Category Archives: Berbers

Who’s White? Who’s Not White?

Zamfir: If we say Whites are basically people derived from indigenous European populations, or the Euro branch of the Caucasian race, then lots of Southern Italians are borderline cases. Same for many Jews, possibly Berbers, etc.

Whites

A few things.

Spaniards and Portuguese are very White. The most Southern Portuguese are 4-5% Black. That doesn’t count.

Sicilians are ~5% Black. That doesn’t count either.

White Berbers are very White.

Jews are some of the purest Whites of them all.

My position is that Arabs are Whites.

Everyone in Turkey, the Caucasus and most of European Russia is White.

All native Europeans including Samis are White.

Iranians, Afghans, Pakistanis, and Northern Indians are more or less White people.

Many Latin Americans are White. Latin Americans up to ~25% White are considered White in Latin America. The rest are mulattoes, mestizos or zambos, or maybe people more properly called mixed race people of some type.

White-non-White mixes too mixed to Be Considered Whites, Maybe Best Called Part-Whites

Some Arabs and Berbers might have so much Black in them that we can’t call them White anymore. It’s hard to call Prince Bandar a White man. Neither are Southern Egyptians or the Blacker Berbers White.

A lot of Indians have so much South Indian in them that they are not really White anymore.

Many people in Eastern India and Nepal are too Asiatic to be called White. Quite a few are pure East Asians.

The peoples of the Stans, Siberia, and East Turkestan are properly seen as mixed race people, but some are White enough to be seen as Whites.  Some people of the Urals are also too mixed to be White.

A lot of these people are more properly seen as mixed race people. Many are Asiatic-White mixes who might be more properly called Eurasians as a mix of Europoids and East Asians.

Many Indians are a different mix altogether, more of a White-Australoid mix for which there is no racial name.

Obviously many Black-White mixes are more properly seen as some form of mulatto.

Many White-Indian mixes in Latin America are best seen as mestizos.

With a lot of these folks, it boils down to more of a case by case basis to determine whether a given Kazakh, Saudi, Mari, Yemeni, Moroccan, Egyptian, Uighur, Egyptian or certainly Latin American is White or is too mixed to be considered properly White. Generally most people with up to 20% Black in them look and act White enough to be considered White. This is probably true for Asian mix. Once you start getting over 20%, things get a lot dicier.

Comments Off on Who’s White? Who’s Not White?

Filed under Afghans, Anthropology, Arabs, Asians, Berbers, Black-White (Mulattos), Central Asians, East Indians, Egyptians, Europeans, Hispanics, Iranians, Italians, Jews, Kazakhs, Mestizos, Mixed Race, Moroccans, Near Easterners, North Africans, Northeast Asians, Pakistanis, Physical, Portuguese, Race/Ethnicity, Russians, Siberians, South Asians, Spaniards, Turks, Uighurs, Whites, Yemenis, Zambos

Game/PUA: Differential Masculinity and Femininity Among Both Males and Females As a Rationale for Interracial Sexual Preferences

Let us look at the masculinity-femininity chart across races:

Masculinity In Men

Race             Masculinity Level 

Black men        Highest

Arab/Berber Men  Very High

Hispanic men     High

Polynesian men   High

White men        Medium

Amerindian men   Lower?

East Asian men   Low

Indian men       Lowest, but varies

 

Femininity In Women

Race                Femininity Level

Asian women         Highest

Arab/Berber women   Very high

Indian women        Very high

Hispanic women      Higher

Amerindian women    High

Polynesian women    High

White women         Medium

Black women         Low

Testosterone levels in both genders seem to correlate pretty well with gender and race above. The highest testosterone women are seen as the least feminine and the lowest testosterone women as the most feminine. The highest testosterone men are the most masculine, and the lowest testosterone men are the least masculine.

Masculinity/femininity, that inscrutable variable that the idiot Cultural Left wants to wipe off the face of the Earth – this is the goal behind the ludicrous “get rid of gender” and “everyone choose your own gender” campaign –  seems to be pared down to that most coarse and biological of things, the level of some certain invisible chemical coursing through our veins and brains. How boring. How prosaic.

The whole problem with these varying levels of masculinity and femininity is multiculturalism.

In India, Indian women think Indian men are just fine.

In Asia, Asian women think Asian men are just fine.

In isolation, males and females of each race seem to be perfectly happy with the opposite sex in terms of masculinity or femininity.

Now enter multiculturalism. Catastrophe.

Now men can compare the femininity of the various races of women. In general, men will choose the more feminine women over the less feminine women. Likewise, women will now be able to compare the masculinity of men cross-racially. They will tend to prefer more masculine men over less masculine ones.

This probably only goes so far.

Hence White women will pick Black men over White men because they are more masculine but will reject Asian women as less masculine. They will be comparing everything to the baseline of White men.

Asian women will choose White men over Asian men as White men are more masculine. However, Black men may be too masculine. Here you are asking to pair the most feminine women with the most masculine men. It may not work. Asian women may regard Black men as so masculine that they are uncivilized, animal-like brutes. After all, Asian societies are run on a certain level of highly civilized and controlled behavior, and Black men seem to violate that. Asian women probably want their men masculine but controlled, civilized and mannered.

Of all the races, Asians set the bar highest of all in terms of acceptable behavior. Many behaviors that are just fine in White culture are outrageously rude to Asians. Many Asian women are said to have a visceral hatred for Black men on the grounds that they are dangerously uncivilized and violent.

Asian men regard Black men as the nadir.

In Asian society, a man must support his children. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Asian men see Black men running around having eight kids by eight different women and not supporting any of them, and the Asian men are profoundly disgusted. To him, this behavior is barely even human. If asked, he will say that those Black men are acting like dogs. After all, male dogs simply run around impregnating any female dog who comes their way, and of course they don’t help raise the puppies. To be so far below human behavior that you are acting like a dog is profoundly repulsive and outrageous in Asian culture. It produces a nearly visceral response.

Black men probably like Asian women just fine, but those women are probably not available to them for the reasons above.

White men will use the baseline of White women to choose Asian women, as they are more feminine than White women, but they will reject Black women, as they are more masculine than White women.

Indian women, faced to compare White and Indian men, may well choose White men, as we are more masculine. As super-feminine women though, they may be outraged, offended and frightened by Black men, who they may well see as so masculine that they are brutal, violent, dangerous and animalistic. Indian society is highly mannered and the chaotic nature of many Black areas may be profoundly offensive to proper, dainty, fussy,  and submissive Indian women.

Indian and Asian men, faced with rejection by their women, may look elsewhere, but as the least masculine races among men, women outside those two races are going to see them as less masculine than their own kind. It’s their own women or nothing.

Black women ought to be just fine, but the problem is that many Black men are looking elsewhere, although Black men are quite happy with Black women. White women are more feminine than Black women compared to the Black baseline, so Black men’s desire for a White woman may just be a choice of a more feminized race of women.

Further, many Black women are incredibly loyal to their race and want Black men or nothing. Of course they prefer Black men, as they are the most masculine of all. Who wouldn’t? But what happens when they look elsewhere? White men seem a lot less masculine than the Black male baseline. That makes them a  lot less desirable for Black women because women’s choices tend to be towards more masculinity, not less. Further, as the least feminine of women, non-Black men are going to regard Black women as too masculine for them. Men’s choices will tend to be in favor of more feminine women and against less feminine ones.

Black women do not have a lot of choices outside their own men. For Black women, it’s Black men or nothing.

This dynamic even seems to be working with other races. There are reports that in Europe, White women are choosing Arab or Berber men over White men simply because they are more masculine. And in Argentina, Argentine White men are reporting that many Argentine women are leaving White Argentine men in favor of more masculine Hispanic mestizo men. There are reports that in Mexico, many White women are preferring macho mestizo brutes over mannered and affected White men.

As you can see,  Black women as the least feminine women and Asian and Indian men as the least masculine men get the short end of the stick. A Black woman/Asian man pairing would be bizarre. You are asking the most masculine women to pair with the least masculine men. Black women probably see Asian men as severe wimps. You are also asking the least masculine men to hook up with the most masculine women.  For an Asian man to date a Black must nearly feel gay, as if he is with a man. The people at the far ends of the spectrum are the least likely to choose each other.

11 Comments

Filed under Arabs, Argentines, Asians, Berbers, Blacks, Cultural Marxists, Culture, East Indians, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Hispanics, Mexicans, North Africans, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Romantic Relationships, Sex, South Asians, Whites

The Confusing Genetics of East Indians

A-Man: Robert why did you say that south Indians are Caucasoid in genes? Aren’t they like a midway group between proto-Arabids (Caucasoid) and Australoid?

On some charts (autosomal DNA) the only Australoids are Papuans and Aborigines, and Indians look Caucasoid on those charts. That would be Cavalli-Sforza’s chart. However, they are some of the strangest Caucasoids of all as they are distantly related to the rest and closer to Asians than any other Caucasoids. Other charts have them an independent race between Asians and Caucasoids.

And yes, Indians are linked to Europeans, especially Southern Europeans, via Arabs. The link goes like this:

Greeks -> Arabs -> Indians

And honestly there is not a lot of genetic distance between any of those groups. The Asian and African sub-races are much further apart than Caucasoids. There is probably more distance between Samoyeds and Chukchi than between any of the three above.

Incidentally, the Chukchi somehow barely end up in the Caucasoid plot on Cavalli-Sforza’s autosomal chart! This indicates how closely related some of those ancient Siberians are to ancient Caucasoids. There is a group called Ancient Northeast Asians from 15-20,000 YBP that seems to be ancestral to both NE Asians and Caucasoids. There are also links between Orcadians (Scottish Islanders) and Siberians. Skulls from Europe from 21,000 YBP look more Amerindian than anything else. The closest match-up between those ancient European skulls is the Makah Amerindian tribe from the US. But the Amerindians are sometimes thought of as a NE Asian-Caucasoid link anyway.

Another interesting thing on Cavalli-Sforza’s chart is that the Berbers, a Caucasoid group, land barely in the African plot! This shows deep links between North African Caucasians and Black Subsaharan Africans.

There is a small Berberid group from Algeria called Mozabites. These are Caucasoids, but they are some of the weirdest-looking Caucasoids I have ever seen. They don’t really look like any other race of humans, but if you had to throw them anywhere, you would have to put them in Caucasians. Some of them look remarkably like people from India. In papers about the genesis of the Caucasian race, North Africa, the Middle East and India are mentioned as three hubs of the development of this race with many migrations back and forth over 30-40,000 YBP. And that Mozabite group gets mentioned over and over when they talk about the remains of ancient genetic groups along with the Uighur for some odd reason.

87 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Africa, Algeria, Amerindians, Anthropology, Arabs, Asians, Berbers, Blacks, Chuckchi, East Indians, Europe, Europeans, Genetics, India, North Africa, North Africans, Papuans, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Siberians, South Asia, South Asians, Uighurs

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.

18 Comments

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

Caucasian Pride Worldwide

Another William Playfair Web writes: Robert –

You believe in Caucasian pride more than what is culturally regarded as “White” pride, do you not?

Actually I do! I do not understand White nationalists who go on and on about who is really White. Jews aren’t White? Spaniards, Greeks, Portuguese and Italians aren’t White? Albanians and Turks aren’t White? White Berbers aren’t White? White Egyptians aren’t White? Arabs aren’t White? Georgians, Armenians, Azeris and the Caucasus people aren’t White? Kurds aren’t White? Iranians aren’t White? Afghans aren’t White? Pakistanis aren’t White? North Indians aren’t White? You sure could have fooled me because they sure look White to me all right!

When I think of White, I think of my basic Caucasoid stock. When I go to the stores around here and see Punjabi Indians, Punjabi Pakistanis and Yemeni Arabs, my first thought is, “This is a member of my family!” That’s because they look like I do. And I believe they may think and behave like I do too, if you want to break the races down into Asians, Caucasians and Blacks.

I do not understand why White nationalists hate those people and say they are not related to them. Those off-Whites look like me! How can I hate someone who looks like me? I can’t. If you look like me, the way I see it is you are a member of my family, and I really feel a sense of joy when I meet members of my racial family out and about…because…it’s like meeting family!

Now granted some Arabs and Berbers are too Black to be considered White. Prince Bandar is simply not a White man. I do not know what he is. Possibly he is a mulatto. A lot of Egyptians seem to be broadly White. We had some Egyptians running a gas station near where I used to live, and I came to know them very well. The guy who ran it was simply a White man, straight up. His sons were just White guys, though their skin was rather dark.

Granted, there are some Afghans who may be too Asian to be White, but most Afghans just look like Whites to me. Surely there are some Pakistanis who are just too…something else…to be considered White, but once again, most Pakistanis just look like regular Whites to me. And the people of North India are surely White. A few North Indians are too Australoid to be White.

As far as the rest of India, you have to look at the person to see if you would classify them as “basically White” or “too Australoid to be White. I don’t give a hoot about skin color. Why should I? If some guy looks exactly like I do in terms of phenotype except that his skin is much browner than mine, why should I hate him? And why should I say he is not a part of my family? If you have a face that looks like mine, you are part of my family, no matter what color your skin is.

62 Comments

Filed under Afghans, Albanians, Anthropology, Arabs, Armenians, Azeris, Berbers, Central Asians, East Indians, Egyptians, Europeans, Greeks, Iranians, Italians, Jews, Kurds, Near Easterners, North Africans, Pakistanis, Physical, Portuguese, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Sane Pro-White, South Asians, Spaniards, Turks, White Nationalism, Whites, Yemenis

A Look at Tachelhit and Tamazight, Two Berber Languages

Method and Conclusion. See here.

Results. A ratings system was designed in terms of how difficult it would be for an English-language speaker to learn the language. In the case of English, English was judged according to how hard it would be for a non-English speaker to learn the language. Speaking, reading and writing were all considered.

Ratings: Languages are rated 1-6, easiest to hardest. 1 = easiest, 2 = moderately easy to average, 3 = average to moderately difficult, 4 = very difficult, 5 = extremely difficult, 6 = most difficult of all. Ratings are impressionistic.

Time needed. Time needed for an English language speaker to learn the language “reasonably well”: Level 1 languages = 3 months-1 year. Level 2 languages = 6 months-1 year. Level 3 languages = 1-2 years. Level 4 languages = 2 years. Level 5 languages = 3-4 years, but some may take longer. Level 6 languages = more than 4 years.

This post will look at the Berber languages in terms of how difficult it would be for an English speaker to learn them.

Berber
Northern
Atlas

Berber languages are considered to be very hard to learn. Worse, there are very few language learning resources available.

Tamazight allows doubled consonants at the beginning of a word! How can you possibly make that sound?

Tamazight gets a 6 rating, hardest of all.

In Tachelhit, words like this are possible:

tkkststt
You took it off.

tfktstt
You gave it.

In addition, there are words which contain only one or two consonants:

ɡ
be

ks
feed on

Tachelhit gets a 6 rating, hardest of all.

South

3 Comments

Filed under Applied, Berbers, Language Learning, Linguistics, North Africans, Race/Ethnicity

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.

34 Comments

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

More On Possible Paleocaucasoids

Mike815 writes:

If there is a division between the Northern Chinese and the Southern Chinese, should the Chinese people in Western China be regarded as another separate group of Chinese since most of them(especially the Uighur people) have varying degrees of Caucasoid admixture that are identical to Central Asians?

The Uighurs are very much a different type of people. They are very much Caucasoid-Neomongoloid mixes. They are in that way similar to the Central Asian peoples of the Stans where the Caucasoid mix is more Iranid and the Neomongoloid element is Mongolian.

Also for some reason, genetic charts and papers on ancient peoples seem to show that the Uighurs are like the Mozabites, Orkney Islanders and Kalash in that they are a very ancient people. They are either very ancient Neomongoloids, which I find dubious, or they are the remains of very ancient Caucasoids, which I think is a lot more accurate. So maybe the Uighurs are Paleocaucaoid-Neomongoloid mixes.

So possibly some genetically Paleocaucasoid peoples would be:

  • Orkney Islanders
  • Mozabites
  • Berbers in general
  • Uighurs
  • Kalash
  • Chukchi
  • South Indians?

The Orkney Islanders are interesting in that they are very modern Caucasoids yet their genes are very ancient. In fact, their genes trace back to Northeastern Asia where the Chukchi and the Ainu reside. So possibly this is the same group of people. Orkney Islanders then may be Paleoasian Chukchi or Ainuid types who migrated to Europe and simply transitioned over to modern Caucasoids over time.

The Berbers are some of the most diverse Caucasoids of all, and in fact, on some charts, they show up as Africans,  not even Caucasoids. These are odd people, phenotypical Caucasoids that sometimes have African genetics, similar to the odd Chukchi, phenotypical Asians who sometimes have Caucasoid genetics.

As far as phenotypes go, Paleocaucasoids would be:

  • Mozabites
  • Uighurs
  • Kalash
  • South Indians
  • Horners
  • Chukchi?

The Chukchi are very odd as they show up Caucasoid on some genetic charts, yet their appearance is Mongoloid. Whether they are Neomongoloid or Paleomongoloid is uncertain. They look more Paleo to me. But if they look Mongoloid, then why do they have Caucasoid genes. Possibly the very ancient Caucasoids, some of the most ancient of all, looked Mongoloid. The confusion regarding the “Caucasoid” appearance of very ancient Paleoasian Ainu and Paleoamerind Kennewick Man points in this direction. Kennewick Man is not actually Caucasoid. Instead, he is an Ainuid (Paleoasian).

2 Comments

Filed under Anthropology, Asians, Berbers, Central Asians, Chinese (Ethnic), North Africans, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, South Asians, Uighurs

“Black Genes Ruined Portugal”: Anatomy of a Lie

I have tried to take this racist nonsense apart in other posts, but Judith Mirville as usual does a better job here. If you are not familiar with it, the theory, very popular on the White Racist Right, is that White Portugal was a great country and a world power until the Whites started race-mixing with the small population of niggers, whoops I mean Black people! Over time, the pure Whites become sufficiently miscegenated, and Portugal crashed to the point where it is now one of the poorest countries in Europe. Look at the horrors of what a few nigger genes will do to a Great White Man!

Another reason that this is silly is that the Black or African genes in Portugal are only 4% overall, a bit higher in the far south, yes, where it is up to 7%. Italy and Sicily show a similar pattern. I am not sure exactly what these African genes are, whether they are North Africans as Judith says or whether they are Sub-Saharan Blacks. Anyway, 4% Black genes is likely to have a trivial ill effect on any White population. They wouldn’t even lose a single IQ point.

Another false harbinger of ill things to come whenever the Whites engage in race-mixing that the racialists are wont to show is Portugal. They keep on saying it used to be a Whiter than White country at the time of the great explorers, but alas, as they got rich they bought too many negro slaves that polluted their whole blood thereafter resulting into the present-day off-white Portugal with 5-10% negro genes but enough to impede all mental excellence and therefore economic prosperity – the local Jewish commercial elite having willed and organized all this of course.

Let me testify all this is pure crap. The Negro-like genes you find among the Portuguese, mostly in the South around Lisbon (not in the city proper), are never the result of race-mixing with seaborne African Negro slaves but of the fact the whole region was originally peopled with “Moors” from Islamic Maghreb. It used to be then a rather dark or at least bronze people enjoying variations of all shades of skin tone from jet black to red-haired white in the same way we now enjoy hair color variation.

These “Black” genes are old Mediterranean ones (as can also be found in a few Italian places that have remained more Etruscan), not sub-Saharan African. With the centuries passing, dark skin became more and more despised, as White racism became the norm of the day (especially in nearby Al-Andaluz where all the intellectual elite of the three religions pushed for it: egghead dominance is not per se a proof of progress) and therefore gradually wed out from the gene pool, though also many very White slave and servant girls were also bought for breeding purposes by the rich families with the result that a clearer and clearer off-white mean skin tone resulted.

Those who still look somewhat darker are called “morenos” (more like the Moors), and that reflects also in the names of many villages like Fatima that are clearly North African in origin. The same process of Moorish skin clarification through fashion and foreign admixture also happened in North Africa proper except in the most isolated Berber villages where a few very black-skinned persons are still to be found that have nothing to do with Sub-Saharan Black People proper.

The Moors of Morocco and elsewhere, no matter their own color, have always considered Sub-Saharan Black as strangers, and the only effect massive importation of Black Slaves from Guinea (as it was called) could have had both in Morocco and Southern Portugal was to push them towards more rejection of their own darker genes not admixture of foreign dark ones.

There was a quite a number of Negro slaves used in Southern Portuguese plantations (though not as big as the racist thesis pretends), but they were never admitted into the Portuguese gene pool proper due to the fact that Catholic Portugal was a very strict caste society: they believed genes determined not only skin color and general social fortune as in the Old American South but each trade intended for everybody by God.

The African-Portuguese offspring that might have resulted from miscegenation never were considered purely Portuguese but of a special new caste, the Mulatinhos, of ill sexual repute and earning their lives principally through trades of like repute including various artistic ones. No matter how much Whiter they might get with the passing generations, even as clear as the off-White Portuguese, the Mulatinhos has always remained up to now a distinct cultural community with their own music among others (with much resemblance with the Brazilian one), but as Portugal got impoverished later on, they just couldn’t reproduce their own numbers for lack of resources and demand for their talents, and their number have dwindled or stagnated.

The Catholic Church in Portugal was very generous in giving the same sacraments to all races and also the same cultural varnish but was also one of the strictest of the world as regards social class: you could never move upwards for fear of offending God’s own creation, and if race or class mixing happened, the offspring would never be barred from sacramental life but only as citizens of the lowest order between both parents’.

There was downwards mobility only, and everybody did their best to avoid it. Northern Portugal, the region of Porto proper, was always 100% Celtic and has remained so up to now, with 0% of Moorish genes. But throughout the history of Portugal, it has always been the poorest and least adventurous region of Portugal, the reservoir of cheap labor for the darker South. They were thought to be better and sturdier menial laborers, whereas the somewhat darker ones from around Lisbon considered themselves wittier and fitter for leadership and sea travel.

Even in the parts of Northern Brazil that remained mere extensions of older Portuguese society, very White descendants from Northern Portugal are considered peasants and menials by God-given vocation, on equal rank with plantation Blacks proper. But why did Portugal did lose her former superb colonial power status, will the racists ask? Isn’t it the very proof of genetic degeneracy?

First of all, Portugal, even though impoverished relatively to northern countries, was the last European power to retain a colonial empire and to remain good at the various very hard tasks of maintaining one, especially settling, warfare and administration in inhospitable distant lands, things no contemporary Whites of any Northern countries would be now capable of.

The kind of colonial empire Portugal conquered was always more based upon brawn and bravery than on brains – it was never an industrial empire and never had any intention to turn into one. Portugal always remained excellent at a game that fell out of fashion for reasons having nothing to do with the Portuguese proper.

The main reason why Portugal entered steep economic decadence from the 18th century onwards was its policy of alliance with Great Britain, especially as regards free trade.

It wasn’t because of the Jews because the Jews still living there had been exerting less and less influence, and their originally quite privileged status (it was then a milieu where upward mobility was possible, which was no longer the case later on) dwindled from the late 16th century onwards due to the influence of both Counter-Reformation among Catholicism and of more extreme reactionary Orthodoxy among the Jews.

36 Comments

Filed under Africa, Americas, Berbers, Blacks, Brazil, Catholicism, Christianity, Colonialism, Culture, Economics, European, Europeans, History, Jews, Latin America, Morocco, North Africa, North Africans, Political Science, Portuguese, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, Sociology, South America, White Racism, Whites

Melanesians, Berbers and Proto-Europeans

Peabody writes:

If Melanesians diverged so early on (40,000 YBP), shouldn’t they be considered their own race? They’re about as old as Caucasoids.

Also, how long ago did Berbers diverge from other Caucasians?

Melanesians are a separate race. But genetically, they are not particularly distinct. They line up pretty well with the Oceanians and the rest of the Asians. The Aborigines and the Papuans are much more genetically divergent than the Melanesians.

I do not know about Berbers, but they appear to be along with the Sami the remains of the ancient Europeans. The Sami go back 11,000 YBP, and the Berbers seem to have links to the Sami. One wonders if the Berbers are the remains of ancient Southern Europeans. Berbers are also one of the oldest Caucasoid races. Caucasians split off 42,000 YBP, and after that there were quite a few movements of proto-Caucasians back and forth in a few areas – North Africa, the Caucasus and India. So these three places really do seem to be where the Caucasian race actually took shape.

There is a very odd looking Berber group called Mozabites who I suspect may be ancient Caucasians. They are not Black, and they look quite strange, but they are closer to Caucasians than anything else.

The Uighurs also seem to be an ancient race of some sort, perhaps having something to do with the birth of NE Asians and Caucasians.

Another ancient Caucasian group is the Orkney Islanders. They do not look different, but their DNA is very strange and shows links a long time ago to Siberians of all people.

Peabody responds, expanding on my answer:

Uyghurs are probably a mix between the “ANE” (Ancient Northeast Asians) and Mongols.

The group which birthed the Saami had been in Europe since 35 – 40k YBP. They likely admixed with Siberians.

Orkney Islanders are similar in that they’re mostly, if not entirely, of that old race (explaining the similarity). Most Europeans are mixed with newer Caucasoid types that brought agriculture (and later, the Indo-European languages), with the Sami being an exception.

I suspect Berbers split off ~30k YBP, but there’s a lot of weird data regarding mtDNA with them. Probably several migrations.

1 Comment

Filed under Aborigines, Anthropology, Asians, Berbers, Europeans, Melanesians, North Africans, Oceanians, Papuans, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Siberians, Uighurs