northwest, are between 5-18% admixed, are they alone in this predicament? As I alluded to earlier, they are anything but alone.

Let’s start with Middle Easterners and Northern Africans. Egyptians, Moroccans, Libyans, and other North Africans are on average 15% Black/Negroid admixed. In fact, according to the latest research, the average North African is 15-16% black, and individual countries like Egypt and Tunisia are 18-21% Black on average, so some would be more than 21% black, some less.

The highest admixture is found among Moroccans and Berbers, who can be up to 30% Black/Negroid admixed on average. As far as the Middle East goes, Yemeni people have been shown to be 18-19% black on average, and the Bedouin tribes have been shown to be 16-18% Black on average as well. Qataris are 12-16% Black, and Saudi Arabians range from 14-18% black as well, on average. Jews, particularly the Ashkenazim, have also been shown to be 16.5% admixed with Mongoloid and Black/Negroid on average.

So on average, MENA people are 75-85% Caucasoid and 15-25% Black/Negroid admixed, therefore its safe to say that MENA people are Caucasoid-Negroid hybrids, with some groups being more and others less Negroid. All these figures have been collected by National Geographic and many other researchers.

As far as West Asians/Central Asians are concerned, they show significant amounts of Mongoloid admixture on average.Tajiks have 15% Mongoloid admixture on average, while Turkmen have 16% Mongoloid admixture on average.

However, some groups of Turkmen average 27% Mongoloid, and some are 35-56% Mongoloid. Southern Turkmen on average are only 1/8 to 1/3 Mongoloid or better said 13-31% Mongoloid. However in some parts of Turkmenistan like the northern and eastern parts, the Mongoloid DNA reaches 33-55%. Other parts of Turkmenistan are 33-55% Mongoloid.

Even many Turkish people are 10-20% Mongoloid and 15% Mongoloid on average. Iranians are also Mongoloid admixed – up to 10% on average, with the Azeris of Iran being even more admixed. Tatars are 16% Mongoloid admixed on average.

So, its safe to say that most West Asian groups are a hybrid of Mongoloids and Caucasoids, being on average 80-85% Caucasian and 15-20% Mongoloid, with some groups being much less Caucasian and much more Mongoloid.

Now, lets look at the European data. All non-Sardinian Europeans have been shown to have significant amounts of ANE ancestry due to the Malt’a boy mentioned earlier, and this ANE ancestry is related to/is the same as ASI ancestry in South Asians, relating Europeans to Amerindians and East Asians.

The ANE component is composed of 45% Mongoloid and Australoid-like ancestry (similar to the distant relation that some South Asians have to proto-Australoids), and the Malt’a boy also has a proto-Australoid ASE component on the order of 10%.

This ANE component peaks in the Karitiana Indians of South America

More info about ANE’s relationship to ASI is available at this link which itself references this landmark paper:

It is also pertinent to point out the fact that ANE ancestry in all Europeans with the exception of Sardinians (who have very minor ANE ancestry) is mostly (45-55%) non-Caucasoid in nature, and does not include separate additional East Asian ancestry that is due to much more recent admixture with Mongoloids from the Golden Horde and other admixture events.

ANE or NE Asian is best thought of as very ancient Asian admixture, while the recent admixture is added separately. A recent landmark paper definitively showed a clear signal of admixture in Northern Europe, represented by the ANE/NE Asian component. Here is the link to the paper and here is a link to the layman’s explanation of it.

What this paper definitively shows (as do successive papers recently released after it) is that Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, have huge amounts of NE Asian, also known as ANE, admixture. This is because they are descended in part from an Amerindian population.

What is the actual amount? Well, remember that ANE or NE Asian is made up of two components – one is Caucasian and related to Levantine ancestry and the other is related to NE Asia/Siberians and the American Indians, peaking in the Karitiana Indians of South America.

Therefore, according to the research data in the latest papers, Northern Europeans are 5-18% admixed with Mongoloids, or in other words, Northern Europeans are 5-18% Non-Caucasoid, and the authors pointed out that this is actually a conservative estimate, one that is lower than what the actual value is likely to be – which is purported to be even higher than the 5-18% range, easily crossing over into the 10-20%+ non-Caucasoid range.

Keeping in mind that in the Near East among Lezgins, Chechens and Ossetians, ANE is in the 23-27%+ range. This means that other Eastern Europeans not residing in Northern Europe are also heavily admixed with non-Caucasian ANE ancestry as well. The ANE ancestry is 45% East Asian/Amerindian in composition and 10% SE Asian in ancestry, so 55% non-Caucasian and ANE ancestry ranges from 8-21%+ in almost all Europeans except Sardinians.

A table with ANE scores from a recent paper. Remember how I mentioned earlier that this ANE non-Caucasoid ancestry did not include additional, more recent, non-Caucasoid East Asian ancestry?

Well, lets take a look at that data as well. Russians and Finns are 80-88% Caucasian depending on the person (not including non-Caucasoid ANE admixture which would make them even less Caucasoid) because of much more recent East Asian admixture with the areas with the higher non-Caucasian mixture in the 12-20% range around Leningrad.

Finnish people, according to the latest genetic study, are at least 13-17% East Asian, and Russians, according to the latest genetic study, are 12-18% East Asian. More info here.

Lithuanians and Swedes are at least 10%-20% admixed with recent East/Mongoloid mixture. If we add this recent Mongoloid admixture to the more ancient ANE ancestry in Europeans, we get the following numbers: Russians, Finns and Swedes are 17-30% Mongoloid/Non-Caucasoid and 70-83% Caucasoid. Because of this, Finns have been found to be distinct from other Europeans and don’t cluster as close to them. Russians in the North are much the same way.

Therefore we can sum up the above with the following three sentences:

  • Proto West Eurasians + ANE/ASI-like = Europeans and Latin Americans
  • Proto West Eurasians + ASI/ANE-like = South Asians and Central and West Asians
  • Proto West Eurasians + African = Middle Easterners and Northern Africans

And since everyone in these regions can be as much as 30% non-Caucasoid due to either Mongoloid or Negroid ancestry, (but closer to 20-25% non-Caucasoid), Indians are definitely not alone in being admixed Caucasoids on this planet. They are actually part of the norm, being on average, 75% Caucasian and 25% Asian,

The data clearly shows that Indians are as admixed as other Caucasian groups throughout the world, and in some causes, purer, particularly in the case of the upper caste North and North-West Indians, who are at most 18% admixed or less and thus 82-95% Caucasian.


Filed under Aborigines, Ainu, Amerindians, Anthropology, Arabs, Asia, Asians, Azeris, Bedouins, Berbers, Blacks, Central Asians, Chechens, Chinese (Ethnic), Chuckchi, East Indians, Egyptians, Estonians, Europeans, Finns, Genetics, India, Iranians, Jews, Lithuanians, Moroccans, Near Easterners, North Africans, Northeast Asians, Papuans, Physical, Pygmies, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Russians, Scottish, SE Asians, Siberians, Sociology, South Asia, South Asians, Swedes, Tajiks, Thai, Turks, Yemenis

Check Out Belarussian

Here is a sample of the Belarussian language from a Belarussian TV commercial. For those of you who speak a Slavic language, I would like you to listen to this clip and tell me how much you can understand of it.

I decided to post my section on Belarussian from a recent paper of mine. My charming critics say that I am “promoting misinformation,” and have banned all links to me. They also say that everyone should ignore every single word that I write because nothing that I say is true, not even one sentence. However, some averred that in an entire paper, I might state one or two true things.

If any of you know anything about the subject below, tell me if they are right. Tell me if every single sentence below is true or false. In fact, tell me if you can find one false sentence below.


Belarussian is one of the most recent East Slavic lects to come into existence, as the earliest Belarussian texts are from only the 1500’s. So the split between Belarussian and Ukrainian and Russian is shallower than that between Spanish and Portuguese.

Belarussian intelligibility with both Ukrainian and Russian is a source of controversy. On the one hand, Belarussian has dialects that are intelligible with dialects of both Russian and Ukrainian.

Reports of the endangerment or looming death of Belarussian are usually politically motivated attacks on President Lukashenko accusing him of killing the language.

On the contrary, Belarussian, while in a disappointing situation, is very much alive. Almost all Belarussians can speak the language, but only 15% do so in day to day conversation. Most of the rest more often play the role of passive speakers although they can speak the language if they need to (Mezentseva 2014).

Belarussian knowledge of their language benefits them because it gives them a head start on learning other Slavic languages (Mezentseva 2014).
Belarus was actually part of Poland at one time, as was Western Ukraine. Belarussians see themselves as a different people from Russians.

For centuries, they called themselves Tutejshiya “our people” (Mezentseva 2015).

Part of the blame for the decline of Belarussian lies with Belarussians themselves because despite the statements in the paragraph above, Belarussians have a very strong attachment to Russia and only a weak attachment to their own land (Mezentseva 2014). The result of this is that although 85% of Belarussians can speak Belarussian, and Russian is the preferred language in the country (Pavlenko 2006).

In 1991, Belarus only had one official language, Belarussian, though Russian was in wide use. In 1994, the people voted to have two official languages, Belarussian and Russian. Russian-language media and politicians quickly took advantage of the situation and used to opportunity to make Russian the dominant language in the country (Mezentseva 2014).

Lukashenko regularly wins elections by 75-80% margins, and polls show about the same support. The very unpopular opposition are regarded by most Belarussians as traitors and anti-Russian, pro-US tools of the West out to destroy the country.

One major problem for the language is that Belarussian is now associated with the opposition in the country. This association of the language with the unpopular opposition has hurt the language and is a major reason why state support for Belarussian has been lukewarm at best (Mezentseva 2014).
However, the linguistic situation in the country is complicated, and there are Belarussian-language TV stations and a number of daily newspapers (Mezentseva 2014).

The Western media reports that Belarussian is dying, but this is politicized discourse.

The truth is that Belarussian is becoming more and more popular these days, as it is coming to be seen as the prestigious “language of the intelligentsia” as opposed to the Soviet era in the 1970’s and 80’s when it was regarded as a “village language.” Belarussian language advocates say that they are not pessimistic at all about the state of the language and in fact they are optimistic. Belarussian is used in the educational system, and advocates expect its use there to expand. Independent Belarussian classes have been springing up to assist Belarussians who want to promote the language and culture. (Mezentseva 2014).

Russian nationalists often state that Belarussian is a dialect of Russian. However, this judgement is based more on national chauvinism than linguistics (Mezentseva 2014), as Russian lacks full intelligibility of Belarussian.

However, the statement is partly true if we are discussing Trasianka and Russian. Trasianka is Belarussian dialect based on a a mix of Russian and Belarussian that arose during the Sovietization of Belarus. It resembles Russian spoken with a Belarussian accent and is spoken mainly by rural dwellers who moved to towns and started to watch a lot of Russian TV. It is also widely spoken in Eastern Belarus near the Russian border (Mezentseva 2014).

West Polesian or West Palesian is a transitional Belarussian dialect to Ukrainian. Some think that West Polesian is a microlanguage, but the majority of Belarussian linguists say it is a dialect of Belarussian (Mezentseva 2014). But see the analysis of Polesian in the Ukrainian section above under Ukraine for a fuller account of this very confusing lect. Belarussian and Ukrainian have 84% lexical similarity.

Pronunciation is also very similar between the two languages. Some of the grammatical categories do differ. Belarussian intelligibility of Ukrainian is high at 80% (Mezentseva 2014).

Belarussian has many Polish borrowings, hence Belarussian has a fairly high intelligibility of Polish at 29%. Written intelligibility is higher at 67% (Mezentseva 2015).

Although Polish is notorious for being one of the hardest languages in Europe for foreigners to learn, Belarussians can actually learn it fairly easily due to the similarities between the two languages (Mezentseva 2014).

Testing Belarussian intelligibility of Russian is not realistically possible.
The vast number of Belarussians speak Russian, and of those who do not, all or nearly all have at least passive knowledge of Russian. At the moment there are few to no Belarussian monolinguals. If they exist at all, there may be a few elderly female monolinguals in the far west of the country by the Polish border (Mezentseva 2015) , but it would be difficult to study them.

MI figures:

Belarussian: Oral intelligibility: 80% of Ukrainian and 29% of Polish.Written intelligibility: 67% of Polish.


Mezentseva, Inna. English teacher, Belarussian and Russian speaker, Vitebsk, Belarus. BA in Education and Linguistics. Vitebsk State University, Vitebsk, Belarus. December 2014. Personal communication.
Mezentseva, Inna. English teacher, Belarussian and Russian speaker, Vitebsk, Belarus. BA in Education and Linguistics. Vitebsk State University, Vitebsk, Belarus. May 2015. Personal communication.
Pavlenko, A. 2006. Russian as a Lingua Franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 26: 78-99.

1 Comment

Filed under Applied, Balto-Slavic, Balto-Slavic-Germanic, Belarus, Belorussians, Dialectology, Europe, Europeans, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Language Families, Language Learning, Linguistics, Multilingualism, Polish, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Russian, Russians, Slavic, Sociolinguistics, USSR

Some Thoughts on Western Whites and the Modern Antiracist Movement

Jason writes:

Northeast Asians have a high IQ and are incredibly racist, with a tendency toward child-like tribalism (mob mentality).

Racism means hating other groups. That is the only meaning of the term that makes any sense.

The commenter is correct that NE Asians are very primitive that way. That is why I really do think that Asians are a lower race. Whites are the most antiracist race on Earth, so that is why we are better. We tend to be above that sort of thing, and we are more likely than any other race to think it is immoral. The whole theory of antiracism came from White people. The only serious antiracist movements in the world are run by Whites and are mostly Whites chastising other Whites for their racism.

Most of the other groups are not involved in antiracism. Arabs have no use for it. There is no antiracist movement in Black Africa, nor in North Africa. There is none in Central Asia. At least in Afghanistan and Iran, people are wildly bigoted. As commenters have noted on this site, Northeast Asians are unbelievably, unashamedly racist. I know little about Southeast Asians. Obviously people in the Indian subcontinent are so racist that they are off the charts. I have no idea how racist Pacific Islanders, Filipinos, Papuans, and Aborigines are, however, Indonesians are insanely racist towards the Papuans in Western New Guinea (Irian Jaya). They treat them almost as if they are a subhumans who are not even fully Homo sapiens. Also I have heard that Hawaiians are unbelievably racist towards Whites.

I have little knowledge of racism in the Americas. However, in the US, Hispanics are dramatically more racist towards Blacks than White people are. In Peru and Chile, there is outrageous racism towards Indians. I cannot speak to the rest of the Americas.

However, the Whites in the Americas and Africa are a lot more primitive and backwards than Western Whites. They show their baseness by the extreme racism we see in Latin American Whites. These Whites simply have not gotten on board the antiracist train.

The White South Africans were also a very backwards and primitive group of Whites and they still are.

I will also say that Russians are a very backwards and primitive type of Whites. They are not as advanced as Westerners. We see this in the fact that racism against non-Whites is extremely common in Russia.

There are no antiracist movements of any note in the Arab World, Turkey, the Near East, North Africa, Iran and Afghanistan, Northeast Asia, Indonesia, Latin America (though there is one in Brazil and Cuba). There is an anti-bigotry movement in India against casteism and it has been going on for 65 years now with almost no success.

Racism is pretty much the norm in primitive or less advanced tribal groups because it is simply tribalism. Only Western Whites have been advanced enough to attempt to move beyond racism, and they have only done so in the 20th Century. By any metric, Western Whites are probably some of the least racist people on Earth.

The problem with the modern antiracist movements is that it is mostly White people screaming at other White people to stop being racist. I do not necessarily oppose that, but please note that no other race is moral enough to chastise themselves in this way.

One of the problems with this movement is that modern White antiracism is utterly silent on the racism of non-Whites even though they are vastly more racist than White people.

Also this movement states as its founding principle that the whole problem on Earth is White people and their racism. This is a lie. White racism is not the biggest problem on Earth. How could it be when Whites are the least racist group of humans? So the movement is irrational at its core.

In the West, many non-Whites have joined this movement that White people set up. Their role in this movement is to scream and carry on about the racism of White people. Once again, I do not mind on principle as I think we Whites can always do better. But these antiracist nonwhites are irrational because they think the world’s biggest problem is the racism of the least racist people on Earth. Also Western non-White antiracists are utterly silent on the racism of their own kind and other non-Whites. This is irrational because these groups are all more racist than Whites.

Most other races apparently don’t even think racism is wrong.


Filed under Afghanistan, Americas, Anti-Racism, Arabs, Asia, Asians, Blacks, Civil Rights, Europeans, Hispanics, India, Iran, Latin America, Near East, Northeast Asians, Oceanians, Papuans, Race Realism, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Russians, SE Asians, South Africa, South Asia, Whites

Who Should We Feel about Separatist Movements on Russia’s Border?

noneofmany writes:

Well I’m probably not exactly a white nationalist in the sense your thinking. I’m on the side of letting Russia just have the Crimea,for instance, since the historical justification of Russia’s intervention there is strong enough to warrant intervention when you factor in the nature of the Ukies leadership.However I wouldn’t say the same for Estonia, Latvia or western Ukraine.

Your justification for calling Estonia and Latvia illegal states is sufficiently broad to consider virtually every country bordering Russia an offense to Russian territory.

I do not think they are illegal states. I think the Russians are spread all over Estonia, but the Russians are in the southeast only of Latvia. There is no excuse to treat an ethnic group like that. I would not mind the Russians there stirring up some shit, but I do not want Russia to get involved militarily.

I supported the secession of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia when Georgian ultranationalists took over.

I also support the secession of the Transdniestrians from Moldova after they went independent and apparently ultranationalists took over.

I do not mind Nagorno Karabakh splitting off from Azerbaijan when Azeri ultranationalists.

And I would to see Transcarpathia leave this new Nazi Ukraine. They already want out.

I would also like to see northern Kosovo split free and merge with Serbia as they wish. It is a crime what is being done to those Serbs.

I would like to see most of Novorussia go free. That means all of Donetsk and Lugansk, Kharkiv, Odessa, Zaporozhye and maybe Kerson. You really would need solid majorities in all of those places to want to break away, otherwise I would not support it. There are local Russian undergrounds in all of these places and they have been carrying out attacks for some time now. They claim they have 30,000 men, but that is probably an exaggeration.

I have no problem with the NAF or the local guerrillas at the provincial level  trying to take over Kharkiv and Zaporozhye at least. They have mass support there. Maybe Odessa and Kherson too if they have enough support. The problem with going further west is that conquest becomes less justified and now you are conquering an enemy people instead of liberating your own people.

As the NAF gets further to the west, there will be fewer Russians and consequently less support for the NAF. The Ukies will fight harder, and if those provinces do not want to go to the NAF, who could blame them? The Novorussians and some of the eastern provinces have a right to self-determination, but so does everything west of the Dnieper most of whom I assume want to stay in this Ukraine, ultranationalist or not. The Ukies have a right to self-determination too you know.

Most states on Russia’s border have few Russians living there. There are no Latvia-Estonia type problems in other places that I am aware of.


Filed under Abkhazia, Ethnic Nationalism, Eurasia, Europe, Europeans, Georgia, Kosovo, Nationalism, Near East, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Russia, Russians, Serbia, Serbians, South Ossetia, Ukraine, Ultranationalism

The Criminal NATO Baltic States of Estonia and Latvia

From the Web:

In Latvia, one third of the population is stateless due to the staggeringly racist definition of citizenship. In Estonia, even native-born citizenship is alienable upon being found also to hold a Russian passport; the last Patriarch of Moscow, Alexy II, was from Estonia, and he had previously been the Archbishop of his native Tallinn, a city with a world famous Russian Orthodox Cathedral.

Soviet Republics from 1944 to 1991, the Baltic States became independent a few months before the dissolution of the USSR. Their brief independence between the Wars had been part of the humiliation inflicted by Germany and Austria-Hungary on defeated Russia at Brest-Litovsk in 1918.

Latvia and Estonia became fascist dictatorships in 1934, and Lithuania became a fascist dictatorship as early as 1926. Although Lithuania has a different history, Latvia and Estonia had never existed as independent states before 1918. After having been ruled by the Teutonic Knights and then by Sweden, they had become parts of the Russian Empire from the 1720’s onwards.

In other words and in order to give some perspective, they had done so only very slightly after the Union between England and Scotland. Therefore their incorporation into the Soviet Union in 1944 was nothing more than the restoration of the centuries-old status quo ante. It was warmly welcomed by much of the Baltic political class, which contained many committed Communists. That the Polish city of Wilno, now Vilnius, should have become and remained the capital of Lithuania was and is entirely pursuant to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939.

It is the case that the large Russian minorities in Lithuania and especially in Latvia and in Estonia increased during the Soviet period, very much at the request of the local Communist Parties, which sought them to fill various positions in the economy. But those minorities had existed and had been numerically considerable for centuries.

Upon independence in 1991, the Baltic States adopted the founding constitutional principle based on a lie: that they had been occupied by the USSR rather than incorporated into it, so that they were merely reverting to their interrupted sovereign statehood. In 1993, Latvia even elected a President, Guntis Ulmanis, who was a great-nephew of Kārlis Ulmanis, the Inter-War fascist dictator. He had come up through a rapidly reconstituted party which his great-uncle had banned.

But the laws of occupation are comprehensively set out in the Hague Conventions of 1907. The powerless citizenry of an occupied state remains a separate legal entity from its occupier. Whereas incorporation makes the members of that citizenry into citizens of the incorporating state. That was what happened in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

From 1944 to 1991, their inhabitants were Soviet citizens simply as a matter of legal fact. As they had been from 1922 to 1940 and as they had been de facto even if not de jure along with everyone else in the territory concerned from 1917 to 1922. Those states therefore share in the responsibility for the Soviet regime during most of its history.

All over the Soviet Union, there were monuments to the Red Latvian Riflemen who had fought in and for the Revolution. Latvians had been one of the largest ethnic groups in the Bolshevik secret police despite comprising a very small proportion of the population of the new Soviet state.

“Russian” and “Communist” were obviously not interchangeable terms, while the Russian Empire had always defined all as equal if they served the Tsar, which was how it had managed to incorporate the Balts, among so very many others. They were never victims of imperialism as the term is ordinarily understood.

Yet like many Austrians in relation to the Third Reich but without the excuse that most people involved are now dead, the Balts are determined to pretend that they were indeed victims.

The crimes the Balts commit against Russians are endless: Russians are denied citizenship, Russians are not allowed to vote, Russians are not eligible for amenities and social services, Russians are not allowed to have Russian-medium schools, and so on. Inside NATO. Inside the EU. The land of “European values.”

These are not even racist measures against small minorities or against recent immigrants with their children and grandchildren for whose rights in these spheres the advocates of Eurofederalism and Atlanticism normally, and in most cases rightly, fight with such vigor. Rather, these are racist measures against large population groups that are several centuries old.

The headlines read Russia a Threat to Baltic States. Although I doubt if it is true and there is not much Russia can do anyway as if she gets involved in a hot war in the Baltics just like she has in Ukraine she risks having NATO declare war on Russia. Hence I do not expect any sort of hot war in the Baltics. But I am wondering what the Russians in Latvia and Estonia are going to do about their predicament. Will they begin armed struggle of some sort. Obviously all peaceful routes to change in these nations are blocked. And what happens if the Baltic struggle becomes violent? Then what? It should be interesting.

I do not want to see a hot war in the Baltics but as far as destabilizing those nations, they are asking for it. They deserve to be destabilized. And if Russia is in on it, we know that the only entities at fault are the Balts themselves for their apartheid policies against native Russians.

Destabilize the Baltics! Yes!


Filed under Eurasia, Europe, European, Europeans, Fascism, History, Latvians, Law, Left, Lithuania, Marxism, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Russia, Russians, USSR

What Is Radical Ukrainian Nationalism?

Sums it up pretty well.


Filed under Ethnic Nationalism, Europe, European, Europeans, History, Nationalism, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Russians, Ukraine, Ukrainians, Ultranationalism

Bitch World Tour

SHI writes:

It’s extremely common for British and Scandinavian bitches (especially Sweden and Denmark) to suffer from entitlement mentality, feminazi mindset, support for emasculation of men, heartless cruel behavior, lack of human warmth, betrayal and cheating in relationships. These are the ones that are 100% likely to act bitchy in a nightclub especially because you gave them the wrong look and don’t have enough money. Their expectations from men are unreal and according to them, there’s not a single man worthy enough to touch the ground they walk on. They’re all gold-diggers or rich wannabes and it’s their worst behavior which is copied by other cultures – they’re like a bad infection that has spread in every other country. Ever wondered why Englishmen are always found drunk at the pubs and suicide is highest in Sweden. It’s a lack of love and basic human intimacy which we take for granted in other cultures. It’s not wrong for women to pose a challenge to men but acting with wanton cruelty is just vile.

Englishwomen and Scandinavians are bad to the bone. These creatures are deluded enough to believe that they are the best any man can get and will act whatever way they please with no consequence. It’s simply not true, there are hundreds of millions of good choices to make.

For example, French and Italian women are an absolute delight. They take care of themselves, can act bitchy but in a feminine and demure way which only increases their appeal to men. They aren’t nearly as manipulative and filled with hate.

German women are a mixed bag and can be a bit on the masculine side. What separates them from the Brits is their unrelenting honesty and realistic expectation from men. Also they’re a lot more approachable in any situation.

Spaniard and South American girls are absolutely down-to-earth and like their French and Italian counterparts, absolutely great for casual flirting and even serious relationships. They’re playful, flirtatious, won’t make you feel bad even if you don’t have enough money and will call back if they like you. Absolutely no pretensions. Latin women are least likely to be gold-diggers.

Russian, Ukrainian and other Eastern European women are gold-diggers universally except their expectations are more reasonable compared to the English. Also they can make a man feel real good in their presence.

What do you think, guys?

I will admit that Latin American women are great in general, except that they have this machista/machisimo expectation that a lot of us won’t be able to live up to. I have had some good luck with Russian women. I never knew any Ukrainian or East European women except a Polish-American girl whose people had been here a while. She was really cool and so was her Mom. Of the Spaniards, Italians and Frenchwomen, I have only dated Frenchwomen. They can be charming, but I had a French girlfriend who was twice my age as a young man (I was 21, she was 37) and she turned into a Hellacious ballbreaking bitch. But other Frenchwomen can be quite sweet.

I don’t have a lot of experience with Italian women, only friendship, but they are very feminine. The men run the show over there, and the women are resigned to that. Upper-class Spanish women are complete bitches. I have known some German women but not really dated them. They can be a bit masculine, but really most of them are just regular women deep down inside. I have no experience with Scandinavian women except Americans. I knew a Finnish-American whose people had been here a while. She was great and a total beauty. I also knew a Swedish-American “Black Swede” whose people had been here a long time. She was nice when I met her but then she stood me up for a date.

I have had mixed experiences with British women but overall pretty good. I haven’t run into the entitled mindset.


Filed under Culture, Danes, English, Europeans, French, Gender Studies, Germans, Hispanics, Italians, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Romantic Relationships, Russians, Spaniards, Swedes, Ukrainians, Women

Bakunin on the Jews

‘This whole Jewish world, comprising a single exploiting sect, a kind of blood sucking people, a kind of organic destructive collective parasite, going beyond not only the frontiers of states, but of political opinion, this world is now, at least for the most part, at the disposal of Marx on the one hand, and of Rothschild on the other… This may seem strange.

What can there be in common between socialism and a leading bank? The point is that authoritarian socialism, Marxist communism, demands a strong centralization of the state. And where there is centralization of the state, there must necessarily be a central bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, speculating with the Labour of the people, will be found.’

– Mikhail Bakunin, 1907, ‘Oeuvres’, Vol. 5, 5th Edition, P. V. Stock: Paris, pp. 243-244

Bakunin was one of the leading anarchists of his time and one of the founders along with Proudhon and some others, of the modern anarchist movement. I had heard that he was an antisemite, but I never knew he was this bad! This is ugly!

On the other hand, he’s a Russian, and let’s get real here folks, Russians are antisemites going way back.

On the other hand, Russian Jews are some of the nastiest Jews around. For whatever reason, they really hate Gentiles, maybe more than any other Jews. When they mix a Bloody Mary, they say they are drinking the blood of the Gentiles. Also a lot of Russian Jews are just crooks plain and simple. The original Russian Mafia was maybe 30% Jewish.

A lot of Russian Jews have moved to Israel, but even there, a lot of them are acting bad. Many have formed White supremacist gangs of all things and they utilize swastikas and other Nazi symbols. Part of the problem is that many to most Russian Jews are only part-Jewish. A lot of the Jews who went to Israel were only 1/2 – 1/4 Jewish, so many just see themselves as ordinary White people.


Filed under Anti-Semitism, Eurasia, Europeans, Jews, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Russia, Russians, The Jewish Question, White Racism

Ukrainian Nationalism is Nazism

Pretty much all Ukie nationalists are Nazis. It is simply a National Socialist movement. What is odd is that some of these Nazis are Jews! The presence of Jews is odd but not extremely unusual. I have always said that Israel was a National Socialist country. National Socialism can unfold in any country. Anyone is susceptible to it, and National Socialism need not be anti-Semitic though it often is. As we can see, in Israel we have a wildly philosemitic National Socialist movement. In the place of the Jews are the Arabs. More than an anti-Semitic movement, this Ukie nationalism is more of an anti-Russian National Socialist movement, with the Russians substituted for Jews.

There are indeed some liberal-Leftists in Ukraine, but their failure has been profound. They are not necessarily Nazis themselves, but they are also extremely Russophobic, and they support the Nazis by not criticizing them. They support them with their silence. The Trotskyite sectarians, of course, refuse to discuss Ukrainian Nazism at all, and instead focus all of their rage on their favorite enemy – the “Stalinists.”

The Libertarian-anarchist grouping has not been much better. Many marched in the Nazi Euromaidan protests, and a number of anarchists have even joined overtly Nazi battalions like the Azov Battalion to fight in the Donbass. Many Libertarians have lent strong support to the new Nazi government.

This represents a scene we see all to often – the utter collapse of the Left in the face of an extremely popular ultranationalist movement in their land. This is truly pitiful. The Ukrainian Left have a lot to be ashamed of. I will exempt the Communist Party of the Ukraine from my criticism. They have suffered greatly during this war, many comrades have been killed, arrested, beaten or tortured. Party headquarters have been burned down and otherwise destroyed. The party itself has recently been outlawed. Of course this shows the regime’s true colors. The first thing fascist movements do when they take power is attack and outlaw the CP. History has proven this well.


Filed under Anti-Semitism, Ethnic Nationalism, Europe, Fascism, Jews, Left, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Marxism, National Socialism, Nationalism, Nazism, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Russians, Trotskidiots, Ukraine, Ultranationalism, War