Why a dominant China could spark tribal warfare

A commenter links to an article in Foreign Policy which argues:
With China's new prominence in global affairs, the Han race, which constitutes 90 percent of the Chinese population, is suddenly the most dominant cohesive ethnic group in the world -- and it is seeking to remain that way through strategic alliances, aggressive trade policy, and attacks on racial minorities within the country's boundaries. The less tribally cohesive, more fragmented West is, meanwhile, losing out. [. . .]

Such primitive racial instincts were supposed to be long ago passé: We're supposed to be living in Thomas Friedman's "flat" world or Kenichi Ohmae's "borderless world." By now, supposedly, everyone is increasingly interconnected and undifferentiated. Affairs should be managed neatly by deracinated professionals, working on their iPads from Brussels, Washington, or any of the other "global" capitals.

But most people do not really see themselves as members of a large multinational unit, global citizens, or "mass consumers." Instead the drivers of history remain the essentials: the desire to feed one's family, support the health of the tribe, and shape the immediate community. The particularistic continues to trump the universalistic.
On differences within Europe:

The new tribalism is also increasingly evident in Europe. Just a few years ago Europhiles like French eminence grise Jacques Attali or left-wing author Jeremy Rifkin could project a utopian future European Union that would stand both as a global role model and one of the world's great powers. Today, Rifkin's ideal of a universalistic "European dream" is collapsing -- a process accelerated by the financial crisis -- as the continent is torn apart by deep-seated historical and cultural rifts.

Europe today can best be seen as divided between three cultural tribes: Nordic-Germanic, Latin, and Slavonic. In the north, there is a vast region of prosperity, a zone of Nordic dynamism. Characterized by economies based on specialized exports, a still powerful Protestant ethic, and a culture that embraces authority, these countries -- including Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Germany, and, arguably, the Baltic states -- are becoming ever more aware of the cultural, fiscal, and attitudinal gulf between them and the southern countries.

At the same time, the attempt to build a new European identity fused with immigrants appears to be failing. As Chancellor Angela Merkel noted, Germany has failed at "multi-culturalism." Such sentiments may be reviled by the media, academics, and even business leaders in Northern Europe, but they are clearly popular at the grassroots. Once considered paragons of liberalism, countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands have incubated potent anti-immigration movements.

In a world dominated increasingly by Asia, northern Europe cannot be anything more than a peripheral global power, which may explain its new introversion. Instead these resilient cultures more accurately represent a revival of the old Hanseatic League, a network of opportunistic and prosperous trading states that ringed the North and Baltic seas during the 13th century. This new league increasingly battles over issues of trade and fiscal policy, often with ill-disguised contempt, with the southern European countries I call "the Olive Republics": a region typified by dire straits, with rapidly aging populations, enormous budget deficits, and declining industrial might. Southern Europe now constitutes a zone of lassitude that extends from Portugal and Spain through the south of France, Italy, the former Yugoslavia, Greece, and Bulgaria.

The last European tribe includes the Slavic countries, centered by Russia but extending to parts of the Balkans as well, places like Ukraine, Belarus, Serbia, and Moldova that historically have looked east as well as west and are currently defined by shrinking populations and weak democratic institutions. A historic pattern of Russian domination is evident here, based in large part on a revived Slavic identity that embraces similarities in religion, culture, history, and language with countries living under Russia's shield. In this sense the czars are back, not a great development for the rest of the world or for the fading chimera of a "common European home."

What does this resurgence of tribalism mean to the foreign policy community? Clearly more attention needs to be played to such issues as cultural vibrancy, birthrates, and economic "animal spirits." In some sense, we need to return to the perspectives of ancient writers like Herodotus and Ibn Khaldun, who attributed the rise and fall of nations to the vitality of what the latter called "group feeling."

Tribalism will also threaten the efficacy of international organizations, which tend to assume common interests between groups. Instead we have to think of future international cooperation in more traditional terms, balancing distinct sets of tribal interest. As tribes continue to pursue their own interests ever more zealously, the idealistic rhetoric of multinational organizations will become ever more risible. The way China and other developing countries snarled up the Copenhagen climate conference reflects this shift.
From here, the article degenerates as Kotkin asserts Anglo-American exceptionalism in regard to "successful" multiracialism, claiming: "It is in the melding of many into one dynamic culture that the Anglosphere may retain a powerful influence over our emerging world of tribes."

40 comments:

J said...

Think of the Chinese ("Han") as a peasant population, not as a marauding tribe. China is not intent on conquering or ruling, but producing and selling and trading. What you call domination is just the natural weight of their numbers and energy.

n/a said...

J,

We live in a world of finite resources. It doesn't matter if China "intends" anything beyond elevating standard of living among its people. Conflict is inevitable.

hailtoyou said...

Good article. Thanks.

The subtext of the Europe discussion is almost a call for the dissolving of the EU, to be replaced by regional blocs. A Germanic-Protestant bloc ("a revival of the old Hanseatic League") within Europe would be reasonably dynamic and strong, at least economically. It is currently...weighted down.

Anonymous said...

Especially since their population is spreading to Western nations now. Mongoloids, because of their large global population, significant rate of intermarriage with whites and their ability to assimilate and have their hybrid progeny blend in with whites are the greatest threat to our racial survival.

China is under no such threat, as nearly all of their "minorities" are Mongoloids of different ethnicities.

Rassenhygieniker said...

"Anonymous said...

significant rate of intermarriage with whites and their ability to assimilate and have their hybrid progeny blend in with whites are the greatest threat to our racial survival."

This applies more toward swarthoids, kikes, türkenschwein, mesopotamians and any other sort of triracial "caucasoid" mongrels.

Mongoloid/Caucasoid offsprings can not blend in that well, because up until now (thankfully), mongoloid/eurasian features haven't been accepted/associated as "White".

But we can not say the same thing about woggish/mulatto features, which have come to be accepted/associated as "white" in the past 40 years.

Afterall as a direct result of this, most people think that Vin Diesel, Alexandre Dumas or Mila Kunis are "White", because they look like Southern Europeans...

Anonymous said...

significant rate of intermarriage with whites and their ability to assimilate and have their hybrid progeny blend in with whites are the greatest threat to our racial survival.

I believe intermarriage with Hispanics is higher. Hispanics tend to be some kind of cross between swarthoid and Amerind. Their offspring with Whites tend to be swarthoid in appearance and thus pretend to be/pass as "White."

Rassenhygieniker said...

"Anonymous said...

I believe intermarriage with Hispanics is higher. Hispanics tend to be some kind of cross between swarthoid and Amerind. Their offspring with Whites tend to be swarthoid in appearance and thus pretend to be/pass as "White."

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/1232364720_jessica%20alba%20-%20come%20to%20bed.gif

Rassenhygieniker said...

http://img816.imageshack.us/img816/4204/1232364720.gif

Anonymous said...

Obviously to the racially educated these differences are more easily perceived. However, from my experiences with the common people they often do not perceive them or just imagine it to be variation within the European spectrum. This is especially true for those who are less than half Asian like Keanu Reeves and Dean Cain.

The majority non-white element in Latin American mestizos/Hispanics is Mongoloid, so this fits into what I said.

Rassenhygieniker said...

"Anonymous said...

Obviously to the racially educated these differences are more easily perceived. However, from my experiences with the common people they often do not perceive them or just imagine it to be variation within the European spectrum. This is especially true for those who are less than half Asian like Keanu Reeves and Dean Cain."

Keanu Reeves obviously has very exotic features even for the common people to see him as offish and that is even with his bleached skin (in his older pictures he was quite dark/exotic, so he obviously bleached his skin to a lighter shade).

On the other hand Dean Cain look like an asiatic alpine swarthoid (kind of similar to the Sicilian Crimson Tard), as a matter of fact one of Dean cain's newer roles is in a movied called "Latin Quarter".


"Anonymous said...

The majority non-white element in Latin American mestizos/Hispanics is Mongoloid, so this fits into what I said."

That would depend where, Argentina, Brazil and alot of Mexico is between swarthoid and mongoloid, so they can pass off as "White" if they play the "Southern European mediterranean card".

Here are some Mongoloids/Swarthoids from Brazil who look no different from the muditerraneans one can find in Spain, Portugual, Cyprus, Greece or Malta:

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/5906/r86r86.jpg

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/4753/r87r87.jpg

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/3336/r88r88.jpg

Sir Infamous said...

The difference is the Chinese don't have a racially similar, yet over all alien elite; controlling their entire civilization and set on brainwashing destroying the host population from the inside out like the modern "West" has with the Jew.

Japan and China will likely be racially what they are now in 200 years. Western Europe (especially Britain), Australia, and the United States obviously wont.

It will be interesting to see how the Mulatto-Brazilianesque "West" confronts China in the 22nd century. What kind of "tribalism" will the populations have? LOL, who cares really.

China will also more than likely start colonizing Africa too. The Chinese will likely grow tired of the stupidity of the natives there.

This applies more toward swarthoids, kikes, türkenschwein, mesopotamians and any other sort of triracial "caucasoid" mongrels.

The Nordish population doesn't need to worry about breeding with Jews or Southern Europeans. The Italians in America are the only Southern European ethnic group that has any sort of significant numbers in America and they are I think at best maybe 6-7% of the total European population. Racially, it will be the mixed "Hispanics", blacks, Asians (which are ever increasing, and Nordish males seem to have a huge fetish for), etc that will because they have far more numbers and also because they are far more racially alien.

A Germanic-Protestant bloc ("a revival of the old Hanseatic League") within Europe would be reasonably dynamic and strong, at least economically. It is currently...weighted down.

I agree, and more than likely the "Germanic-Protestant bloc" will keep importing millions of third worlders, especially if this bloc were to include Northern France...this would help ensure that that crap has no legal a right in the more demographically healthy Eastern or Southern Europe, lol

Anonymous said...

BRIC time. The world is just returning to the modal dominant geopolitical structure of 1700. Nordics are losers, always losing wars and territories to everybody just like Germany. They have never invented anything, they imported religions, civilizations, technology and even alphabets from the South. The English Empire and the United States were only an anomaly, a hiccup in history and the end has already arrived. In the future the breaking point will be signaled when the first Mulatto became your Commander-in-Chief, what even the Brazilians have never allowed to happen ! Enjoy your decadence !

Sir Infamous said...

The English Empire and the United States were only an anomaly, a hiccup in history and the end has already arrived.

The English empire was impressive, but it's not like the Roman Empire or anything. I think the colonial Spanish empire was about 70% in territory size. Even Meds can easily conquer stone age tribal peoples.

Conquering large swaths of naked, illiterate, primitive 'people' in warfare isn't the same as what Rome did, or what Napoleon and Hitler almost accomplished (conquering most of Europe). Britain needed to be just a small part of a massive European confederation to beat Hitler or Napoleon for instance. Britain in WWII alone against the Red army might have lasted 2 months. (Italy would have done that much worse)

Of course, Britain was already largely controlled by Jews and retarded enough to side with the communist Red Army (controlled entirely by Jews) over Germany who wanted to create a greater Germanic Reich which included England.

Now Britain has chosen to import millions of Muslims and Sub Saharan Africans. They literally destroyed themselves, they deserve no pity. Britain is really an insult to the Germanic world, and to Europe in general. It's disgusting and would be better off nuked out of existence. At least Germany fought for their race, Britain and America fought for their race's destruction. YOu know, the "greatest generation" as they call them here in America.

Germany and the German race was the only nation intelligent enough to shake off the Jew. Slavs were way too stupid, the British were too stupid and chose to join forces with them. Germany tried and was betrayed by their Jew controlled "Nordish" brethren. It's really that simple.

I honestly think it has mostly to do with the dull paleo British stock. Even paleo-British "racism" was inferior. Compare the KKK with the The Third Reich, lol. These are the same people who think they descend from Ancient Israelis, speak in tongues and worship a dead Hebrew on a cross in America. Make up the majority of "Mormons", "hillbillies", "evangelicals" "wiggers", etc. It's just massive group of Jew cannon fodder dullards that will finally be wiped off the face of the planet. And these are also the whites that are by far the biggest race mixer it seems. And yeah, I can't think of any other group of people, in Europe, or outside Europe for that matter, that would elect a mulatto as their commander and chief. lol

Would Japan? Israel? Italy? Poland? Russia? Hell, fucking Saudia Arabia elect a nigger to lead them? haha, no way, not a chance.

Don't be surprised if Britain get's a nigger Prime Minister in the next 25 years. Britain already has Black Entertainment Television and has allowed Negroids to win their their "Miss England" beauty contests.

Anonymous said...

The Nordish population doesn't need to worry about breeding with Jews or Southern Europeans.

Wrong. Swarthoids are responsible for expanding the boundaries and degrading the definition of white, it's all related.

No amount of miscegenation is tolerable or acceptable.

Rassenhygieniker said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh_9QhRzJEs

Sir Infamous said...

Wrong. Swarthoids are responsible for expanding the boundaries and degrading the definition of white, it's all related.

actually Northern Europeans came up with the term "white race" and also included all of Europe in that. You can be certain when it comes to the "history of the White race" Nordicist like the swarthy Arthur Kemp will include Southern European history. lol

No amount of miscegenation is tolerable or acceptable

YOu and the rest of the NOrdish race can breed with whoever you want, no one is telling you who you must smack genitals with. : )

Rassenhygieniker said...

"Sir Infamous said...

actually Northern Europeans came up with the term "white race" and also included all of Europe in that."


That is not correct, the only people who considered themselves White are the ones who came up with the term, which are Northwestern Europeans, they considered mediterranean races (Greeks, Maghrebis etc...) to belong to the black race and considered the balto-uralic races (Finns, Hungarians etc.) to belong to the yellow race. This is why the old scientific term for "Aryan" was "Indo-Germanic" as only the Northwestern Europeans are White (pure "caucasoids").

Swarthoid "caucasoids" started to be accepted as "White" around the same time Finns and Hungarians were and around the same time the term "Indo-Germanic" was replaced by "Indo-European" to reflect on this change.

Anonymous said...

actually Northern Europeans came up with the term "white race"

You're finally starting to catch on. Spread the word.

Rassenhygieniker said...

"Sir Infamous said...

I honestly think it has mostly to do with the dull paleo British stock. Even paleo-British "racism" was inferior. Compare the KKK with the The Third Reich, lol."

The Germans are actually mostly of the Paleo hillbilly stock, just look at Southern Germany, it's called "zentraltypus" (Central type).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-6TPIo1F9o

In this scene you can see the actors Emilio De Marchi, Giuseppe Lo Console and Dario D'Ambrosi whipping our Lord and Savior, James Caviezel. Emilio De Marchi and Giuseppe Lo Console are relatively good exemplar of the zentraltypus, while Dario D'Ambrosi is zentral typus + vorderasiatischer typus.

Anonymous said...

Nordicism is white nationalism. Concepts such as the white race, racial anthropology, racial preservation and our ideals and mythologies wouldn't exist without Northern Europeans and their Nordicist will.

Racial preservation never existed with the Latins, rather interracial domination and miscegenation ruled by elites with a higher percentage of European ancestry.

The HBD community has this same miscegenous mentality. They're as much an enemy to our long-term survival as non-whites themselves.

Rassenhygieniker said...

"Anonymous said...

Racial preservation never existed with the Latins, rather interracial domination and miscegenation ruled by elites with a higher percentage of European ancestry."

The swarthoids have given us Brazil and Mexico, while the Whites have given us Australia and North America.

Anonymous said...

Compare the KKK with the The Third Reich, lol."

One is just an evolution of the other. The Third Reich was the KKK nationalized and militarized. One existed outside the law, the other was the law.

Anonymous said...

Caviezel is a good actor. He is peripheral Nordish.

Caviezel's surname is of Romansh origin; his father is of Slovak (maternal) and Swiss (paternal) descent, while his mother's ancestry is Irish.

Anonymous said...

It would assist the general cause of preserving the unity and purity of our people, or any discrete people, if American chauvinists didn't discredit it with their ever-chaning ideological contortions. There is no such concrete body as the 'white race'; it's an abstraction formed by necessity in America to contrast negroes from Northwestern Europeans. The presence of other Europeans, of plainly different physical and intellectual attributes, compelled the native 'white' Americans to accommodate them in their double scheme of 'white' and 'black', the southerners falling logically enough into the former category. But southern Europeans are not northern Europeans, and northeastern Euros differ from northwestern Euros, English from Danish, etc.

The problem is the creation of the American Republic as such a miscelleaneous motley of peoples; the truly Anglo-Saxon majority of 1776 is lost irretrievably whilst in Australia, New Zealand and probably Canada it subsists. I'm not denying that other Northwesterners can, and did, easily accede to the primitive British colonial stock but 'white' is only of use for discriminating against negroes. Why not call yourself (unhyphenated) Americans which unlike the theoretical 'white' is an actual national designation and way of life which consequently excludes 'Italian-American' or 'Bulgarian-American' as the latter can't (and don't wish to, fairly) forswear their ancestral allegiance.

Anonymous said...

"Racial preservation never existed with the Latins, rather interracial domination and miscegenation ruled by elites with a higher percentage of European ancestry."

This illustrates my reproof of mad Americanist fools manufacturing the record of history. The Spanish until the 1760s prohibited even fellow Euro Catholics, as Irish, from emigrating to their American settlements, as California, and have always been observed to regulate social intercourse with their women and children with an exact jealousy; adultery and bastardy forming the most scandalous insult to a Spaniard's honour. Your own countryman Lothrop Stoddard describes the poisonous influence of the American Revolution's radical egalitarianism in fomenting the rebellions in the Spanish colonies during which the 'white' aristocracy were bled dry, overthrown and flew in fright to Spain where in poverty and despair they died out. The anarchy visible in 'Latin' America (a geographical expression, no more) commenced with the ascendancy of political restlessness and the democratic rights-of-man which northern-European Protestants devised as Locke, Rousseau (who was Swiss Calvinist) and Jefferson. So the birth of the mixed breeds is due to the original conquerors having no Spanish women beside them, so they cavorted with the native girls; and much later to the dissolution of a rigid Catholic caste hierarchy from the American-French/democratic-secualr "do as you feel like" period of 1775-1821. The climate of those countries is such that short of complete extermination of the Indians and mixed breeds, 'whites' couldn't propagate themselves in sufficient numbers to farm and toil especially as they were subject to noxious tropical diseases of which their constitutions were unaccustomed.

The American vice of immoderation in taste, rhetoric and sentiment is more injurious than beneficial.

Anonymous said...

I'm still not sure if it's as a friend to Nordicism or as a student of history that I'm more incensed by the implication of your fictitious history. As for the first Latins; Roman senator after Roman senator declaimed against the numberless multiplicity of freedmen joining the body of citizens and through intermarriage degrading it. Why do you think the ancient Greeks, as Herodotus, laid so much pride on genealogical tables as that of the Heraclidae (descendants of the deified hero, who must surely have been originally a celebrated chief of the fair-haired, grey-eyed Dorian conquerors)? It was much later, once social and religious duty were forgotten with riches corrupting morals, democratic ideas of equality destroying the authority of the parent, the tribe, the state and the gods, and imperial projects severing the ties which bound the people whole, that 'Hellenism' or 'Romanitas' lost their particular racial significance and became a matter of merely wearing the toga and speaking the language. Sound familiar?, or as an American you would say that old Polybius was a simpleton; that the progress of luxury and unrivalled dominion over one's national neighbours is to be wished for not regretted as immoderate?

I'm a native Australian by the way (and by native I don't mean Aboriginal), and I don't like arrogant Americans with their wars, unchristian materialism republicanism and litigious culture (non-arrogant Americans are fine).

Anonymous said...

If I had to rank the races it would go WHITE, YELLOW (Japanese, Chinese), RED, Then it could either go black or brown. I think that the brown race is even worse than nigs, they are a bunch race-mixed scum

Rassenhygieniker said...

"Anonymous said...

If I had to rank the races it would go WHITE, YELLOW (Japanese, Chinese)"

What you mentioned are the North-East asians, while disregarding their brown population. Like us, the yellow race pocess it's own swarthoid element as well, indeed the Pinoys, the Cambodians, the Burmeses are brown while the North East asians are yellow, why? Simply because like our own swarthoids who are mixed with negroes, the swarthoids of the yellows are mixed with negritos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negrito

The Hong Kongese called the Pinoys a "Nation of servants", which is similar to the state of our own swarthoids before the "political correctness" and "Civil Rights".

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Narcissistic Mendacious Wog Blowhard said:

This illustrates my reproof of mad Americanist fools manufacturing the record of history.


You refuted nothing, rather with pompous mendacity you flailed around the truth as I stated it only to finally agree with me but excuse mass miscegenation with the ridiculous claim of climate and inconvenience.

So behind all of the haughty, deceptive verbosity you're nothing but a mongrel wog living in a Nordish country. Typical swarthoid whose behavior is akin to Jews.

I fixed this for you.

Anonymous Narcissistic Mendacious Wog Blowhard said:

My own immoderation in taste, rhetoric and sentiment is more injurious than beneficial.

Anonymous said...

I think that the brown race is even worse than nigs, they are a bunch race-mixed scum

There is truth in this. Mongrels are always more troublesome, as they are an unstable racial blend they are also psychologically unstable. This includes Asiatics that masquerade as whites.

Mestizos and Asiatics are truly the scourge of Western man. Jews being exemplars in this regard, with modern Latins close behind.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous of January 22, 2011 3:59 PM

You don't write very well and since you are incapable of introspection I wonder how the missteps of our people will be corrected by blind rage. Wog migrants didn't invade by force; they were invited and settled at the command of national governments to profit inhuman capitalist plutocracy at the expense of natives and aliens.

Since there is less of a difference between Iberians and the South American Indians than between Nordics and negroes, and the Iberians did not settle with their women as they weren't flying from religious persecution in Europe, the mongrelisation was somewhat inevitable. It's an explanation not an excuse, besides which there is little chance of counfounding Alvaro Uribe with Hugo Chavez.

"Anonymous Narcissistic Mendacious Wog Blowhard"

No I'm not actually, but I did read Mariana's History of Spain in translation last year.

Anonymous said...

, The swarthoids have given us Brazil and Mexico, while the Whites have given us Australia and North America..

How about Argentina or Chile, secondly....what the hell is modern Britain?

Asiatic Watching White Guy said...

Asians of all kinds want to colonize and eventually take over Western lands. Large portions of the west coast of the USA and Canada - from San Diego all the way up to Vancouver, Canada - have already been colonized by Asiatics. If I remember correctly, Sikhs already control huge portions of California's Central Valley, which is some of the richest agricultural land in the entire USA...and they use Hispanic manual laborers to work it (note that many Hispanics are also semi-Asiatic through their Amerindian ancestry). Whites have in many cases been pushed out of many of these areas on the West coast, thus forfeiting some of the best cities, trading ports, and ag-land in all the Americas.

Japanese already control huge portions of west coast of South America (they are a ruling class in many of the nations of western South America), which include some of the richest agricultural and especiallfishing areas in the world.

Asiatics - because of major overcrowding of their homelands - want to take over the vast lands and natural resources of Western hemisphere (which now sit mostly empty, forgotten, and unattended by spoiled Whites who live mostly in cities and suburbs), albeit they will take it over very slowly (over perhaps centuries) and almost imperceptibly. Asiatics are nothing if not wily and sly. Whenever possible though Westerners should prefer Japanese and Koreans over the Chinese.

Hey You said...

RH:"The Germans are actually mostly of the Paleo hillbilly stock, just look at Southern Germany, it's called "zentraltypus" (Central type)."

Are you sure about that? It seems that the southern half of Germany and most of Europe in general (outside of more remote and mountainous areas) is mostly populated by Neolithics, while the northern half of Germany is still mostly Paleolithic - though the two are very much mixed together in modern times.

Where you find mountains and other remote areas of Europe - the Alps, Switzerland, Austria, etc - you will still find the pockets of Paleoliths. But in the lower areascloser to Southern Europe - the plains and so on - you will find mostly Neoliths. It seems that the Neoliths (originating in the Middle and Near East) cannot tolerate too much humidity, rain, and moisture as can the more 'ape-like' Paleoliths, hence they often deforested areas they settled en masse to grow Neolithic grains and raise livestock (note that deforestation causes an area to become much more dry). Meanwhile the Paleoliths preferred the moist forests, mountains, and cloudy northern planes, places where they could hunt and fish and raise a bit of livestock.

The whole process of European history has seemingly been a conflict between farming/ranching Neolithics slowly pushing further and further north, clashing with the more primitive hunting/gathering/fishing Paleolithics along the way.

The problem with Neolithics though is that over time they have so often deforested and profoundly altered too much of the land they settle in, as evidenced by the areas they formerly inhabited in the Middle East, Near East, Turkey, Southern Europe, and so on - all of those areas being arid and eroded now. All native virgin forests cut down and all fertile topsoil used up - in time this turned those countries in to deserts or semi-deserts (the closer to the equator the worse the desertification was) and in time they had to immigrate in to fresh territories to survive, thus starting the cycle over again.

Migrants from the Near East 'brought farming to Europe' - Scientists analysed DNA from the 8,000 year-old remains of early farmers found at an ancient graveyard in Germany. They compared the genetic signatures to those of modern populations and found similarities with the DNA of people living in today's Turkey and Iraq. - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11729813

Sir Infamous said...

What you mentioned are the North-East asians, while disregarding their brown population. Like us, the yellow race pocess it's own swarthoid element as well, indeed the Pinoys, the Cambodians, the Burmeses are brown while the North East asians are yellow, why? Simply because like our own swarthoids who are mixed with negroes, the swarthoids of the yellows are mixed with negritos.

LOL, your understanding of bio variation and race is phenomenal. The Arthur Kemp school of autistic anthropology has taught you well.

For the record, there's a greater difference between and North Chinese and a South Chinese than an Englishman and a Greek.

"Cambodians" are to the Mongoloid world what East Africans or Southern Egyptians would be to the Caucasoid world. In between true Negro/Negroid and Caucasoid, like those peoples of Southeast Asia are in between Mongoloid and Australoid.

http://tinypic.com/e8u80z.gif

Rassenhygieniker said...

"Sir Infamous said...

LOL, your understanding of bio variation and race is phenomenal. The Arthur Kemp school of autistic anthropology has taught you well."


Then you should have known that these "clustering graphs" that swarthoids "White Nationalists" and non-Europeans White wanabees seem to be so fond of, are not some kind racial analyzers or sub-racial analyzers.

This is why a Borreby from Southern Europe is always going to be closer in terms of cluster to an Armenoid or Mediterranid from Southern Europe, than it would be to Northwestern Europeans even if they are Borrebies.

Rassenhygieniker said...

"Hey You said...

Are you sure about that? It seems that the southern half of Germany and most of Europe in general (outside of more remote and mountainous areas) is mostly populated by Neolithics, while the northern half of Germany is still mostly Paleolithic - though the two are very much mixed together in modern times.

Where you find mountains and other remote areas of Europe - the Alps, Switzerland, Austria, etc - you will still find the pockets of Paleoliths. But in the lower areascloser to Southern Europe - the plains and so on - you will find mostly Neoliths. It seems that the Neoliths (originating in the Middle and Near East) cannot tolerate too much humidity, rain, and moisture as can the more 'ape-like' Paleoliths, hence they often deforested areas they settled en masse to grow Neolithic grains and raise livestock (note that deforestation causes an area to become much more dry). Meanwhile the Paleoliths preferred the moist forests, mountains, and cloudy northern planes, places where they could hunt and fish and raise a bit of livestock."


Actually Northern Germany (Frisia and Lower Saxony) is the most Nordoid part of Germany, while Southern Germany (Bavaria) is the least Nordoid part of Germany.


"Few racial scientists would question Swedes as part of the Nordid race. Yet, in a major study of Swedish army recruits in the late nineteenth century, only 10 percent were identified as Nordid (Dahlberg 1942:202). If 90 percent of Swedes are not Nordid, then what are they? The early twentieth-century racial scientist Hans FK Gunther encountered a similar problem with the German Volk. He identified 6-8 percent as "pure Nordid," 3 percent as "pure Alpinid," 2-3 percent as "pure Mediterranid," and 2 percent as "pure Baltid." The rest were impure, hybrid, or mixed (Proctor 1998:151)." - John Lie, Modern Peoplehood (2004)


Similar case with Sweden:

"Throughout Europe, over the course of thousands of years, there has been a progressive tendency for the skull to broaden. This has been demonstrated by observations made in Scandinavia, Germany, Italy, England and Russia. "Studies of the crania of ancient Swedes show that formerly 12% were hyperdolichocephalic, 44% dolichocephalic and 44% mesocephalic," writes Millot, "whereas the proportions among present-day Swedes are 17% dolichocephalic, to 66% mesocephalic and 17% brachycephalic." - Nathaniel Weyl and Stefan Thomas Possony, The Geography of Intellect (1963)

This study shows that the population of ancient Sweden had no brachycephals, now it has 17%, the numbers of dolichocephals dropped from 56% in ancient sweden to 17% in modern Sweden and the amount of mesocephals expanded from 44% to 66%.


What has happened in Scandinavia, has happened in Britain as well:

"Dr. Thurnam's gives the cephalic index of 48 Long Barrow skulls as varying from 65 to 75. Of these 16 are hyperdolichocephalic, 29 dolichocephalic, and 3 mesaticephalic." - JG Garson, Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological and Polytechnic Society (1982)

"The neolithic long-barrow skeletons have the closest affinity with the inhabitants of the North German plain. In other words, our neolithic ancestors belonged to the Nordic long-heads, not to the Mediterranean long-heads. In modern terms this means that they were more akin to Norwegians than to Sicilians." - Osbert Guy Stanhope Crawford (1935)

"Seventy crania from the round barrows, on the contrary, yielded no index lower than 74 ; the most highly brachycephalic individuals reached 89." - Eugène Pittard, Race and History (1926)

"There was thus no dolichocephalic skull (ie, one with a cephalic index less than 74) in a round barrow, and no brachycephalic skull in a long barrow." - Robert Munro, Prehistoric Scotland and Its Place in European Civilisation (1899)

Anonymous said...

"Cambodians" are to the Mongoloid world what East Africans or Southern Egyptians would be to the Caucasoid world. In between true Negro/Negroid and Caucasoid, like those peoples of Southeast Asia are in between Mongoloid and Australoid.

Knight of Ill Repute!:

Regional FSTs for East Asia and Europe:

FSTs for East Asia - http://tinyurl.com/5t9hy8b
FSTs for Europe and Palestine - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_index

Germany:Palestine and Beijing:Cambodia seem roughly comparable in magnitude. Shame there's no Southern Chinese in the sample - I'd guess Hong Kong:Cambodia would be along the same magnitude as Italian to Palestinian. Certainly Cambodians are not as distant to the Chinks as East Africans or the Aeguptos are from Europeans.

Anonymous said...

Error in the layout of the Asian FSTs table, use this modified table instead (for anything other than Beijing China):

http://i56.tinypic.com/30ws19g.jpg

Anonymous said...

This is why a Borreby from Southern Europe is always going to be closer in terms of cluster to an Armenoid or Mediterranid from Southern Europe, than it would be to Northwestern Europeans even if they are Borrebies.

DNA analysis is always going to be more precise than a subjective visual evaluation or anthropological measurement. A quadroon or octaroon may be within Caucasian skull dimensions, but we can still perceive peculiarities and it's written in his/her DNA.

This is the case with a lot of Southern Europeans that have over time absorbed non-European ancestry albeit their phenotype may not have changed drastically.