Here’s an interesting question: why are Europeans so damn white? If you look at people from similar or even higher latitudes, Europeans are still damn white. I mean, when I grew up in Portland where there was no sun, I was incredibly pale. Once I moved to the UK, I suddenly had normal skin tone!

Anyway, here’s one explanation for our whiteness. The general idea goes as follows: human skin needs to be light enough to produce vitamin D but not too light to reduce folate (vitamin B9, basically). Most northern populations get their vitamin D from meat and fish. Europeans, however, subsisted on grains which do not contain this vitamin. In fact, Europe is special – even though it has very little sunlight, it can still grow grain. They support this by noting that art around the world suddenly starts depicting people as having light skin color.

In effect, Europeans are big babies! Pale skin, they suggest, swept along other features that are common in infants around the world that are lost to maturity, such as blonde hair and light-colored eyes. One could probably add a lactose tolerance that most of the world loses at a young age.

Of course, the arguments against this are obvious. First – we’re basing our history of skin color on cave paints? Really? Further, there’s the possibility that it’s due to genetic factors; maybe the founding population of Europe happened to have a gene that allowed this? After all, if you look at the aborigines in Australia, even the very southern people are much darker than you’d expect. Perhaps the opposite happened in Europe? It was recently reported in Science that the peoples who brought agriculture to Europe in what was basically a giant wave of colonization. Then again, you’d expect if that was the whole reason for the excessive lightness, the Sami people of northern Finland would be light-skinned due to even slight interbreeding with European populations. Instead, these hunter-gatherers got their vitamin D from meat-consumption. So maybe that’s not a big factor?

I was asked this question by someone named Kafka, on my “About my blog” page:

how come america has so many governments that are anti-government? And in what relation is that to the failure of the american economy?

I think this is a very important question. I’ve answered it in my own way, but I would love for other bloggers in and out of the Conservative network to add their opinions and thoughts.

I know many of you are much more articulate than I am and lots smarter, too. Please feel free to add to the discussion because I think it’s in questions like this that we are able to make our case for freedom and liberty and what has made America great to those who don’t know.

Kafka,

I’m not sure I understand your question but I’ll make an attempt to answer what I think you are asking.
I think you are asking why there are so many anti-AMERICAN government people here in America and if or how that is a reflection of our economy. So I’ll go from that premise and if I’m misunderstanding you, maybe you can clarify and correct me.

I’ve blogged at several different places and left them because of the America hatred from both Americans and Europeans. The short answer is that many Americans think it’s hip to be on board with the Europeans and hate all things American. Most of those people don’t know their own American history and have no appreciation for where they live and where they came from.

There’s a reason we are Americans and we live here. Unless we are descended from slaves or Native Americans, the true reason is that our ancestors chose this place. (But even those descended from slaves are now here by choice.) We aren’t here by accident. We are here because of a choice made by our grandparents or great-grandparents, to find and create a place of freedom. They did that and it’s been a glorious experiment.

Many of us now see our nation slipping into the dark ages that Marxism will create. We have self-avowed Marxists in our government – many of them are people we never elected. They are taking over every facet of our lives, all our freedoms that we have enjoyed because of those who came before us are being systematically destroyed. We are scared for our country and our children’s futures if this is allowed to succeed.

Marxism is the antithesis of Capitalism.  And marxists hate what America is and what being American means. So in one sense, yes the economy is part of the problem. They believe that Capitalism is evil and they have been dismantling our economy for the last 40 or 50 years. Most of us didn’t realize it. The home mortgage crisis is a direct result of this. It was not greed, as they want you to believe, that caused it. A great part of it was government intervention in the banks, beginning in the 70’s,  that forced the housing collapse in this decade.

Marxists are anti-Republic. We are a republic which is nothing like the totalitarian government they want to see. It’s the exact opposite of Republican government. They believe that they know better than the citizens, what we need and what the government should do for us. But Americans don’t want to be told what to do or what is best for us and we don’t want government doing anything for us. That’s the reason this country was established in the first place so that we could decide for ourselves and not have a government making choices for us.

Marxists hate individualism. They believe in the collective and working for the collective. Most Americans believe in working for themselves and their families and the excellence of the individual. Americans want to keep what they earn and produce. Marxists want to take that and share it with everyone else – redistribution of wealth. They want to destroy the greatness of the individual. And they do not believe in individual responsibility.

Marxism is everything that America is not, never was and was never intended to be. They do not believe in reform, they believe in destruction. Destroy corporations and absorb them, destroy the individual and absorb him into a faceless, nameless mass collective. Much like the Borg, as funny as that sounds. The marxist wants to destroy the American spirit and uniqueness and make us – pardon me for saying so – European. There’s nothing wrong with being European but if that’s how our forefathers envisioned it, we would not have the America that we’ve had.  We would not have the America that millions of Americans have fought and died for in all the wars since the 18th century. They came here to create something different from the European governments they left. Else, why would they have left in the first place?

I would very much like to hear what others have to say about this, so I’ll end my ramblings with this: I think we are witnessing the beginnings of a very civil and bloodless civil war. And if liberty lovers do not win, if the marxists succeed, all other world governments will eventually collapse, too.

Thank you for asking a question that has made me think.

Roxanne

Few U.S. presidents have been greeted with the enthusiasm Europe demonstrated for Barack Obama on his election.

And despite some dents to his armor at home, he remains a beacon of hope to many Europeans.

Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/09/obama.europe/index.html

Many people were miffed by the decision to award the Noble Peace Prize to President Obama within days of his inauguration. Adding to this surprise is the fact that in no major hotspot in the world is closer to peace since the President took office.  North Korea has furthered its nuclear weapons program; Iraq remains violent; Israelis and the Palestinians still fight; Iran is marching towards nuclear weapons; Pakistan is a mess; and the war in Afghanistan has just been escalated with the President’s decision to send an additional 30,000 troops.

In Norway today Noble chairman, Thorbjorn Jagland, explained the Committee made its choice for the award because President Obama’s leadership (election) was a “call to action for all of us.”  That explains it, doesn’t it???

President Obama added to the confusion today during his acceptance speech in Oslo.  The President made surprising comments that included:

• “We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: we will not eradicate violent conflicts in our lifetimes,”  ….  “There will be times when nations, acting individually or in concert, will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”
• “Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this, the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms.”
• “A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats,”  …..  “The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe.  Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsize rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.”

Boy, that sure sounds like George W. Bush wrote those words, doesn’t it?  Given the eloquent way that the President reminded the crowd of America’s past “noble” actions in the world, one wonders why he apologized for America’s history in his earlier trips abroad?  After all of the President’s criticism of his predecessor, now he justifies American acting “”?  Is that what the Left calls “unilateralism”?

The President also singled out president John F. Kennedy with praise during the speech.  It might be helpful for a historian in the President’s staff to remind him of Kennedy’s actions in the Bay of Pigs and his role in intervening in Vietnam.

The President’s speech will make centrist and even some on the right feel more comfortable.  At the same time it will irritate many on the Left, especially those in Europe.  It seems that the realities of the world is forcing the President’s seemingly bipolar statements.  Didn’t this metamorphosis happen to Jimmy Carter too?

Lack of a cohesive foreign policy is potentially dangerous since it could cause our enemies to misread intentions.  Such miscalculations can lead to unintended conflicts.

Ever walk down the street in NYC or any big city where European tourist visit? Or ever just been to Europe?

Well did you notice the hair styles of the average hip European? This is not true with every European, just the hipster equivalent.

This is what you might have seen:

Or this:

My point is this:

I have noticed that it is much more common in Europe for hipster type men to have traditional women’s haircuts and hipster type women to have men’s. And considering how tall and lean some of these people are it can be confusing when you see them from behind.

A few weeks ago I noticed a couple walking ahead of me. I could tell they were French because they were speaking French. I remember thinking I liked the woman’s boots. They were brown leather with cool straps. Then when they crossed the street I realized they were his boots, not hers. Well maybe he borrowed them that day. But what I mean is that she was a he, and he was a she.

Don’t get me wrong I have no issue with how people wear their hair. I don’t give a hot damn. It’s just that I’ve noticed that Europeans seem to be the ones who switch traditional hair styles more than anyone else.

The end.

This post will follow on the heels of the We Don’t Respect You post, and it’s along the same lines. It grows out of some recent comments in the comments threads.

The discussion was about who created Political Correctness. I agree with the White nationalists that it was created by White Jewish and Gentile liberals. I don’t think that Blacks or Hispanics played much of a role in it, because we Whites won’t listen to them. Further, I don’t think that Blacks or Hispanics are good enough at propaganda to be able to push the PC thing through. The best propagandists are Jews, and White Gentiles are pretty good too.

Whites would never have allowed Hispanics and Blacks to brainwash White America into going along with PC. Why? Because we don’t listen to Blacks and Hispanics, at least when they are talking race. We do listen to our fellow Whites though. And that’s how our fellow Whites were able to implement the PC regime.

Blacks and Hispanics nowadays, and to a much lesser extent our liberal White brethren, are great at shaming Whites. Any sensible talk about race by Whites is immediately shouted down by Blacks and Hispanics as racism. Whites are afraid of being called racists. I think it’s more true to say that Whites are afraid of criticizing Blacks nowadays than to say we are racists who slam them at every opportunity.

Personally, I am very afraid of criticizing Blacks, or maybe any minority, on this site, since I always get the “shaming” treatment whenever I do it. So instead of being some ranting racist, I’m more of a White guy who’s afraid to say “boo.”

A commenter brought up the Civil Rights Movement and pointed out that Whites listened to Blacks in that era. True, but many did not, or hated what Blacks were saying. My friends and I listened to them, and agreed with much, though not all, of what they said. If Blacks are saying something sensible about race, we will to listen. Increasingly, that’s not the case. Civil rights is about through, and it’s been replaced by PC, which is mostly Blacks and Hispanics screaming and yelling about nothing.

A commenter points out that Whites got very upset about Reverend Wright’s anti-White comments. It’s true, but usually only racist Whites get bent about that stuff. The more racist the White person, the more freaked out they get when Blacks do their hate-Whitey shtick. If you go over to American Renaissance, you will find many articles about Blacks dissing Whites, followed by comments from outraged racist Whites ranting about the latest horror of their worst enemy.

The racists there see US Blacks as the worst enemies of Whites. My friends and I think that is ridiculous, and we do not think that Blacks are capable of much. Sure, they riot once in a while, but that’s not the end of the world. Truth is, the Black community is too screwed up, dysfunctional and ultimately incompetent to harm the White American community. If some White guy tells me that Blacks are my worst enemy, that’s like telling me that some little kid is my worst enemy.

So my friends and I don’t take Blacks all that seriously when they are doing the rant thing, and we are not worried about them. When they are doing their anti-White thing, we figure it’s just Black people acting like Black people. Do you kick your cat and throw it across the room for acting like a cat and fighting with the other cat? When Blacks act this way, it’s like a little kid throwing a temper tantrum, and about as reasonable and dangerous. It’s a joke.

Now, if a Black person is making sense about race (increasingly unlikely these days), my friends and I are going to listen. Blacks and White liberals recently have suggested that a lot of the (almost all White) rage and hatred against Obama is ultimately rooted in racism. It was an interesting theory, and I thought about it a long time, and finally decided that they were right.

But Blacks these days are mostly raving about nothing. Obama is “articulate.” The Professor Gates episode. The “black holes” comment. The fake Black stripper rape. The fake Jena 6 episode. The James Watson remarks about Africa. On and on and on.

A couple of days, a man who nicknamed himself afterTed Sallis wrote a response to my post on Jewish genetics. I’ve gotten probably a dozen emails and comments on this board asking for my response, but I just didn’t have the time until now.

“Guy White” uses varied figures from different population genetics studies, figures based upon data dealing with different sets of populations and looking at quite different levels of genetic distinctiveness — essentially “comparing apples and oranges.” Looking at a global genetic analysis in which European groups, as well as non-European groups relatively genetically close to Europeans, are tightly clustered, “Guy White” implies that this demonstrates that the Ashkenazim, who cluster in the general European region, are essentially the same as the European groups (and, hence, “White”).

This is analogous to an observer on the planet Neptune looking at the Earth and saying that since, from his distant perspective, Chicago and Tokyo look to be clustered right next to each other they are both “American cities.”

Before we get into genetics, let us establish some parameters here to establish who’s talking about apples and who’s talking about oranges. After that, I will show that Jews are several hundred closer genetically to other whites than Negroids, Mongoloids or Australoids, and in fact at least a dozen times closer to Europeans than to the Arabs.

Apples, Oranges and Diarrhea

Race is the first level of human division. The second level would be ethnicity. Then we can go further and further into families and individuals.

On a cosmic level, the first level are the planets. The second would be countries, then regions (Midwest, Northeast), then cities, neighborhoods, houses.

When looking from Neptune, the first way to divide what you see is by separating the planets. If Chicago and Tokyo are much closer to each other than to Mars or Venus, the logical conclusion wouldn’t be to say that they are both American, but that they are both part of planet Earth, seeing as planets are level-1 of planetary division.

To determine if Chicago and Tokyo are both American, we must proceed to level-2. At this level, we wouldn’t be comparing Saturn to Earth, but rather Japan to the US. Is Tokyo in the borders (aka cluster) of Japan or is it within the US? But this is a level-2 division, similar to ethnic divisions.

When deciding someone’s race, we are dealing with level-1 division. The proper way to decide in which race to group someone would be to look at the global genetic map. If we are looking at the global genetic map, and the Jews cluster with Europeans, then they must be the same race, in the same sense that if the Japanese cluster together with Mongols and Koreans, they must be the same race.

The Jews (light blue triangles) are smack in the middle of the white clustering, more or less between West Europeans (dark navy blue) and the Russian (yellowish squares).

This map is the only map that can legitimately determine races because it establishing clustering on the first level. All the anti-Semitic writing on differences always deal with intra-racial divisions, and therefore, establish level-2 or ethnic divisions.

To look at level-2 divisions and to conclude that they prove that people belong to different races is like looking at level-2 national divisions, say, between Japan and the US, and concluding that the two countries are on different planets.

The trouble with making up stuff as you go along

when considering the full broad range of human genetic variation from far-flung human groups, of course one would expect that Europeans, Near Easterners and (especially) mixes between those two groups would be tightly clustered. Compared to sub-Saharan Africans and East Asians, genetic distances between various West Eurasian groups are small indeed. This does not mean these groups are genetically identical. More to the point, it does not mean that these tightly clustered groups are all equidistant from each other. In fact, some are markedly more genetically similar than they are to other groups.

Conversely, “Guy White” shows more narrow genetic analyses, focusing on the differences within Europe. At this magnified and “close-up” intra-European view, European groups can be distinguished from each other. He then implies that we must consider some of these distinct European groups as being “not White” if we also consider the (even more distinct) Ashkenazim as being not White. In other words, if the Finns, Irish, and Spaniards are all White even though they are distinct from each other, one must include other even more distinctive groups, such as the Ashkenazim, as being “White.”

The best way to lie is to tell the truth for the unimportant 95% of your speech, and then ignore the most important 5%. That is what is happening here. Everything he says is true, of course, except for the fact that we have no proof that Jews are further away from, say, the Germans than, say, the Romanians.

Obviously, the inter-ethnic gaps aren’t all the same. The Russians are closer to the Belorussians than to the Irish. But these gaps are always very small when compared to outside races.

On this map, we see that Italians are closer to the French than the Basques are. Does that mean that Basques aren’t white? No, because the Basques would be closer to the Spanish than Italians would be, and all of them are hundreds of times closer to each other than to Negroids, Mongoloids and Australoids.

So where do the Jews fit on the ethnic scale? This should be clear from my first map, which shows Jews smack in the middle of other whites, but let’s get a closer map.

This is a map comparing West Europeans, South Europeans and Ashkenazi Jews. What’s notable is that East Europeans are missing. Based on other maps, including the first one I posted above, Jews are actually genetically somewhat between West Europeans than East Europeans.

But let’s look at this map and compare the Jews to the Scandinavians, whom WN consider the Gold Standard of Whiteness. The Jews are about the same distance to Scandinavians as the Spanish, the Italians the Greeks are. The Spaniards are a little closer, the Greeks a little further away, but the distance is approximately the same.

Now let us look at a genetic map from a peer-reviewed journal.

What we see here from both maps, as well as earlier global genetic map, is that Ashkenazi Jews are smack in the middle of the white race.

You can, no doubt, see a difference between Jews and other whites, but only when you get to level-2 divisions. By the time we get enough resolution to see the gap between the Jews and the Germans, we get enough resolution to see the gap between the Germans and the French and the Poles. On level-1 resolution, there’s no visible gap.

The Truth, but not the Whole Truth

The original map that sparked this discussion, which has been posted on Stormfront at least two dozen times, shows the Jews attached to the Europeans. What is interesting is what was not show that was originally part of the map.

Here’s the full map (Red are Jews, Yellow are Druze, Blue are Palestinians, Green are Bedouins, Brown are the Berbers/Mozabites. The Europeans are brown, light brown, blue, green, dark blue and purple):

Conveniently excluded were the Mozabites, who are North African Berbers.

The Palestinians and the Druze, and to a degree Palestinians Bedouins, lived in the region that was European-majority for two centuries of the Crusader Kingdom. The population of Palestine was tiny, and the outside inflow has been significant even before and after the Crusades. Additionally, many of locals are actually descendants, in whole or in part, of Ancient Jews. Naturally, Palestinians would be closer to Jews and to Europeans.

I would like to see something on Palestinian genetics, as compared to Jews, Arabs and Europeans. I would be willing to bet money that they are a mix of all three.

And yet, the Jews have a very easily visible gap with the Palestinians, but not with Europeans.

But what of the Berbers, who were erased from the map by Stormfronters? The Jews are pver 4 times closer to the farthest European than to the Berbers, and probably 50 times closer to the closest Europeans.

And here’s the thing: scientists regard Berbers as white. So does the US government. Incidentally so did ancient Egyptians.

On this Egyptian painting, the first person is an Ancient Libyan, meaning an ancestor of today’s Berbers. (The second person is black, the third person is Semitic and the last person is Egyptian.)

That Berbers cluster with whites is something we also see on the global map.

The orange circles are the Berbers. As you can see they cluster much closer to West Europeans, Russians and other whites than with Blacks, Orientals and others. When looking at level-1 clustering, even the Berbers have to count as white. When you look at racial clustering on this map, the Berbers – despite being on the African continent – are about 9 times closer to European than to sub-Saharan Africans.

And yet, the Berbers are 4 to 50 times further from European than the Jews are.

According to all the maps, the Jews are several hundred times closer to Europeans than to blacks, Orientals or Abos.

Are Races Continent-based?

If there’s one reason for race realists to battle anti-Semites, it is this claim. Borders of continents are designed by man, just as borders of countries. When one country conquers part of another country, genetics don’t change (without ethnic cleansing, that is).

India and China are on the same continent, but they aren’t the same racially. Same for Berbers and Zulus.

If race is determined by where we arbitrarily draw borders, then race is a social invention that has no basis in genetic, scientific reality. After all, why should Europe end in Ural, midway through Russia? Why not cut it midway through Poland?

Russians who live on the eastern side of the Ural mountains are genetically the same as those on the western side (minor differences such as those we see in all countries notwithstanding). Blond, blue-eyed Slavs to the east of Ural are without a doubt white, not Oriental. Arguing otherwise is just dumb.

Race is determined by genetics, not where some politician decided to draw a border. If race is just a political, social designation, then everything about race realism must be false.

After all, how could there be in-born differences in IQ, testosterone or personality if a person’s race can be changed at will by a politician? Europe and Asia are sitting on the same Eurasian plate. This division is completely political, even more so than the division with Africa or the Americas.

Race is genetic. That’s why disease tracks race. That’s why IQ tracks race. That’s why race realism is not just a racist theory about a non-existent topic. That’s why I read the American Renaissance.

CONCLUSION

If we placed any white ethnic group on one side of a football field and blacks or Asians on the other side, the Jews would stand within half a yard, maybe even closer, of any European ethnicity.

The ethnic gap from the Jews to various European ethnicities is no longer than amongst European ethnicities. Thus, if Hungarians were on the touchdown line and the Jews were half a yard into the football field, there would be Czechs also half a yard into the field to the right side of the Jews and the Portuguese to the left and the Serbs a quarter of a yard behind and the Danes a quarter of a yard closer.

The Arabs and the North Africans (Berbers, etc) would be a few yards behind.

And all the way on the other side of the football field, 100 yards away, would be blacks, with their own marginal divisions between East African Kenyans and West African Ghanans.

UPDATE: Sagat found this map, and it’s worth posting here.

When I think of “America” I think of the nation built by Europeans. A nation that prided itself on a pioneering spirit of independence. Where hard work was glorified over social class, and men meant what they said when they said it; and tyranny ran directly against the grain of whatever rugged bit of oak God used to carve the average male!

However…we are at war with another AmeriKa.   An AmeriKa from Bizzaro land, where race, creed, or sexual orientation are obsolete distinctions and only the State has the authority to define relationships between people! Even marraige is a civil function, having no religious overtones. Church is a civilian passtime that the state currently allows and the sovereign God over all society is a majority vote! If you desire anything, pray to the majority (or the oligarchs that control the majority) and you may have your prayer answered!

AmeriKa controls the media and uses it against America. That’s why Americans are always going to be under attack by AmeriKans! America is a horrible idea to the AmeriKan!  White, European society stands in direct opposition to the Satanic AmeriKan ideal, and must be destroyed.

Make no mistake…they’re out for blood…while we refuse to see blood at all.

A European medical society has expressed alarm at the widespread opposition in Europe against the swine flu vaccine. Meanwhile, experts say the number of deaths in Europe from the H1N1 virus are doubling every two weeks…. From VOA. Full story

This site may contain information about: virus. For a different topic see great peach recipes. The blog is also related to: virus.

oki……i haven’t said much about myself and i do not really intend to do so because i don’t think that its too necessary. All you need to know in my opinion is that i’m 17 and i live in a little paradise island called Mauritius. Now many people think of Mauritius as only a holiday destination involving essentially golden beaches, turquoise lagoons and an ever present sun. Well thats actually the case but Mauritius is much more than that.

I must say that it is a real blessing to be born here. It might be a tiny island lost in the indian ocean but like we say in french il fait bon-vivre”…..i.e where life’s good. mauritians lead a comparatively relaxed life. (i’m actually comparing mtians with british and europeans right now).

But let me just clarify something which might be creating some doubts or misunderstanding in some people’s mind. Mauritian have a similar day to day routine to europeans, i think the difference lies in the lifestyle.

For example most Mtians get paid on a monthly basis unlike in U.K where an hourly system prevails the most. so you are less likely to find a Mtian whose only preoccupation is Work. Mauritians are known to party a lot.A typical weekend for a mauritian would be as following:

Partying hard a friday night to wake up late a saturday morning. have breakfast a noon, enjoy a well earned ‘’siesta” and spend the rest of the evening at the beach.

it could also be partying both saturday and friday nights and lazing around on the beach sunday in the company of the very loved ”PHOENIX BEER”….

Sometime back i came across an old tv commercial about the phoenix and i totally fell in love with that video..

…i must say it actually represents the mtian life in its pure form…..

i tried translating it for you people but it was kinda long!!….so just experience a little apercu of THE MAURITIAN LIFE…….

I might talk about mtius in my following post, its one of my favourite subjects…

i might as well talk about the lifestyle of Mauritian teenagers. If you wanna know anything or have any questions, don’t hesitate

cheers people

enjoy the sun

The post will deal with the extent to which Whites respect one race or another.

First of all, an anecdote to start it off. I received a link from Stormfront linking to one of my articles about genetics and race. There was a chart there (see below), that, if interpreted in one particular way, could show that Amerindians are the closest large race to Caucasians, or Whites (this assuming that Whites are closely related to all other Caucasians, which they are). The competition was Africans, Amerindians, Siberians, NE Asians, SE Asians, Oceanians and Australoids. Of these groups, Amerinds appear to be the closest to Caucasians.

The question of the closest race to Whites or Caucasians is an interesting one. First of all we need to leave out some groups that are on the border between races.

Berbers and Bedouins are two groups of Whites that are quite close to Blacks. Bedouins and North Africans in general lump Caucasian though.

Ethiopians, Somalis, etc. are, I believe more and more, an intermediate large race in between Caucasians and Blacks. Nevertheless, on most charts they lump African so we will deal with them as Africans here.

Hispanics are a recent mixed race people that is left off most charts.

There is an axis extending from Turkey to Chukotka that I call the Asian-Caucasian Axis. On some charts, many of these groups are pretty much on the border between Asians and Caucasians and some are damned hard to put in one category or another. This includes Turks, Jews, Armenians, Iranians, Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Pakistanis, South Indians, Nepalese, Kazakhs, Turkmen, Kirghiz, Altai, Shor and associated North Turkic Siberians, Buryats, Mongolians, North Chinese, Koreans and the Chukchi. It also includes all associated groups.

The Chukchi are fascinating as they are an obviously Asiatic people that actually lump Caucasian on some charts.

We will leave all of these separate groups out of the analysis since on major charts, they are just lumped into Caucasians or North Asians.

However, on these same major charts, it does look like Amerindians are the closest major race to Whites.

Here is the chart in question. As you can see, the cluster of NE Asian - Siberian/Eskimo - Amerindian is the closest major race to Whites (Caucasians). According to my reading, which may be in error, the Amerindians seem to be closer to us than the others. There are other charts that also show Amerindians as very close to Caucasians.

The commenter on Stormfront noted this and commented on it, saying that he had often felt that they were the closest race to Whites. He said that when you look at them, it’s like looking in the mirror at what we used to be thousands of years ago and we could become again. In addition, he noted that he respected them as a race.

This got me to thinking. In the US anyway, Whites respect Amerindians as a race. They didn’t used to, but even in the old days, there was massive intermarriage. There is something about an Indian woman and a White man that is hard to stop. The Latin American Whites have been trying to stop White men from breeding with mestizas and Indias for centuries, and it’s a futile cause. And I respect Indians as a race too. Sure, they’ve got their problems, but they are mostly just their own problems – drugs, alcohol, self-destruction.

Even in Latin America, Indians are not so much despised, really, or not as much as Blacks. At any rate, they are not regarded as very troublesome. They are seen as potentially verbally violent, and sometimes physically, but this is not a real problem. As one White Latin American said, “Give an Indian a handful of tortillas and a six pack and he’s good for the night and won’t give you any trouble.”

This got me to thinking about whether or not we Whites respect other races. As I said, we respect the Indian. We also respect Hispanics. Since most here have a very large amount of White in them anyway, this just makes them even easier to respect. One thing you notice very quickly is that Whites don’t really hate Hispanics all that much. It’s hard to get even redneck Whites interested in hating Hispanics. We have too much common with them, and they have too much White in them. They are similar to us genetically and culturally.

Whites marry Hispanics very readily, and the usual format is White man – Hispanic woman. Hispanic women are seen as more submissive (= feminine) than White women, so it’s a natural match. A similar principle is working with White men and Indian women and White men and Asian women. A possible reason for these similarities is that Indians originate in Asian and are still quite Asian-like.

Anyway, finally getting around to the title of the post, it then occurred to me: Whites do not respect Blacks! We flat out do not respect you. Period. Exclamation point. In what way do we not respect you?

In the deepest way possible. Whites do not respect Blacks at their very difficult to change essence. We don’t respect you as a race.

As a White man who has lived his whole life in White culture, this is painfully and obviously true for the majority of Whites.

Now, the White racists will say that Blacks do not deserve to be respected for a variety of reasons, particularly behavioral ones. Let us just leave that question aside for a moment. Regardless of whether Blacks deserve it or not, we just flat out don’t respect them at their very racial essence, and that’s the only point to consider right now.

Why do I bring this up? Because really, this is at the root of a lot of the problems between Whites and Blacks in the US. We don’t respect you. And in many ways, a whole lot of other stuff just flows right out from that. Now, if Whites respected Blacks as a race, I’m convinced that race relations would be a lot different in this society.

Just a mental snack for you to chew on tonight…

Maybe someone can help me, I’m having a little trouble remembering the mindset of these people who are trying so hard to destroy our country. I know I understood their philosophy at one time but you really have to twist your thinking around to align yourself with their way of doing things. Perhaps if I just talk it out with you I can bring it back. Because in order to defeat them we are going to have to understand what it is that they are trying to accomplish.

I understand that these people are not as motivated by money as we think they are, at this point they are striving for a goal, an ideal that they have had their whole life. It’s now within their reach and they are not daunted by anything in their quest to make it a reality. I can’t remember why they are so passionate about “this”, and I’m not really sure exactly what “this” is?

I think “this” has something to do with a communist utopia but I really can’t remember how it works. Does anyone have any ideas? Do they really want this country lowered to the level of the rest of the world? I know Europeans want us weaker, but who really cares what they want besides Chairman Zero? I’m tired of trying to get along with these people, now all I want to do is slap them down and take our rightful place in the world back. If you keep buying the Jap scrap and the German steel you only weaken our economy and Zero is doing enough of that with his printing press. Let me know if you figure this out.

The most dangerous aspect of having elected  a bombastic antecedent President is that he believes his self-imposed, ridiculous, unenlightened and radical doctrines. He blissfully ignores the fact that his ideology has been tried, and tested , on the backs of 60 million people ,whose  untimely deaths served only to prove this ideology of redistribution to be a total failure.

As the Germans and the rest of the free world  celebrates the anniversary of  the fall of the Berlin Wall, our  President continues  building brick-by-brick,  another wall around the American people.  Europeans, Koreans and even Russians will tell you that walls choke freedom, stifles free expression and leads to a huge “Have” and “Have not” gaps in society.  The bricklayers become the masters and the new plan unfolds on the back of the unsuspecting American citizens. Our freedoms are  being taken from us ensuring us to choke on our individual rights from here on end.  Obama’s vision is to redistribute the wealth not just among Americans but the world over. It is a real fact.

The problem comes from those many kool-aiders that walk the walk of the sheep. Those are people that blindly follow others losing self in the process. They are great at parroting the wisdom and stupidities of others, yet never searching answers for themselves. They follow a P.C. ideology because that is what they are told to do. There is no independent kool-aider thinking. `

Today the kool-aiders are the Obamites.They represent half of the nation including most of the media for the exception of Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and certain conservative magazines and talk radio shows.

As The President’s administration continues to infringe on our liberties, those conservative voices are the only line left open for people to get their facts straight. I was under the impression that America was no longer allowed to dictate how other countries should rule. How does Obama explain this new concept to Americans and the world over that it is time to redistribute the wealth to all that have none? Does he see himself as Robin Hood stealing from the rich to give to the poor? Maybe he should start wearing green tights and walk the streets with his new friend the Jolly Green Giant who will  protect him when the hungry sheep realize their grass was stolen from under their feet.

Andrea

Click link: http://hubpages.com/hub/Black-Indian-of-Southeastern-America

African slaves were brought to America to supposedly to labor in the place of the Indigenous people, who showed themselves ill-suited to enforced tasks, and moreover were being annihilated in the Spanish colonies in the 1500’s.

In the comments section, the brilliant James Schipper notes:

Some white countries are not very attractive, but whites can create attractive places, while so far we have not seen one black-dominated country that even remotely resembles Switzerland. This means that, it there is freedom of movement between black-dominated and white-dominated countries, there will be a massive flow from the former to the latter.

Europe has now around 700 million people and low fertility while black Africa has around 800 million and high fertility. Already there is constant illegal immigration from Africa into Europe. If nothing is done to stop this, Europe may eventually become a mainly black continent. I think that the white nationalists are quite right to warn about that.

James’ comment is absolutely right-on. This is exactly what is occurring in Southern Europe as we speak. He’s also correct that only the WN’s and the Right seem to be raising a fuss about it.

The entire European Left has gone insane on this question, and the Far Left, such as Italian Maoists who regularly send me communiques, are the most deranged of all. The Italian Maoists’ main issue seems to be to let all of the African illegal immigrants stay in Italy and get legalized. They’re obviously pro-Open Borders as the whole Western Far Left is. So they’re basically advocating a mass invasion of Italy by Black Africa, at which point Italy will become unrecognizable and will transition to a Black country. I can’t put into words what a terrible idea this is.

To which tulio responded that most Africans want to stay in Africa, and there are probably more Whites in Africa than Africans in Europe. Sure, but the Whites in Africa are not a problem and if anything, probably help the place out. Mass movement of poor, uneducated Africans into Europe is another matter altogether.

So the fact the flow goes in both directions is sort of irrelevant as it’s good in one direction for the hosts and bad in the other.

Clearly, not all Africans in Europe are bad news. A friend of mine is from Togo. He is one of the most brilliant people I have ever known, and he is Black as the night. He went to Morocco, got a degree there (and had a great time as a Catholic in a Muslim country) then went to France since he spoke French. He went to more college classes in France and graduated with honors. He was instantly snapped up by an IT firm.

This guy is so smart that he regularly works with MIT graduate students in computer science on IT stuff that is so cutting edge that I can’t make heads or tails of it. He now has a nice job in Brittany, France, and he is usually in a corporate meeting of some sort. He’s also been very popular with the White girls in France, but that’s another matter. He managed to get his sister into France too. Guys like Coco are great for France, but most Africans in Europe are not like this guy.

It’s true that most Blacks are staying in Africa, but African (Black African, not North African) immigration mostly to Southern Europe is seriously out of control. It’s kind of sad in a way because a lot of them are coming on boats, and they have to turn them back. The boats are coming to Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Malta, etc. Malta at this point is so overrun it’s almost a disaster zone. Black Africans are all over Ibiza, filling up the Internet cafes with Nigerian scammers. Almost all of the Black Africans in these cafes are Nigerian criminals.

The Black African population in Italy in Greece is a huge problem like the illegal Hispanics in the US. The countries are dominated by liberal fuckheads so they don’t want to kick them out, but the Africans can’t really live there legally. Everyone knows they are illegals, but no one really does anything about it. Kind of like this stupid-ass country! A lot of the Africans are just squatters and whatnot. Many of the Nigerians have formed criminal gangs in Italy, where the Mafia is now whacking them off as competition.

The Europeans are too nice for their own good, kind of like us.

Mass camps of immigrants are in the north of France trying to make it to the UK, where the welfare pickings are a lot better. They periodically make mad rushes for the boats to the UK. Police come in and tear down the illegal camps, but they set them right back up again. Black Africans in France are already a serious problem, and they are committing tons of crime, especially rape, including gang rape (the Black and Muslim specialty crime).

It’s sad and pitiful that these boats are heading to Europe but they really need to be turned back. Have you heard of the book The Camp of the Saints? It really is something like that, and it’s happening as I write this.

In West African nations like Senegal, boats regularly leave for Spain and Portugal.

As an aside, White nationalists like to ridicule Africans by saying that they were too stupid to even figure out how to get to Madagascar, but this is apparently not true. They did get to Madagascar a long time ago, but then I guess they forgot how to build boats to go there anymore.

That is, there was an ancient hunter gatherer population of Blacks (Mikea) who could only have gotten there by boats when the Indonesians landed, but the more modern agricultural Blacks in Africa at the time did not have the maritime knowledge to figure out how to get there.

At any rate, my point is these historical arguments are sort of stupid. Who the F cares how backwards East Africans were 1,700 years ago?

My point is that nowadays anyway, even totally backwards West African Blacks are capable of building and steering boats that take them all the way from Senegal to Spain. Not bad. The take home point is that pre-contact Africans may have been backwards, but post-contact Blacks are much more advanced. That they are more advanced due to contact with other cultures or even White cultures is not that relevant. Cultural diffusion happens!

In the comments section, tulio notes that White Nationalists are not necessarily irrational. I agree that the project makes sense on a lot of levels. Agreeing with Alpha Unit, I simply state that it is both unworkable and more importantly immoral, or evil if you prefer. On Occidental Dissent there have been many discussions about how to implement their project. My Liberal Race Realism will not save the White race. I don’t intend that it should, as I don’t care about White extinction. Most other similar projects are also doomed.

In fact, putting their project in democratically via elections is also doomed, as is winning over a majority of Whites to their project. The only way to put their project in, as the webmaster of Occidental Dissent notes, is via an undemocratic project such as coup, seizure of power or  revolution. Then a dictatorship (authoritarian state) would need to be put in place because if the project were put up to vote, it would lose. I agree with this assessment. A fascist dictatorship is the only way to implement the WN project, and also, incredibly, to save the White race.

In addition, an authoritarian state would need to be implemented to input the more unsavory aspects of the WN project. Even the most moderate proposals involve a denial or rights to non-Whites living in the White state to encourage them to flee. Furthermore, miscegenation by Whites would be made illegal. You can guess what the more unsavory projects entail.

tulio notes that de facto White (and other) enclaves already exist:

Aren’t there already de-facto ethnic states in America? I’d say that whole area between Eastern Washington to the Dakotas and extending south to Northern Nevada and Utah is pretty much a de facto white ethnic state. As would be New England north of Boston. Los Angeles is pretty much Mexico City with a beach. Miami has been called “The Capital of Latin America”.

Atlanta is considered the “Black Mecca” amongst middle class black folks who are flocking there to be amongst people like themselves. I’d say there are already many ethnic territories in America, just not by law perhaps, but they exist.

Yes, but the WN argument, and once again it is rational, is that all of these places are doomed. Their argument is that Whites develop a place, make it a real nice place to live (by virtue mainly of there being mostly Whites living there) and then non-Whites (code as Blacks and Hispanics) move there to get away from the hoods that the Blacks and Hispanics have degraded or in some places destroyed. Even many Blacks and Hispanics often do not wish to live with their own kind in large numbers.

You could call this argument, Whites Create, Non-Whites Destroy (What Whites Created).

With Blacks, they are probably fleeing excessively Black hoods where well-behaved Blacks have had it with the bullshit. White areas are nice, low-crime and prosperous. Most of all safe. Blacks, when asked, prefer to live in a “diverse” hood, not in a Black community. Hispanics will probably just move to White areas because they are increasing in population and moving everywhere nowadays, possibly also for work. Hispanics don’t seem to mind living with their own that much, though once they get some money, you do see a bit of “Hispanic flight.”

The WN argument is that these very nice White areas soon start to decline as a result of large numbers of non-Whites move in, paradoxically to escape the places they have already destroyed. But with certain numbers, they will probably also recreate what they sought to escape. So the Whites are doomed. Everywhere they move, the non-Whites will follow and soon create degraded hoods that the Whites were seeking to flee in the first place.

At some point, there will be nowhere left to run. The Whites with money will move to Latin American like gated communities, while those without will be left to their own devices in the high crime diverse areas that most places have become. We do see something like this in Latin America.

Well, the WN’s are indeed onto something here, and as in so many ways, there is a large grain of truth to what they say.

I argue that WN is not just impractical but also immoral or evil, not necessarily that it is irrational, though its discourse necessarily contains many irrational arguments. Necessarily because any racist project or viewpoint is automatically irrational to some extent, since a rational view of race tends to lead away from hardcore racism.

New Alpha Unit. I agree with everything she says here. This is one of the nutty things about the White nationalists – if you object to their racism, you must be a racist yourself! Truth is, it’s not particular to Whites. I have noticed this exact same response, often a furious one, when slamming away at Jewish racists, Turkish racists, Greek racists, Black racists, Hispanic racists, Arab racists, well, you name it.

Actually, all of these people were nationalists – Hispanic, Black, Greek, Turkish, Jewish and Arab nationalists. And this is when I started realizing that racism is just supernationalism and vice-versa, that it’s all really just human tribalism, and that none of it really adds up to logical or reasonable behavior. So, really, extreme human tribalism, ultranationalism and the racism that goes along are just part of a similar cake baked with human irrationality.

It’s sort of a mental disorder, and it has common symptoms no matter which tribe it manifests in. Which is one of the reasons I’m increasingly dubious about ethnic nationalism of any kind – it seems like it destroys brain cells and makes you stupid. The ethnic nationalist, as AU notes, is so caught up in their mental disorder that they usually can’t even see how nuts they are. All of us humans are probably subject to this mental illness, and the tendency to go nuts like this is probably genetic, though it can be overcome on an individual basis.

Actually, Alpha Unit came to me. She started to writing to me, angrily at first, then she started calming down. I noticed that she wrote well and suggested that she could write for me. She’s been a closeted writer her whole life, and this was her first chance to get published. The invitation to be a guest poster here has actually been extended to a number of other people, but few have taken me up. We have very high standards here, but AU made the cut.

A racist is someone who talks back to racists. This is one of the things I’ve learned since being here.

Before I started writing here, I read a lot of the comments that racists and White nationalists had been leaving here (and elsewhere). There weren’t a whole lot of people objecting to a lot of the stuff they were saying in this free speech zone.

So I came along and started ridiculing the racists. And guess what – I got accused of being a racist! It’s okay to say all kinds of demeaning things about Black people – that’s not racism, that’s just free speech. But let a Black person come along and point out how ridiculous you are, and that Black person is anti-White. She’s racist.

Do some of you people even think before you start typing? Do you really think nobody will notice your contradictions and your dissembling? I guess you’ve gotten away with it for so long that you’ve convinced yourselves that what you say makes perfect sense.

Well, it doesn’t. What you say doesn’t make any sense. Whether you’re talking about separating into some all-White nation somewhere in America, whether you’re talking about the Jews and how they’re responsible for everything you don’t like in the world – you’re not making any sense.

And now you want to be mad at me. Well, don’t waste your time. I didn’t make you say it. I didn’t arrange it so that you wouldn’t be able to defend it.

Maybe some of you are just sheep in wolves’ clothing.