Mongolians for Racial Purity
-
-
Mangolia has about 3 million people and 2.5 of them are ethnic Mongols. Birth rates are at about 2.2, so the population is growing. But as we know, there are a billion Chinese, who could swamp the natives.
The man at the end makes an excellent point about Manchuria. Wikipedia lists four groups that had the area as their traditional homeland: the Xianbei, Khitan, Jurchen and Manchu. The first three are extinct. The last is hanging on by a thread:
The Manchu ethnicity has largely been assimilated with the Han Chinese. The Manchu language is almost extinct, now spoken only among a small number of elderly people in remote rural areas of northeastern China and a few scholars; there are around ten thousand speakers of Sibe (Xibo), a Manchu dialect spoken in the Ili region of Xinjiang. In recent years, however, there has been a resurgence of interest in Manchu culture among both ethnic Manchus and Han. The number of Chinese today with some Manchu ancestry is quite large, and the adoption of favorable policies towards ethnic minorities (such as preferential university admission and government employment opportunities) has encouraged some people with mixed Han and Manchu ancestry to re-identify themselves as Manchu.
There were 2.5 milllion reported Manchus in 1953, but 10 million today. The growth is illusionary, based on people self-identifying with the group to get affirmative action benefits. The culture and language though, are all but dead.
Good luck, Mongolians. Since they’re not white, they can get away with an ethnostate. That is, unless they try to have one under the banner of Nazism.
21 Comments
Oct 6, 2009 11:13 pm |
lol, your wiki page was deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Human_biodiversity .
Oct 7, 2009 7:18 am |
I always found non-Europeans embracing Hitlerian politics rather fascinating. There are National Socialist organizations in Iran, Japan and Taiwan. There was also the Native American kid who shot up his school, who apparently was a National Socialist.
Oct 7, 2009 11:01 am |
I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.
Oct 7, 2009 12:33 pm |
There are National Socialist organizations in Iran, Japan and Taiwan.
Looks like even a handful of Orientals dwelling on islands off the furthest eastern edge of the Eurasian landmass can’t escape the clutches of “Holocaustianity.”
Oct 8, 2009 11:00 am |
I don’t see why that would surprise you, non-whites are on average much more collectivist than whites.
I didn’t know you advocated a white ethnostate, Hoste. The typical HBDer merely wants a majority white population that is allowed to mix with the non-white minority. It’s basically what we have now just at a slower rate of decay and more appealing facade.
Oct 9, 2009 9:53 pm |
I’ve heard quite abit about the mongolian nazis. There’s not much genetic difference between the various east asian ethnic groups (mongols are technically one of them), so it’s kind of ridiculous to see this kind of ethnocentrism in relation to the Chinese.
Even more hilarious is how these mongolians see themselves as so above the chinese in morality and the like (seducing our women, committing crime etc.). Nevermind the atrocities the mongolians unleashed upon eurasia in the middle ages (technically the second most devestating conflict in history, right after WWII), especially to the chinese. And in regards to ethnocentrism, nevermind the vast amounts of race mixing the mongolians engaged in, especially Genghis Khan and his kids. (I’m sure alot of you know of all those y-chromosomes found among like 16 million central asian males that can be traced back to the middle ages.)
Oct 9, 2009 10:46 pm |
“I didn’t know you advocated a white ethnostate, Hoste. The typical HBDer merely wants a majority white population that is allowed to mix with the non-white minority. It’s basically what we have now just at a slower rate of decay and more appealing facade.”
Fantastic points Mark!
Perhaps Amerikwa, in a “best-case” scenario according to many an HBDer, will come to look like modern-day Turkey, with its Asian-Caucasian racial hybridity –
Portraits of Turkish students and teachers
http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/2246507/1/
*Could you imagine if Jan Sobieski was never in Vienna??
Oct 9, 2009 11:09 pm |
My understanding is that Turks aren’t a Caucasian-Asian hybrid. The Caucasians of the area adopted a Mongoloid language without being genetically replaced.
The Turkish IQ is reportedly 90. I wonder if it would be a few points higher in a first world country. Mexico’s IQ is 87, while US “Hispanics” are at 90. We get Mexico’s worst, so that’s an even bigger improvement than it seems.
Does anybody have IQ data of Turks in Germany? Richard Lynn in The Global Bell Curve gives second generation Turks in the Netherlands an 88, which is less than what they get in their native country.
Oct 9, 2009 11:29 pm |
“My understanding is that Turks aren’t a Caucasian-Asian hybrid. The Caucasians of the area adopted a Mongoloid language without being genetically replaced.”
The Anatolian Caucasians of the former Roman Byzantine Empire were not really replaced so much as amalgamated with the Central Asiatic Turkic hordes.
With quite dysgenic results, I might add.
Just look at the pictures of a very representative cross-sample of Turkish society that demonstrates this, Richard.
Oct 9, 2009 11:30 pm |
“Just look at the pictures of a very representative cross-sample of Turkish society that demonstrates this, Richard.”
Portraits of Turkish students and teachers
http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/2246507/1/
*Just wanted to repost this link in case anyone missed it.
Oct 9, 2009 11:39 pm |
It appears the central Asian component is about 20%. So Turks are mostly Caucasians. I guess you can call them a hybrid population if you want, depending on how you define the term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_origins_of_the_Turkish_people
DNA results suggests the lack of strong genetic relationship between the Mongols and the Turks despite the close relationship of their languages and shared historical neighborhood.[14] Anatolians do not significantly differ from other Mediterraneans, indicating that while the ancient Asian Turks carried out an invasion with cultural significance (language), it is weakly genetically detectable.[15] Recent genetic research has suggested the local, Anatolian origins of the Turks and that genetic flow between Turks and Asiatic peoples might have been marginal.[16]
According to a 1998 study, the historical and cultural consequences of the Turkic invasion of Anatolia were profound, the genetic contribution of the Turkic people to the modern Turkish population seems less significant.[17] Various estimates exist of the proportion of gene flow associated with the arrival of Central Asian Turkic speaking people to Anatolia. One study based on an analysis of Y-chromosomes from Turkey suggested that Central Asians have only made a 10% genetic contribution.[18] Another study suggests roughly 30% based upon mtDNA control region sequences and one STR Y-chromosome.[19] However the comprehensive high resolution single nucleotide polymorphism analysis of 513 individuals provides slight paternal gene flow (<9%) from Central Asia.
Oct 9, 2009 11:52 pm |
“It appears the central Asian component is about 20%. So Turks are mostly Caucasians. I guess you can call them a hybrid population if you want, depending on how you define the term.”
Exactly Richard, “just” 20% Asiatic, and look how relatively physically and mentally/emotionally different the average modern-day “Turk” is from the rest of the European peoples, in spite of their gene pool being 80% percent Caucasoid. Yeesh.
Oct 10, 2009 12:56 am |
I didn’t know you advocated a white ethnostate, Hoste.
It wasn’t exactly a secret.
Oct 10, 2009 10:57 am |
That anthroscape post was very, very interesting, though I wouldn’t use that as such incredible marker of how “ugly” turks are, considering how there’s 70 million+ people in that country, how the composite images looked considerably better etc.
Overall, those turks usually ranged from decent looking to just, well, strange. I noticed alot of them had very closely set eyes (odd considering how alot of mongoloid peoples have rather widely set eyes) and very narrow, compact noses- once again kind of odd considering how so many mongoloid peoples have relatively wider noses.
Kazakhs have a much higher frequency of central asian admixture (they’re close to 50-50 caucasian and central asian), and from my impressions, they look alot better than those Turkish students. Rather good looking people, I’d say.
By the way, Turkey also has a considerable genetic contribution from middle easterners and the like.
Oct 10, 2009 11:00 am |
…The again, the impression of turks looking so unattractive in that regard, as one poster said there, is probably accentuated by looking at loads of people’s faces up close at high-res. I doubt it’d be too different from looking at average “pure” europeans.
It just comes back down to how the average looks of white women are overrated as hell, IMO.
Oct 10, 2009 11:04 am |
Oh, and the fact that everything is so up close and there’s not a single profile picture, along with all the greatly varying lighting.
Oct 10, 2009 11:28 am |
Don’t mean to bring in too many comments, but in spite of that anthroscape forum being a continuation of those god-awful pseudo-anthropologist forums full of Carleton Coon worshippers, there’s a wealth of amazing photos and physical anthrology information.
When it comes to aestethics, I often hear about how wonderful swedish women. (even though their great femininity would imply swedish men are highly feminine, which they aren’t.) Although these can’t be particularly representative (although probably more than those Turkish university students), I’m not too impressed by these swedes: http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/1388482/1/
They look pretty much no different from most other european ethnic groups. Maybe the swedes have somewhat more symmetrical facial features or whatever, and a somewhat lower frequency of overtly projecting noses and overtly convex noses (better known as hook noses), but that still doesn’t make them too special.
And older swedish women, man, they age terribly.
Oct 10, 2009 6:53 pm |
Garnet,
Thanks for providing the link to the Swedes. Very interesting. And I agree with you, they are not that much different from the European average in phenotype, contrary to claims of some Nordicists.
You also make good points about the Turks and the ‘photogenaity’ (if that is a word) regarding the anthroscape. Overall, I did not mean to imply that the Turks were necessarily ‘ugly’, just very strange looking, as you said, particularly the eye proximity and rather flat noses.
Oct 10, 2009 9:13 pm |
Abit back on topic with these mongolian nazis, I sadly can’t find the news story about this, but I remember reading one report where some Mongolian nazi leader was interviewed and asked about how asians, particularly mongolians, were viewed under models of early racial science of the 20th century. (IE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloid#Criticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicanthic_fold#Medical
Basically saying that epicanthic folds and flattened facial profiles seen in a number of genetic disorders was a genetic degeneration caused by mongolian ancestry, who were some terrible, terrible people back in the middle ages.)
The leader’s answer? Something along the lines of “It doesn’t matter what they thought of us, their message of racial preservation holds true for anybody.”
Pretty damn pragmatic, I’d say.
One last thing about the swedes- thanks for clarifying your views on the Turks, Truth. Sorry again about accusing you of nordic fetishism.
In terms of representative frequencies, there’s like 6 million people in Sweden, while 75 million in Turkey.
Turks have always struck me as being rather swarthy too, and most of those students were light skinned.
Oct 10, 2009 9:15 pm |
One other thing in regards to the looks of Swedes- with hook noses, most forms of them look just fine on men, but look disgusting on women. I’d say this is a pretty intrinsic feeling for alot of people, but I’m not saying all convex nose forms are innately disliked- just alot of them.
It’s not like the same wouldn’t hold true of overtly concave noses, which, while very uncommon among humans today, are probably a sort of extreme ethnic trait of whites. (lightly concaved noses are common among alot of northern europeans)
Perhaps that trait just isn’t well expressed among whites, even if it is an ethnic trait.
Oct 10, 2009 10:17 pm |
The leader’s answer? Something along the lines of “It doesn’t matter what they thought of us, their message of racial preservation holds true for anybody.”
Right. There doesn’t have to be, nor is there, necessarily a perfect correspondence between earlier racialists/Fascists and modern ones. For example, white nationalists, racialists, or Neo-Nazis today aren’t viciously anti-Slav like the Nazis were, and Eastern Euros and Eastern Euro-Americans are accepted for the most part. No doubt the immediate circumstances and goals of the German Nazis had a part in the severe anti-Slavic attitude. Hitler wanted the Slavic lands as German lebensraum, so severe anti-Slavicism served this end.
Leave a Reply