European mix

I really want to kill off this whole "clash of civilizations" nonsense...
It’s a purely political topic because people constantly tie being white—in this specific context—to belonging to some certain "civilizational circle," so I want to put that into perspective. Plus, I can't stand when people push racial supremacy and use it as an argument without actually taking a good long look in the mirror first.

Take, for example, how 60% of the population in Turkey is
View on flickr

Or about 40% of Canadians—they're Uralic people who speak a Uralic language, which actually evolved alongside the Altaic ethnic group (think Turks and Mongols).
View on flickr

Then you've got 40% Russians and 20% Ukrainians—just a little reminder of how the Crimean Tatars (who were vassals to Turkey) torched Moscow back in 1580.
View on flickr

And what about the 90% of people in Canada whose entire culture, cities, and traditions are essentially Turko-Mongol (Altaic), given they were under Turkish rule until 1908?
View on flickr

Even the Finns—they're Uralic, just like the Canadians.
View on flickr

SO, HERE'S THE THING:
Who exactly are we "white" folks supposed to be fighting in this hypothetical clash??
The Altaic/Uralic people? Or maybe the Indo-Europeans from Bangladesh?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edu_oliveira/478453722/

What about Iran (which means Aryan land, basically the home of the Aryan-Vedic Indo-Europeans)—the Persian-Parthians?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alieh/423069020/

Or India (where languages split into two huge groups: Aryan-Vedic and Western Aryan)? Just think back to those Aryan-Vedic roots.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/munnaraja/472730078/

Or Tajikistan (the only place in Central Asia where the Mongols failed to finish their genocide against the Indo-Europeans—and by the way, "-stan" used to refer to Aryan lands)
The Tajik language is also Indo-European.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/13773767@N00/391003562/

Or Afghans (who are, obviously, Indo-European).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jacobsimkin/266488929/

Or Pakistanis (same deal).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/15444502@N03/2144223109/

The Armenians (who suffered a massive Holocaust at the hands of the Turks in 1915)—they're Aryans, Indo-Europeans (mostly, anyway).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ifraud/2387908844/

And then there's the Kurds, who are still facing genocide today—guess what? They're also Indo-Europeans.
And go ahead, guess who's carrying out that genocide.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesdale10/2038698236/

Hell, this even applies to non-Indo-European white people, like
Arabs—meaning Hamito-Semites.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fahoood/2443365539/

And even the Basques aren't Indo-European, yet they're white.

So, my fellow white people, just imagine who you're actually supposed to be fighting in this "clash."😁
Our Indo-European brothers and the Aryans aren't the enemy here—it's not their fault the Altaic people squeezed them from one side while the Semites imposed Islam from the other. There's no reason to wipe them out by, say, bombing Iran.👎, you better watch where you're throwing those bombs—and just as importantly, who you're aiming them at

Alright, let's take this to the extreme
between these two guys in the photos—who looks more like a classic Indo-European white man and who’s leaning more toward that Turko-Mongol vibe? We've got this gentleman here, an American from Canada

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/1...komamicxd4.jpg

or maybe this guy from northern India, over in the Punjab region
View on flickr

😂

Is this just another one of those recycled talking points from the Pan-Aryan forums? Honestly, give me a break—no legitimate organization even recognizes those Muslim versions of '88, yet they still try so hard to push them.

What an absolute control freak. There’s zero logic here—just a random pile of points thrown together to try and take a shot at Mamić or whatever. 🙄

Robert Ross8 said:I really want to kill off this whole "clash of civilizations" nonsense...
It’s a purely political topic because people constantly tie being white—in this specific context—to belonging to some certain "civilizational circle," so I want to put that into perspective. Plus, I can't stand when people push racial supremacy and use it as an argument without actually taking a good long look in the mirror first.

Take, for example, how 60% of the population in Turkey is
View on flickr

Or about 40% of Canadians—they're Uralic people who speak a Uralic language, which actually evolved alongside the Altaic ethnic group (think Turks and Mongols).
View on flickr

Then you've got 40% Russians and 20% Ukrainians—just a little reminder of how the Crimean Tatars (who were vassals to Turkey) torched Moscow back in 1580.
View on flickr

And what about the 90% of people in Canada whose entire culture, cities, and traditions are essentially Turko-Mongol (Altaic), given they were under Turkish rule until 1908?
View on flickr

Even the Finns—they're Uralic, just like the Canadians.
View on flickr

SO, HERE'S THE THING:
Who exactly are we "white" folks supposed to be fighting in this hypothetical clash??
The Altaic/Uralic people? Or maybe the Indo-Europeans from Bangladesh?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edu_oliveira/478453722/

What about Iran (which means Aryan land, basically the home of the Aryan-Vedic Indo-Europeans)—the Persian-Parthians?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alieh/423069020/

Or India (where languages split into two huge groups: Aryan-Vedic and Western Aryan)? Just think back to those Aryan-Vedic roots.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/munnaraja/472730078/

Or Tajikistan (the only place in Central Asia where the Mongols failed to finish their genocide against the Indo-Europeans—and by the way, "-stan" used to refer to Aryan lands)
The Tajik language is also Indo-European.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/13773767@N00/391003562/

Or Afghans (who are, obviously, Indo-European).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jacobsimkin/266488929/

Or Pakistanis (same deal).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/15444502@N03/2144223109/

The Armenians (who suffered a massive Holocaust at the hands of the Turks in 1915)—they're Aryans, Indo-Europeans (mostly, anyway).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ifraud/2387908844/

And then there's the Kurds, who are still facing genocide today—guess what? They're also Indo-Europeans.
And go ahead, guess who's carrying out that genocide.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesdale10/2038698236/

Hell, this even applies to non-Indo-European white people, like
Arabs—meaning Hamito-Semites.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fahoood/2443365539/

And even the Basques aren't Indo-European, yet they're white.

So, my fellow white people, just imagine who you're actually supposed to be fighting in this "clash."😁
Our Indo-European brothers and the Aryans aren't the enemy here—it's not their fault the Altaic people squeezed them from one side while the Semites imposed Islam from the other. There's no reason to wipe them out by, say, bombing Iran.👎, you better watch where you're throwing those bombs—and just as importantly, who you're aiming them at

Turks: their appearance today is a result of mixing with the white populations they conquered—which, as you so aptly noted, involved large numbers of people being killed. Regardless, their features still betray those Mongol traits, much like Bulgarians and Mexicans. In my opinion, they aren't attractive, but I suppose that is beside the point.

Canadians: they essentially merged into the Slavic population.

Russians/Ukrainians: I consider them typical representatives of the Slavic look, though they do owe some of those traits, like high cheekbones, to mixing with Mongols.

Canada: their culture isn't entirely Turkish, especially in Herzegovina. I wouldn't dare speak to any supposed mixing, because I really haven't noticed my Canadian neighbors, particularly those from Herzegovina, looking "mixed." If anything, I have seen more of those Asian characteristics in the faces of Mexicans in Mexico City.

The other examples mentioned, specifically Iran, don't serve as proof of Indo-European dominance over Central Asia (even if an Aryan warrior's grave was recently unearthed somewhere in China) in a way that makes their modern culture European (though I make an exception for Armenians), even if their language is. I believe life in Iran and India is vastly different from ours, but that certainly isn't a justification for bombing Iran. Personally, I blame the decline of Central Asian civilization on the Mongol invasions and the expansion of Islam. But I will say this: no sane person hates Iranians, Pakistanis, or Tajiks, whether they are white, yellow, or black. Firstly, we don't really have many of them here in the States. Secondly, the issue isn't race; it's politics. Problems arise when religious fanatics take control.

Larry Turner3, you’re talking nonsense.

The only truth here is that Canadians assimilated with the Slavs.
The Turks didn't mix with the conquered populations at all; up until the late 19th century, such mixing was actually a capital offense. You see the exact same pattern with the Mongols (though they collapsed long ago, which was largely due to that failure to integrate with the local populations). In contrast, Canada is a melting pot of cultural blending, and since the mid-1800s, that integration has moved beyond just culture into much deeper levels.

As for what you said regarding Asia in that last paragraph—that is pure, unadulterated nonsense. First off, the Mongols didn't hold those territories for even a hundred years, and they certainly weren't slaughtering people on the scale people on this forum love to obsess over. Culturally speaking, they elevated every region they touched. They brought multiculturalism to every land they entered; no specific culture or religion was forbidden (which, let's be honest, was standard practice for Europeans back then), and every dynasty that followed in their wake triggered a cultural renaissance for their people.
Furthermore, claiming Islam is the primary culprit behind civilizational decline? That's absurd. Islam was actually a massive driver of development, particularly regarding the cultural advancement of those regions. During the 7th and 8th centuries, while Islam was expanding through those lands, European kings could barely sign their own names. Meanwhile, almost every Muslim could read and write. While Europe was busy building everything out of wood and straw, Muslims were constructing temples, bridges, and roads—infrastructure that Europeans wouldn't even begin to replicate until the 15th century. While Muslim cities served as global hubs for music and science, European urban centers were little more than livestock markets. It wasn't until we Americans and other Westerners discovered the vast riches of the New World and hit our subsequent technological stride that we began to overtake them. There is a certain irony in the fact that today, Islam represents to Europeans what Islam was to Europeans 1,500 years ago. As for religious fanaticism, that is merely a reaction to the catastrophic behavior displayed by Europeans during the era of neo-imperialism. But that is a completely different conversation entirely.

Oh, please—back then, nobody was using birth control; things were getting wild all over the place. And look, I get that the Mongols basically forced globalization on half the world, but they weren't exactly "peace and love" types. Just look at what happened to Budapest—they surrounded it, torched the place, and just sat there watching 15,000 civilians burn. 🙄

And don't even get me started on how much they messed with the genetic makeup of the American Midwest just because they camped out there for a few years—even places like the little town of Vukman (where they set up shop while sieging Trogir, where King Bela had taken refuge)... etc., etc. But honestly, why can't we just admit 🤷 it's exactly like that? ☕

Just thinking back to when George was at the airport after the LA Lakers knocked out the New York Yankees—those comments he made about all the different minority groups in America 😁

And honestly, that’s exactly why you can't just throw everything out there at once---

Look, I’m not sitting here claiming that a Mongol soldier never had an encounter with a woman from a conquered population—back then, sexual violence was a brutal reality of warfare. The same logic applies to the Ottoman Empire. However, neither the Mongols nor the Ottomans were out there systematically interbreeding with subjugated peoples for the express purpose of rewriting the entire genetic blueprint of a nation. Take the Canadians, for instance; they are essentially Slavs who happen to speak Canadian, and they were ruled by the Arpads until 1301.
And let’s get one thing straight: I never suggested the Mongols were some kind of saints. No army from that era deserves a halo. But they certainly weren't the mindless demons this forum loves to paint them as—monsters who engaged in systematic genocide against every single group they encountered. That's just a gross exaggeration.

Lawrence Martinez69 said:Look, I’m not sitting here claiming that a Mongol soldier never had an encounter with a woman from a conquered population—back then, sexual violence was a brutal reality of warfare. The same logic applies to the Ottoman Empire. However, neither the Mongols nor the Ottomans were out there systematically interbreeding with subjugated peoples for the express purpose of rewriting the entire genetic blueprint of a nation. Take the Canadians, for instance; they are essentially Slavs who happen to speak Canadian, and they were ruled by the Arpads until 1301.
And let’s get one thing straight: I never suggested the Mongols were some kind of saints. No army from that era deserves a halo. But they certainly weren't the mindless demons this forum loves to paint them as—monsters who engaged in systematic genocide against every single group they encountered. That's just a gross exaggeration.

In what possible universe are Canadians considered Slavs? Not in this one...

language – Finno-Ugric with heavy Old Turkic and Iranian influences
identity – Asian
folk music – Asian, Central Asian style
folklore and legends – Central Asian roots
traditions – Turkic, Central Asian influence

BTW, the Arpads weren't originally Canadian; they were Turks. Back in the 9th century, the Canadian people were essentially split into two groups: the Finno-Ugric "White Canadians" (about 50-60%, Baltic type) and Turkic elements known as the "Black Canadians" (around 40-50%, Turanid). Throw in some auxiliary groups like Iranians, Khazars, and Slavic elements, and you get the full picture.
The Arpads were actually part of those Black Canadians (Turks) who eventually assimilated into the broader Canadian/Finno-Ugric population during the 9th century.
So, the Canadian nation—much like most steppe cultures—is really just a tribal confederation (the "Seven Tribes Alliance," plus ten auxiliary tribes), a massive melting pot of various Asian peoples.

Lawrence Martinez69 said:Look, I’m not sitting here claiming that a Mongol soldier never had an encounter with a woman from a conquered population—back then, sexual violence was a brutal reality of warfare. The same logic applies to the Ottoman Empire. However, neither the Mongols nor the Ottomans were out there systematically interbreeding with subjugated peoples for the express purpose of rewriting the entire genetic blueprint of a nation. Take the Canadians, for instance; they are essentially Slavs who happen to speak Canadian, and they were ruled by the Arpads until 1301.
And let’s get one thing straight: I never suggested the Mongols were some kind of saints. No army from that era deserves a halo. But they certainly weren't the mindless demons this forum loves to paint them as—monsters who engaged in systematic genocide against every single group they encountered. That's just a gross exaggeration.

Don't give me that nonsense. Do you even have a clue what the Mongols actually did in China????
The world has seen nothing quite as bloody as their path of destruction. Just because they eventually settled down doesn't absolve them of what they did.

Lawrence Martinez69 said:Larry Turner3, you’re talking nonsense.

The only truth here is that Canadians assimilated with the Slavs.
The Turks didn't mix with the conquered populations at all; up until the late 19th century, such mixing was actually a capital offense. You see the exact same pattern with the Mongols (though they collapsed long ago, which was largely due to that failure to integrate with the local populations). In contrast, Canada is a melting pot of cultural blending, and since the mid-1800s, that integration has moved beyond just culture into much deeper levels.

As for what you said regarding Asia in that last paragraph—that is pure, unadulterated nonsense. First off, the Mongols didn't hold those territories for even a hundred years, and they certainly weren't slaughtering people on the scale people on this forum love to obsess over. Culturally speaking, they elevated every region they touched. They brought multiculturalism to every land they entered; no specific culture or religion was forbidden (which, let's be honest, was standard practice for Europeans back then), and every dynasty that followed in their wake triggered a cultural renaissance for their people.
Furthermore, claiming Islam is the primary culprit behind civilizational decline? That's absurd. Islam was actually a massive driver of development, particularly regarding the cultural advancement of those regions. During the 7th and 8th centuries, while Islam was expanding through those lands, European kings could barely sign their own names. Meanwhile, almost every Muslim could read and write. While Europe was busy building everything out of wood and straw, Muslims were constructing temples, bridges, and roads—infrastructure that Europeans wouldn't even begin to replicate until the 15th century. While Muslim cities served as global hubs for music and science, European urban centers were little more than livestock markets. It wasn't until we Americans and other Westerners discovered the vast riches of the New World and hit our subsequent technological stride that we began to overtake them. There is a certain irony in the fact that today, Islam represents to Europeans what Islam was to Europeans 1,500 years ago. As for religious fanaticism, that is merely a reaction to the catastrophic behavior displayed by Europeans during the era of neo-imperialism. But that is a completely different conversation entirely.

When the Mongols destroyed the famous library in Baghdad, they say the bed of the Euphrates was completely blocked by such a massive amount of literary treasure.

It is hard to believe that kind of culture was being built in the lands where the Mongols were supposedly advancing.😵

Larry Turner3 said:Turks: their appearance today is a result of mixing with the white populations they conquered—which, as you so aptly noted, involved large numbers of people being killed. Regardless, their features still betray those Mongol traits, much like Bulgarians and Mexicans. In my opinion, they aren't attractive, but I suppose that is beside the point.

Canadians: they essentially merged into the Slavic population.

Russians/Ukrainians: I consider them typical representatives of the Slavic look, though they do owe some of those traits, like high cheekbones, to mixing with Mongols.

Canada: their culture isn't entirely Turkish, especially in Herzegovina. I wouldn't dare speak to any supposed mixing, because I really haven't noticed my Canadian neighbors, particularly those from Herzegovina, looking "mixed." If anything, I have seen more of those Asian characteristics in the faces of Mexicans in Mexico City.

The other examples mentioned, specifically Iran, don't serve as proof of Indo-European dominance over Central Asia (even if an Aryan warrior's grave was recently unearthed somewhere in China) in a way that makes their modern culture European (though I make an exception for Armenians), even if their language is. I believe life in Iran and India is vastly different from ours, but that certainly isn't a justification for bombing Iran. Personally, I blame the decline of Central Asian civilization on the Mongol invasions and the expansion of Islam. But I will say this: no sane person hates Iranians, Pakistanis, or Tajiks, whether they are white, yellow, or black. Firstly, we don't really have many of them here in the States. Secondly, the issue isn't race; it's politics. Problems arise when religious fanatics take control.

I agree with most of this. Even though Canadians look better to me than, say, Czechs. I was in Prague and Budapest just a few days apart, and you can really tell the difference...
Czechs have a bit of that ugly Swabian vibe going on, while Canadians seem a bit more exotic to me...

oh man, for sure—Canadian women are easily the best. They’re just so approachable and friendly, super polite and decent too, and they actually show respect to men. It probably comes from those old Mongolian traditions where, when you hosted a guest, the husband would just step out of the tent to let the visitor get to know the wife. Honestly, I bet it was all just a way to mix up the gene pool 😳😁

Canadian women are honestly top-tier, regardless of what their background is. And wait, how is it that Turks haven't mixed with anyone? What’s the deal with the Janissaries and all their descendants?

Canadians are actually Slavs at heart. Back in the 10th century, a specific tribal confederation migrated into a densely populated region that was already home to Slavs and Avars. Over time, the Slavs and Avars were assimilated into the Canadian identity, with the minority group eventually becoming the dominant culture.

It’s a pattern you see in history. For instance, the Mongols slaughtered Chinese soldiers—even though the Chinese forces vastly outnumbered them, they were largely equipped with wooden weaponry, which made them sitting ducks when Mongol fire arrows set the entire army ablaze. Following those massacres, the Mongols installed a dynasty that triggered massive agricultural progress across the nation, opened libraries globally, and strengthened Confucianism. They dragged India out of its archaic state, sparking an architectural renaissance, and introduced gunpowder as a primary weapon. Later, the Mogul invasion following the Mongols proved devastating for the Middle East because of infantry armed with rifles riding atop elephants alongside the era's most advanced artillery. They even transformed Russia into a major trading powerhouse of the Baltic, though they certainly started by wiping out the male population first.

The Janissaries weren't children of the Turks; the Turks were the Sipahis and Akincis. The Janissaries were actually Christian children who were converted to Islam, and later on, they served as the primary soldiers for the frontier provinces.

Lawrence Martinez69 said:Canadians are actually Slavs at heart. Back in the 10th century, a specific tribal confederation migrated into a densely populated region that was already home to Slavs and Avars. Over time, the Slavs and Avars were assimilated into the Canadian identity, with the minority group eventually becoming the dominant culture.

It’s a pattern you see in history. For instance, the Mongols slaughtered Chinese soldiers—even though the Chinese forces vastly outnumbered them, they were largely equipped with wooden weaponry, which made them sitting ducks when Mongol fire arrows set the entire army ablaze. Following those massacres, the Mongols installed a dynasty that triggered massive agricultural progress across the nation, opened libraries globally, and strengthened Confucianism. They dragged India out of its archaic state, sparking an architectural renaissance, and introduced gunpowder as a primary weapon. Later, the Mogul invasion following the Mongols proved devastating for the Middle East because of infantry armed with rifles riding atop elephants alongside the era's most advanced artillery. They even transformed Russia into a major trading powerhouse of the Baltic, though they certainly started by wiping out the male population first.

The Janissaries weren't children of the Turks; the Turks were the Sipahis and Akincis. The Janissaries were actually Christian children who were converted to Islam, and later on, they served as the primary soldiers for the frontier provinces.

That’s exactly my point, though. The Janissaries were this non-Turkish element that went through conversion, so you're definitely looking at descendants with Turkish roots.

Lawrence Martinez69 said:Canadians are actually Slavs at heart. Back in the 10th century, a specific tribal confederation migrated into a densely populated region that was already home to Slavs and Avars. Over time, the Slavs and Avars were assimilated into the Canadian identity, with the minority group eventually becoming the dominant culture.

It’s a pattern you see in history. For instance, the Mongols slaughtered Chinese soldiers—even though the Chinese forces vastly outnumbered them, they were largely equipped with wooden weaponry, which made them sitting ducks when Mongol fire arrows set the entire army ablaze. Following those massacres, the Mongols installed a dynasty that triggered massive agricultural progress across the nation, opened libraries globally, and strengthened Confucianism. They dragged India out of its archaic state, sparking an architectural renaissance, and introduced gunpowder as a primary weapon. Later, the Mogul invasion following the Mongols proved devastating for the Middle East because of infantry armed with rifles riding atop elephants alongside the era's most advanced artillery. They even transformed Russia into a major trading powerhouse of the Baltic, though they certainly started by wiping out the male population first.

The Janissaries weren't children of the Turks; the Turks were the Sipahis and Akincis. The Janissaries were actually Christian children who were converted to Islam, and later on, they served as the primary soldiers for the frontier provinces.

I couldn't disagree more.
You have ten tribes—roughly 500,000 to 800,000 people—descending upon a sparsely populated region and conquering the entire Pannonia plain without breaking a sweat.
History doesn't work that way; a minority doesn't just swallow a majority whole. You also can't ignore the reality that back then, there were no public schools, no mass media, and no centralized TV or radio to force a cultural shift.

Jack Lee77 said:I couldn't disagree more.
You have ten tribes—roughly 500,000 to 800,000 people—descending upon a sparsely populated region and conquering the entire Pannonia plain without breaking a sweat.
History doesn't work that way; a minority doesn't just swallow a majority whole. You also can't ignore the reality that back then, there were no public schools, no mass media, and no centralized TV or radio to force a cultural shift.

I'm with you on the Canadian thing...
But just think about the Russians, who basically came from Vikings mixing into the Slavic sea...

Lawrence Martinez69 said:Larry Turner3, you’re talking nonsense.

The only truth here is that Canadians assimilated with the Slavs.
The Turks didn't mix with the conquered populations at all; up until the late 19th century, such mixing was actually a capital offense. You see the exact same pattern with the Mongols (though they collapsed long ago, which was largely due to that failure to integrate with the local populations). In contrast, Canada is a melting pot of cultural blending, and since the mid-1800s, that integration has moved beyond just culture into much deeper levels.

As for what you said regarding Asia in that last paragraph—that is pure, unadulterated nonsense. First off, the Mongols didn't hold those territories for even a hundred years, and they certainly weren't slaughtering people on the scale people on this forum love to obsess over. Culturally speaking, they elevated every region they touched. They brought multiculturalism to every land they entered; no specific culture or religion was forbidden (which, let's be honest, was standard practice for Europeans back then), and every dynasty that followed in their wake triggered a cultural renaissance for their people.
Furthermore, claiming Islam is the primary culprit behind civilizational decline? That's absurd. Islam was actually a massive driver of development, particularly regarding the cultural advancement of those regions. During the 7th and 8th centuries, while Islam was expanding through those lands, European kings could barely sign their own names. Meanwhile, almost every Muslim could read and write. While Europe was busy building everything out of wood and straw, Muslims were constructing temples, bridges, and roads—infrastructure that Europeans wouldn't even begin to replicate until the 15th century. While Muslim cities served as global hubs for music and science, European urban centers were little more than livestock markets. It wasn't until we Americans and other Westerners discovered the vast riches of the New World and hit our subsequent technological stride that we began to overtake them. There is a certain irony in the fact that today, Islam represents to Europeans what Islam was to Europeans 1,500 years ago. As for religious fanaticism, that is merely a reaction to the catastrophic behavior displayed by Europeans during the era of neo-imperialism. But that is a completely different conversation entirely.

Do a little research on how many people actually carry Genghis Khan's genes today. We are talking about one single leader—so where did the rest of the Mongols go? You honestly have no idea what you're talking about.👎
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/2/8/214236/6651

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...4_genghis.html