Approx. 6000 words
- Introduction: Anti-Whiteness
- What is White? The Ultra-Basics
- The Antiquity of Racial Classification and White Identity
- The European Race, or the European Races?
- The Genetics of Modern Europeans
- Early Europeans: Our Ancient Ancestors
- WHG, EEF, PIE
7.1. Western European Hunter-Gatherers
7.2. Early European Farmers
10.1. “But what about mixed people??????”
10.2. Extinct Europeans
10.3. Source of Data
I planned to write this article about a year ago but didn’t get round to starting it until this month. It deals with some technical stuff, like genetics, and it’s quite comprehensive, but I’ve tried to make it as layman-friendly and non-boring as possible. Consider this and my Introduction to Race and Genetics articles as replacements for my old What is White? article, which was kind of sloppy and badly written.
2. Introduction: Anti-Whiteness
“Whiteness” is a “social construct,” according to the power-weilding institutions of the West: Academia, the mainstream media, corporations, government organizations, big tech, “think tanks,” and so on. These institutions are ideologically dominated by the Western Marxist ‘New Left’ but owned by the wealthiest globalist plutocrats of the 1%. (A pretty suspicious unholy alliance, don’t you think?).
These people claim that there is no such thing as ‘white culture,’ no such thing as the ‘white race,’ and no such thing as ‘white people.’ “Whiteness” is an attribute with no inherent biological basis, and can simply be “learned” and adopted at will by any individual of any race or ethnicity.
However, the same people who claim that “whiteness” is a socially constructed myth have no problem identifying a white person when they’re complaining about systemic privilege, institutional racism, “supremacism,” colonialism, or imperialism. Even babies can’t escape the slander:
Whites are Schrödinger’s race: Simultaneously non-existent, but also responsible for all the world’s wrongdoings and evils.
Anti-Whites have no problem racially or ethnically identifying East Asians, Africans, Native Americans, Aboriginal Australians, etc. Nor do they have any issue with recognizing the cultural practices and traditions of any non-white peoples (who they have collectively dubbed the ‘People of Color’). In fact, throughout the West, the cultures and traditions of People of Color are celebrated as being wonderful “diversity” that “culturally enriches” our societies. Our Greatest Strength™, as they say.
There are a near-infinite number of ways that slippery globalists attempt to dismantle the racial and ethnic identities of White people, but the process usually goes as follows:
- First, they claim that White is an illegitimate category because Europe contains a multitude of unique ethnic groups, such as the English, Germans, Italians, French, etc.
- Next, they claim that German, for example, is an illegitimate category because the Germans are a mix of various Germanic tribes, such as the Saxons, Franci, Thuringii, Alamanni, Bavarii, and Frisians.
- Finally, they claim that any individual, of any race, who just so happens to reside within the territory of “Germany” — which has today been reduced to a deracinated, globalized, Liberal economic zone — is equally as German as the man who can trace his ancestry back to the Bavarii of Bavaria.
“White” becomes fictional and every unique European ethnic identity is usurped and replaced by that of rootless, consumerist multiracialism. The entirety of Western civilization is saturated with this convoluted and nonsensical Critical-Race-Theory-derived rhetoric.
This article is not an exposeé of the New Left and Globalist agenda, but it is necessary to provide political context. The aim of this article is to counteract the mass of contradictory, hypocritical, nonsensical anti-White propaganda by answering the very simple question “What is White?”
3. What is White? The Ultra-Basics
“White” = Biologically European. Peoples indigenous to Western Eurasia, whose racial group was formed within the boundaries of Europe, thousands of years ago. “White” includes every person of overwhelmingly* European heritage, including Whites who reside outside of Europe, such as the ethnic Russians of Siberia. A White person is a White person regardless of which plot of land they inhabit.
* See Appendix for clarification.
“White,” does not include Turkish, North African, Middle Eastern, or Caucasus peoples, but these groups do belong to the same wider racial category as Whites: The ‘Caucasoid’ race, which is commonly known as the ‘West Eurasian’ race today. There is overlap between West Eurasian populations but the aforementioned peoples are culturally and biologically distinct from Europeans, with each forming their own unique group within the wider West Eurasian race.
Due to this genetic overlap, some Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) people can be born with stereotypically European phenotypes, meaning that they are able to visually pass as being racially European. For example, a Syrian may look Greek, or a Persian may look Italian. Similarly, some (Southern) Europeans may look MENA. However, it is important to note that these people are generally a tiny minority and are by no means representative of the average phenotype of their respective populations.
Europeans and MENA peoples overlap due to shared descent from the same ancestral populations, and because both racial groups have continually invaded and colonized one another’s territories for thousands of years. Additionally, the MENA slave trades that operated until the 19th Century, e.g. Barbary, Arab, and Ottoman Slavery, specifically focused on kidnapping European women from coastal towns, ranging from Italy,
to the Netherlands, to Britain, and as far north as Iceland.
There is almost always some degree of genetic and phenotypic overlap between neighboring racial and ethnic populations. A slightly fuzzy boundary does not mean that racial or ethnic groups do not exist and cannot be defined.
White = Biologically European.
4. The Antiquity of Racial Classification and White Identity
Globalists and Leftists often claim that “White” as an identity or “European” as a race was conjured up in the 1700s, simply because evil, colonialist Europeans needed a useful tool to “justify slavery and the oppression of People of Color.” This claim is as insane as it is ahistorical — nothing more than political propaganda, born of the aforementioned ‘Critical Race Theory’ of modern Western Marxists.
The concept of Europe as both a geographic region and a people (or racial nation) dates back thousands of years to Greco-Roman society — the founders of Western Civilization. Furthermore, humans of all races have racially and ethnically classified one another since the dawn of civilization and the written word.
Unfortunately, this topic is too vast to cover succinctly. So, for more information, read this extended post:
Race, Ethnicity, and “Racism” in Greco-Roman Society
In any case, claiming that the concept of race arose within the past 300 years, or that ‘White’ identity is merely a “tool of oppression,” is profoundly ignorant of basic history, at best, and venomous, anti-White, propaganda, at worst.
5. The European Race, or the European Races?
The modern European race can be broken down into a few closely-related ‘subraces.’ These are separated by geographic location and roughly correlate to linguistic and cultural groups: Baltic, North Slavic, Balkan Slavic, Germanic, etc.
The ethnographic map below, based on genetic data, is a rough approximation of these biogeographic regions. There is variation within and overlap between these genetic groups, but, generally speaking, Europeans can be subdivided into between 2 and 8 distinct subraces, depending on what criteria you use. The simplified version is: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, and Southern Europe (or Nord, Med, and Slav), and the ultra-simplified version is North European and South European.
Classifying Europeans in this manner isn’t a revolutionary idea. Below is an ethnographic map of Europe from 1916. It’s still somewhat accurate, despite the fact that it was created before genetic testing existed.
The phenotype chart below shows a few common facial variations within and between five European subraces.
6. The Genetics of Modern Europeans
“Race” is defined by proportions of ancestry inherited from specific ancestral populations, and identified by cumulative shared phenotypic characteristics. In other words, what you look like and who you’re descended from. Pretty simple.
If you were asked to identify a race based on one single physical characteristic (e.g., average height), it’s pretty unlikely that you’d guess correctly. However, if you knew six characteristics — skin tone, hair color, eye color, body hair coverage, bone density, skeletal morphology (e.g., skull shape), etc. — then you’d have a pretty good chance of guessing the individuals race correctly. Once you knew, 20 or more characteristics, it would be almost impossible to guess incorrectly.
This also applies to our DNA. Geneticists can correctly predict an individuals race with over 99% accuracy when they study enough genes cumulatively. This is called multivariate analyasis, i.e., analysis that considers multiple variables simultaneously.
The two main methods of visually representing genetic data are principal component analysis (PCA) and genetic cluster analysis (also called ‘admixture’ analysis).
A principal component analysis displays the genetic distance between human populations by plotting ‘samples’ (people) on a graph with two axes. In other words, PCAs show how closely related individuals and genetic groups are to one another. They aren’t 100% precise, but they are a pretty good guide.
Below is a PCA of present-day West Eurasia, with some additional labeling to highlight geographic regions. Samples are color-coded by ethnic group. Although there is some minor overlap between populations, the featured ethnic groups mostly form clearly distinct genetic clusters within their respective geographic regions.
A genetic cluster analysis shows how much admixture (ancestry) an individual has inherited from certain ancestral populations. They’re created via software that automatically sorts pieces of data into a predefined number of groups (or ‘clusters’), according to how similar or different those pieces of data are from one another. Users define how many clusters the software should divide the data into via the command “K=#”, where “#” is the number of clusters. As with PCAs, admixture analyses aren’t 100% accurate but, again, they are a good guide.
Below is a K=7 admixture analysis of the entire human race.
Each thin line represents one person. The Maya individual below is predominantly descended from the ancestry component labeled ‘America’ (purple), but also has 25% ‘Europe’ (green), 3% ‘E. Asia’ (orange), and 1% ‘C.S. Asia’ (blue) ancestry.
The admixture analysis above demonstrates that all populations outside of the Middle East are highly homogeneous, deriving the vast majority of their ancestry from ancestral populations from within their respective geographic regions.
Below is an admixture analysis of modern Europeans, taken from a large K=20 analysis of the entire human race (meaning that the genetic data was divided into 20 clusters, displaying an increased level of detail in the analysis). You can view a full breakdown of said analysis in this article.
As per this analysis, Europeans are almost entirely descended from three main ancestral populations; light blue, dark blue, and light green, or Nordid, Medid, and Elamid, respectively. North Eastern Europeans, such as Russians, Finnish, and Saami have some additional admixture from East Asians or Siberians.
But who exactly were these ancestral populations, and where did they come from?
7. Early Europeans: Our Ancient Ancestors
A groundbreaking 2015 study titled ‘Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe’ [source] discovered that all modern Europeans are primarily descended from three ancestral, post-Ice-Age races.
In order of chronological appearance, these races are:
– Western European Hunter-Gatherers
– Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers
– Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherers
– Early European Farmers
Bronze Age Pastoralists
– Proto-Indo-Europeans or ‘Western Steppe Herders’
(Mostly descended from Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers of the Mesolithic)
The amount of ancestry that a modern European has inherited from each race is dependent on the individual’s ancestral geographic location. Ethnic Northern Europeans have more WHG and PIE ancestry (Mesolithic and Bronze Age), while ethnic Southern Europeans have more Early European Farmer ancestry (Neolithic). It’s important to note that all three of these ancient races were Caucasoid or West Eurasian.
Below is a cluster analysis, taken from the aforementioned study.
Orange = Early European Farmer
Blue = Western European Hunter-Gatherer
Green = Proto-Indo-European
The variations in appearance between Northern and Southern Europeans (hair color, eye color, height, skin tone, etc.) are caused by these varying levels of ancestry. All European phenotypes exist on a gradient between the two extremes of the far North (“Nordic”) and the far South (“Mediterranean”).
The PCA .gif below shows how various ancient and modern West Eurasian populations relate to one another.
8. WHG, EEF, PIE
Knowing that these populations existed and how they relate to the genetics of modern Europeans is all well and good, but it doesn’t really tell us a great deal about who they were as people. This section contains a brief introduction to each of the three ancestral races of Europe, covering their origin, way of life, culture, appearance, etc.
7.1. Western European Hunter-Gatherers
~15,000 to ~4,000 BC
Mesolithic (End of Stone Age)
— More info on WHG: http://archive.vn/Iwsg5
The WHG were descended from the original Paleolithic (or ‘Old Stone Age’) inhabitants of Ice Age Europe, the Cro-Magnons. They became a genetically distinct population due to being isolated for several thousand years while they weathered the Last Glacial Maximum (the peak of the Ice Age) in the refugia of Southern Europe.
The rise of the WHG was facilitated by the rapid increase in temperature following the Younger Dryas. New life was breathed into the once inhospitable environments of Europe; luscious forests replaced the harsh tundra, and animals, such as deer, aurochs, and boar, began to flourish throughout the continent.
Europe was sparsely populated before the emergence of the WHG due to the unforgiving nature of Ice Age life. At some points, less than 3,000 Paleolithic hunter-gatherers lived in the entirety of Western and Central Europe [source]. It took the WHG approximately 5,000 years to repopulate the continent, and by 8,000 BC, they had expanded to occupy all of Western and Southern Europe, as far as the Baltic region and the Black Sea.
- Note: “Mesolithic Siberians” on the map below includes Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers.
Below are some Mesolithic European tools & artworks.
A Mesolithic cave painting, featuring some sort of ritual.
Unfortunately, our knowledge of the WHG’s religion is pure guesswork based on the scarce archaeological evidence. It’s generally assumed that they had shamanistic beliefs, which are common in hunter-gatherer societies. Below is a 13,000 BC WHG cave painting from France, titled “The Sourcerer.” It’s thought to represent some sort of great spirit or a “master of animals.”
The WHG were also the first people confirmed to have had a relationship with our greatest ally: dogs. The oldest confirmed domesticated pet dog, the Bonn-Oberkassel Dog, was discovered in a 14,000-year-old grave in Germany, resting alongside a Western Hunter-Gatherer man. The dog was healthy and well cared for. So, if you’ve ever wondered why Europeans class dogs as “man’s best friend,” it’s because we’ve evolved alongside them as buddies for 14,000 years, at least — probably longer.
The WHG were physically robust and powerfully built. They predominantly had dark hair and bright blue eyes, although some genetic studies (e.g., this dissertation, page 78) indicate that a small amount of WHG may have had light hair or darker colored eyes.
Below are a few WHG facial reconstructions.
The facial features of the WHG are frequently echoed in the appearance of Northern Europeans to this day, who have the highest share of WHG ancestry.
Our Marxoid-infested academia, in collaboration with the corrupt mainstream media, has relentlessly promoted the myth that the WHG had black skin and a Sub-Saharan African facial structure, simply because they lacked the known pale-skin genes of modern Europeans. The former claim is highly unlikely and the latter is complete nonsense. I won’t get into the genetics mumbo-jumbo here, as there’s a lot to explain and it’s not layman-friendly, but if you are interested, then you should read this post (it’s also summarized here).
WHG skin pigmentation, at its darkest, was likely similar to that of modern Inuits, who have a subtropical skin tone, despite living at the same Arctic latitude as the palest Northern Europeans. This is likely due to their vitamin-D-rich diet [source].
Western Hunter-Gatherers resembled modern Northern Europeans in every way, except skin tone (and the fact that they were considerably more powerfully built, in general). No living population other than Northern Europeans is remotely genetically close to the WHG and only Europeans have WHG ancestry.
TL;DR: The WHG were not “Africans.”
7.2. Early European Farmers
~7,000 to ~1,000 BC
Neolithic (Final period of Stone Age)
— More info on EEF: http://archive.vn/l06TO
The Early European Farmers are the second major ingredient in the genetic recipe of modern Europeans.
The ancestors of the EEF and WHG were once part of the same parent population, which split sometime around 43,000 BC when the ancestors of the WHG moved into Europe. The ancestors of the EEF remained in the Near East, in and around Anatolia (present-day Turkey), and the two populations evolved separately for thousands of years, perhaps due to Ice Age weather conditions.
- Note: Anatolia wasn’t Turkish until after 1,000 AD. Before then, it was occupied by Europeans. Even today, many Turkish people on the West coast have predominantly (but not entirely) European ancestry.
It was once thought that the EEF were descended from a Middle Eastern Levantine population known as the Natufians, but this theory was recently disproved by genetics. The EEF were descended from a local central Anatolian population known as the Anatolian Hunter-Gatherers (AHG), who were genetically distinct from Middle Easterners. The AHG developed farming around 9,000 BC — from which point they are known as ‘Anatolian Neolithic Farmers’ (ANF), although they were biologically near-identical to the AHG.
By ~7,000 BC, the ANF had began their gargantuan expedition into Europe, following the same path that the WHG’s ancestors had taken 36,000 years earlier. The initial ANF (EEF) expansion into Europe occurred without much intermixing between themselves and native European hunter-gathers, though this gradually changed over time. Genetic and archaeological evidence tells us that the two populations traded and intermarried with one another.
- Below: A WHG man with his EEF wife (borrowed from Survive the Jive’s documentary).
WHG/EEF admixture rates varied geographically. EEF living in what is now Hungary had around 10% WHG admixture, in Germany 25%, and Iberia 50%. The basic formula is “further away from Anatolia = more WHG admixture.” Large areas of Northern Europe remained mostly unsettled by the EEF, which is reflected in the genetics of modern Europeans.
The EEF brought a technological and cultural revolution to Europe, introducing farming, animal husbandry, architecture, and new craft techniques.
They’re particularly renowned for their decorative pottery, which is how we identify distinct EEF cultures.
EEF-style ceramics are currently being emulated by “modern” artists and sold for egregious prices in “modern” art galleries around the world. Below is a collection of genuine EEF pottery (accept no modern substitutes).
EEF culture and technology appears to have influenced WHG populations, even when they lived independently of EEF settlements. Below are some WHG fish gods which have been produced in the stonemasonry style of the EEF (who didn’t sculpt fish gods).
It was the EEF’s ancestors (or a closely related people) who built Goebekli Tepe, which dates to around 10,000 BC and is currently regarded as the oldest temple in the world by mainstream archaeologists.
The EEF didn’t build any temples like Goebekli Tepe in Europe, but they did build a lot of huge megaliths, like Stonehenge in the UK. The top four images below are the exposed interior structures of dolmen burial mounts.
The Late-EEF Minoans (3000 – 1100 BC) of Crete created the first advanced civilization in Europe. It featured sewage systems, a written language (which is as of yet undeciphered), incredible architecture, and a wide array of vibrant artwork.
- Below: Ruins of the Palace of Knossos. EEF peoples must have some sort of biological drive to create majestic architecture wherever they go.
The Minoans’ decorative pottery is the finest of all EEF cultures.
Unfortunately, there is a distinct lack of reliable EEF facial reconstructions available. Below are some reconstructions of a 7,500-year-old Gibraltan EEF woman and a 5,500-year-old British EEF man.
With regards to pigmentation, genetic data indicates that most EEF populations had pale skin, predominantly brown eyes and dark hair, with some rare instances of blue eyes and blondism. Central European EEF cultures, such as the Globular Amphora and Funnelbeaker peoples, had lighter pigmentation, with increased frequencies of blondism, light hair, and blue eyes.
Ethnic Sardinians are genetically ~95% EEF, so it should be pretty safe to assume that the Southern European EEF may have looked similar to the people below. However, it’s likely that this isn’t a direct 1:1 visual comparison. Phenotypes can change over time due to evolutionary factors, such as positive selection. Neotenous breeding, for example, has made women cuter over time.
Minoan frescoes also provide insight into how Southern European Late EEF peoples depicted themselves. Tanned men and extremely pale women were consistent themes in Minoan artwork.
~5,000 to ~2,500 BC (Approximate dates PIE languages spoken)
— More info on IE: http://archive.vn/ib1LS & http://archive.vn/UKLsg
The Proto-Indo-Europeans are the third and final piece of the modern European genetic puzzle. They are the largest contributor to Northern European DNA (~40-70%) and were responsible for the spread of all modern European languages and culture (except for the Basque, Hungarian, Finnish, and Estonian languages).
The story of how the Proto-Indo-Europeans were discovered is pretty interesting but, unfortunately, it’s quite long, and there isn’t enough space to include the full tale in this article. The abridged and ultra-simplified version goes as follows:
- In the 1500s, European linguists in the Indian subcontinent noticed strong similarities between the Indo-Iranian and European language families. They presumed that both branches must have stemmed from a single root language, and set about trying to reconstruct it. They investigated various extant and extinct languages, looking for linguistic puzzle pieces that would help them built a complete picture of this mystery language.
- In the late 1700s, the mystery language had been christened ‘Proto-Indo-European.’
- By the early 1800s, linguists had more or less decoded the Proto-Indo-European language, including its relation to modern and ancient languages. They had also developed a robust framework that is still used by scholars to this day.
- The language question was essentially settled. However, the mystery of the Proto-Indo-European people continued to be a hotly contested topic until the beginning of the 21st Century.
- The entire field of Indo-European studies faced huge setbacks after the Second World War, having been steeped in controversy due to being associated with naughty, forbidden racial theories. However, a few brave and dedicated scholars persevered, unperturbed by the politicization (though some cucking was involved).
- Eventually, through the collaborative efforts of linguists, archaeologists, and comparative mythologists (such as Georges Dumézil), the location of the PIE homeland was narrowed down to two regions:
1. Present-day Eastern Europe (Southern Ukraine and Southwest Russia), via Marija Gimbutas’ Steppe Hypothesis (1956).
2. Present-day Turkey, via Colin Renfrew’s Anatolian Hypothesis (1987).
The Anatolia vs Steppe debate raged on (politely) for a few decades, until finally, in 2015, the Harvard ‘Reich Lab’ released their groundbreaking archaeogenetic study: ‘Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe’ [source]. The validity of the Steppe Hypothesis was conclusively proven, as well as the existence of the long-hypothesized Proto-Indo-European people.
The Steppe Hypothesis is also known as the “Kurgan Hypothesis,” named after the giant burial mounds constructed by Indo-Europeans.
- Mounds were often decorated with anthropomorphic stone obelisks, called ‘stelae.’ On the left is a stela of the Late Proto-Indo-European Yamnaya culture.
The Proto-Indo-European homeland was inhabited by a cluster of closely related ethnic groups known in archaeogenetic terms as the Western Steppe Herders (WSH). The WSH are descended from two main populations, Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers (EHG) and Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers (CHG). The EHG contributed a minimum of 56% and the CHG maximum of 44% to WSH DNA. Generally, WSH were 70% EHG and 30% CHG.
The CHG genetic lineages were almost exclusively female in origin, which means that somebody was doing the bride stealing. Some WSH, such as the Sredny Stog people, also had ancestry from EEF women (again, bride stealing). This admixture began to occur around 5,000 BC.
The EHG were predominantly descended from a mysterious population of mammoth-hunting Caucasoids from Siberia, who are known to us as the Ancient North Eurasians (ANE). Around 75% of EHG ancestry was ANE, while the other 25% was WHG. In simple terms, the ANE migrated West out of Siberia and became EHGs after absorbing some WHG DNA. The ANE also made a genetic contribution to the CHG (~35%), meaning that WSH populations were over 50% ANE.
There’s still some debate as to which specific WSH culture within the Proto-Indo-European homeland constituted the original Proto-Indo-Europeans. The Khvalynsk (4900 – 3500 BC) and Sredny Stog (4500 – 3500 BC) peoples are the strongest candidates. It may have been both. More information will be revealed via upcoming genetic studies.
The .gif map below shows the approximate expansion of the Indo-Europeans around Europe and Eurasia, from ~3,000 BC to ~300 AD. This expansion brought Indo-European culture, language, and DNA to the majority of the Eurasian continent.
I’m in the process of writing a much longer introduction to the Indo-European worldview, which will include information on mythology, culture, social structure, religion, etc., so here’s a quick summary:
- The Proto-Indo-Europeans were semi-nomadic pastoralists, with domesticated dogs, cattle, and horses. The latter two played major roles in Proto-Indo-European religion, culture, and mythology.
- They practiced agriculture, adopting some techniques common to the Early European Farmers, such as cereal cultivation and plowing.
- They were among the earliest cultures to develop the wheel, which they may have stolen from a Caucasian or Iranian people around the Caucasus mountains but we’re currently not sure about how they got the technology — they may have invented it independently.
- As such, chariots and wagons were central to their culture. This technology allowed them to rapidly expand and dominate almost the entirety of Eurasia.
- They were an extremely warlike people who basically believed that if they could take something by force, then it rightfully belonged to them, be it cattle, women, territory, or property (which is why they conquered the entirety of Eurasia).
- They had an oral poetic tradition and were heavily focused on honor, fame, and glory, as well as hierarchy, order, and duty.
- They were extremely patriarchal and had a patrimonial kinship system.
- They had a stratified society, divided into three castes: Priests, Warriors, and Workers (which included herders, craftsmen, etc.). This caste system continued to exist in various forms among all subsequent Indo-European societies in Europe, until the French Revolution in the 1700s.
- They had a conception of a Cosmic Order, Natural Law, or Universal Truth (that is too complicated to summarize here).
- Their pantheon featured a sky father (‘Dyḗus Phtḗr’), earth mother (‘Dhéǵhōm’), dawn goddess (‘Hausōs’), and thunder god (‘Perkʷunos’), among others.
- Jupiter, the Roman derivative of Dyḗus Phtḗr:
- Assorted chariot/solar/Dharma wheels from later Indo-European cultures.
- Trundholm sun chariot of the Indo-European Nordic Bronze Age (1700–500 BC).
The Proto-Indo-Europeans have been described as “unimaginably violent” and “some of the most murderous people of all time,” which might be Leftist propaganda, but I’m not going to complain about Leftoids hyping up my ancestors. Either way, the Proto-Indo-Europeans and their descendants were evidently very good at conquering. Their success can be attributed to their advanced technology and warlike culture, but also to their immense physical strength. The Proto-Indo-Europeans were very powerfully built people, similarly to the WHG — but much taller. The ‘Late Proto-Indo-European’ Yamnaya peoples have the highest ever calculated genetic selection for height. Big guys.
Below is a collection of Late Proto-Indo-European facial reconstructions, mostly depicting men of the Corded Ware and Yamnaya cultures. Phenotypically, the Yamnaya had mostly brown hair and brown eyes, while blue eyes, blond, and red hair were common among the Corded Ware and their descendants. The Indo-Iranian Andronovo peoples — who were descended predominately from the Corded Ware and partially from the Yamnaya — were almost entirely blond-haired and blue-eyed.
Below: Respective territories of Late Proto-Indo-European cultures.
- Note: The Bell Beakers of Northwestern Europe (e.g., UK) were directly descended from a Corded Ware culture known as the Single Grave Culture.
- Yamnaya jewelry:
Below is a collection of EHG reconstructions. The Ancient North Eurasians may have looked quite similar to this.
- The Shigir Idol, an 11,500-year-old Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer artifact:
The Proto-Indo-European invasions mark the final major shift in European genetics, which have changed very little from around 2500 BC to the present day. Despite Europe being in a near-constant state of invasion and occupation by various non-European races (e.g. Huns, Moors, Arabs, Turks, and Mongols), these invasive peoples left almost no genetic footprint whatsoever — a maximum of 2-5% in specific isolated regions, but mostly 0%.
In summary, modern Europeans are a product of three closely-related races and two major migrations, both of which brought huge cultural and technological revolutions. In modern terms, these migrations would be biologically comparable to Chinese intermixing with Japanese, or Saudis intermixing with Libyans, or something like that. They were in no way comparable to present-day mass migration of non-White peoples into European lands — as the media often attempts to spin.
10.1 “But what about mixed people??????”
I’m only including this appendix entry because I know that some pedant will undoubtedly say “BuT wHaT aBoUt Da MiXeD pEoPeL?”
I’m not going to go all “Nuremberg Laws” here but “White” should obviously only include people who are overwhelmingly majority genetically European, visually pass as being European, and behave European.
For mixed individuals, this depends entirely upon what race they are mixed with. Udmurts, for example, are ~25% East Asian (Siberian) but most look “European enough” and would identify as White. Plus, they have more Proto-Indo-European DNA than much of Europe. Nobody would kick the Udmurts out of the “ethnostate.” Same situation with the Saami (~25% East Asian, Siberian).
Above: Udmurts. Below: Saami.
On the other hand, individuals who are ~25% Sub-Saharan African and ~75% White rarely pass for European, rarely identify as White, and almost always side with anti-White “muh oppression” narratives.
Clearly, we cannot judge these two situations as equal when the phenotypical and cultural effects of [White plus 25% East Asian/Siberian] and [White plus 25% Sub-Saharan African] are so dramatically different.
Below is a ‘Black Twitter’ meme that illustrates this point.
10.2. Extinct Europeans
I’m mainly including this appendix entry as a preemptive response to people who claim that “White people will never go extinct.” Multiple Indo-European races have already gone extinct. The most notable examples include:
- Anatolian races, such as the Hittites and Luwians.
- Indo-Aryan Mittani and Kassites of the Middle East; who were assimilated into local populations, as they formed a ruling class of foreign elites.
- Indo-Europeans of East Asia, whose territory almost reached Beijing, such as the Tocharians, Yuezhi, Wusun, and Ordos peoples; most of whom were assimilated into Turkic and Hunnic populations, through conquest as well as peaceful intermixing. Some were genocided by the Chinese.
- Iranians of Central Asia, such as the Scythians, Saka, Sogdians, and Bactrians; most of whom were turned into hapas by Turkic expansion. Western Scythians were absorbed into Slavic populations and, since both groups were basically the same race, that probably doesn’t count as biological extinction, but cultural. Either way, the Scythian way of life ceased to exist.
In every case, these populations were absorbed by more numerous invading peoples or more numerous peoples that they themselves had invaded. Note the conspicuous looking gap in the center of the Indo-European languages map below.
Remnants of these Indo-European populations still exist. Some Central Asian Indo-Iranian minorities closely resemble Northern Europeans to this day, though they are few in number and by no means representative of the average Central Asian.
Additionally, it’s not uncommon for certain East Asian / Indo-European mixed populations to exhibit European features, such as light hair and eye pigmentation, deeper eye sockets, and higher nose bridges. See, for example, the Turkic Uyghurs of Western China, who peacefully absorbed the less numerous Indo-European Tocharians (who had previously been partially exterminated by Han conquest).
The Uyghurs are an interesting case. They viewed the Indo-Europeans as mentors, adopting their culture, written language, and religion (Buddhism). Many years after absorbing the Tocharians, the Uyghurs were forcibly converted to Islam via conquest, after which they failed to retain memory of their Buddhist ancestors, and set about destroying their own cultural heritage, monuments, and temples, believing that it had been created by “infidels.” See: Bezeklik Thousand Buddha Caves.
- Tocharian monk tutoring a Uyghur:
10.3. Source of Data
The data used in this article is mostly from a 2014/2015 study conducted by some geneticists of the Harvard ‘Reich Lab’ (not that kind of reich). The study is kind of old at this point but still holds up pretty well. The Reich Lab has done some excellent work on European origins and is, generally speaking, a reliable and impartial source — especially compared to the Marxoid shitshow that is modern mainstream “science.”
I’m not going to explain the ins and outs of the study here, but if you want to know more about it, read my article A Race-By-Race Breakdown of Human Genetic Diversity [Illustrated Guide for Novices]. That contains everything you need to know about the type of study, how it was conducted, who conducted it, etc. It also covers the genetic composition of the entire “Human Race,” if that interests you. I’m in the process of compiling a sort of “master post” of genetic studies on Europeans, mainly for my own benefit, but I’ll include a link to it here once it is complete.
Excellent article, I already knew much of it, but this is a good summary of what you need to know when it comes to white racial history. Like “Who we are” by Pierce, but shorter and more up to date, even though the book is still very good in my opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think the Sami and Udmerts consider themselves White/European.
Despite the fact that some of them have White phenotypes, their culture and way of life is a bit too Asiatic for them to feel a kinship with the peoples of Europe.
The same applies to the large amount of North American Indians that have European appearances, yet consider themselves Amerinds.
Native Americans are completely incomparable to Udmurts. Udmurts would blend into Finland without issue, the same cannot be said of NA.
I think he could have been talking about mutts, because I’ve never heard of a full-blooded Amerindian with a European phenotype. But, you could judge for yourself with a picture of me: https://imgur.com/a/yPY0lbo. Three quarters West European, one quarter Native American.
Like you mentioned in your appendix, the source of that 25% will dramatically change your phenotype and behaviors. Quarter African seems to destroy any semblance of a European phenotype and therefore identification with it, whereas for me, a Quarter Amerindian has not given me turdskin, and obviously I still have the behavioral proclivity to be pro-white because I can still easily identify as a mutted white.
Correction: In point (4), I meant to type *EHG-CHG cline* instead of *EEF-CHG cline*, and *WHG-EHG cline* instead of *WHG-EEF cline*
I applaud you for this resource. We have so few of these.
What is the cutoff for being European?
I agree there are visuals, behaviors, instincts and inclinations that naturally distinguish Europeans from other collectives. Although indoctrination can twist those into instruments of self-destruction.
Nick Fuentes is 79% European. Does he even qualify as European? What should the cutoff be?
I feel this is going to be an important question in the future as Europeans re-group and recover from the mess we’re in.
I live in California. It’s hell here.
As the article explains, percentages depend on the population(s) that an individual is mixed with, so there is no set definitive cut-off. You could stretch it to 70% in certain specific cases, like Udmurts. But what is important is that race is defined by both genetics and morphology/phenotype. Does Nick look, speak, think, and behave European? Yes. Is he majority genetically European? Yes. If you didn’t know his genetic history you’d think he was an average Central European.
IMO we have slightly bigger problems than creating hypothetical Nuremberg laws.
What about half North African/half European who also look phenotypically White and who are pro White?
white means “biologically european”, it doesn’t mean “looks kinda european in this person’s subjective opinion”
“If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck…”
It also depends on local attitudes. Due to, uh, *reasons* in the US someone who’s even part black will be identified as black. Less by others and more by themselves now. They’ll refuse to “act white” mostly due to the massive social pressure.
This is however, inverse where I live (Serbia) where even mulattos (the, like, double digit amount we have) usually act far more native. There’s no propaganda push for them to act special, and there’s definitely no tolerance for bullshit.
I think the gypsies help with this. Anyone dark skinned and with an IQ above room temperature will do everything in their power to behave in ways that will lead them to not be associated with gypsies
Today white = European, but this was not always the case. The people of the Middle East (even those speaking “Semitic” languages, which is not a race but a linguistic group) were originally white caucasians who only became what they are today after 1400 years of mixing with Arabs and their black slaves. Many sources, both Greek and Hebrew (like Josephus and the Bible) confirm the men of Israel/Canaan looked the same as their Greek and Anatolian neighbours. Another work, the Aeneid, describes the Phoenician-Berber queen Dido as having golden hair.
The same can be said of the Sumerians, Assyrians and Babylonians who often depict themselves with blue eyes and reddish-orange skin (which is typical for someone spending time outside in those places). The faces on their artwork are undoubtedly caucasian and similar to the Persians (which at the time were also white, as you said).
Egypt is the same thing except they became mixed well before the rest of the Middle East and North Africa, possibly as early as the late 2nd millennium BC, through a slow process of integrating black immigrants and slaves from the south. It definitely happened after the 700s when the country was ruled by black pharaohs, the result of which would kill Egypt’s chance at ever becoming a world power again. Their role would be reduced to a glorified grain farm (except for the Greek city of Alexandria). Just compare the bust of Nefertiti, who could pass for German, and the Faiyum portraits, which show a 50/50 mix of mulattoes and whites (the latter is used by liberals and LARPers to try and show Egypt always looked like that, which is not true). The Arab invasion also contributed to the DNA of the modern “Egyptian”.
Also it’s worth noting that Diodorus Siculus and the king of Axum describe both an uncivilized “black” population in southern Egypt along with a civilized “red” population. Clearly racial differences were obvious back then.
I just wanted to comment this because I saw you arguing with some dummies on Twitter about “Iraqis” in Britain and other nonsense. I attached a website that has lots of pictures from the ancient Near East and also some descriptions you can read through, just ignore the website owner’s ridiculous theology.
yes i agree with all of this. i think you will find my sources in my comment intersting if it is approved.
Just in case the website I posted above doesn’t go through, just google “teknatoutheou white aram”.
“Sometimes this three-way split is referred to as Nord, Med, and Slav.”
Where do Germanics fit into this? Are they the same as the Nords?
Yep. The three way split is too simplified imo, but close enough.
As an American of English heritage the K11 Ancient Admixtures and K10 Modern Admixtures both place my genetics at overwhelmingly WHG. According to the former test, I’m 20% more WHG than EEF or PIE. My wife scores similarly as someone of primarily German heritage.
It’s very odd to see multiple DNA calculators placing all the Europeans I know at majority WHG, while the DNA tests I see commonly cited in articles say EEF and PIE compose the majority of European blood.
I suspect they’re lying for various political reasons.
I’ve heard similar things with people reporting much more ANE ancestry than predicted. I think the ADMIXTURE analyses used in studies are averages, so individuals could have higher levels of specific ancestral populations. Not sure they’re lying for political reasons. I don’t think the analyses used are 100% accurate anyway.
I agree with your definition of the White race although I’m curious what your take is on what the other races are and how many total races there are. I saw your other page ‘race-by-race breakdown’ that seemed to be more of a breakdown of subraces although K=7 (from the introduction) aligns with what I know. There are seven races (White, Black, Asian, Native American, Middle Eastern, South Asian, Oceanian). The wider racial classification (mongoloid, caucasoid, negroid, australoid) is way too wide and anything more than the seven I mentioned would be talking about mixed-race ‘races’ which are simply ethnicities/subraces, not races (i.e. Jews, Polynesians, Caucasians etc) or sparsely populated ethnic groups in Siberia. Race deniers make me sick with their pseudoscience but I sure wish more people would get on board with what seems to me fairly obvious – the seven races of the world.
Around seven seems appropriate.
Native American, Sub-Saharan African, Middle Eastern, European, East Asian, South Asian, Oceanian.
It would also be make sense to split Sub-Saharan African into multiple races due to the distinct morphological differences between Khoisan and Bantu peoples. E.g., the skull shape of a north and south European are very similar, but the skull shape of Khoisan and Bantu are quite different.
To be taxonomically consistent with every other species on earth, these 7/8 groups should be classed as subspecies. “Race” is an informal classification that can be used to refer to basically any level of the taxonomic hierarchy — I’ve even seen it applied to Families (e.g., “the canine race”).
It is insane that people have been led to believe such nonsense about race, but that’s the power of total media/education/state dominance and constant propaganda.
Given the fact there are only about 100,000 Khoisan people, that hardly qualifies them as being a race considering the definition of race is ‘the major groupings or divisions’ of humankind (despite their different skull shape). Not to mention, Khoisan and Bantu people still evolved from the same racial cluster. Phenotypically, no one will ever mistake Khoisan people as any race other than Black.
Regarding taxonomy, our species (homo sapiens) technically has a subspecies (homo sapiens sapiens) although that could be reclassified. Call it race, population, subspecies or whatever name you want – these groups should be properly and officially be scientifically recognized as such.
Also, I emailed you a race map I designed. Feel free to use it as you please.
A subspecies is a subspecies regardless of how small the population is. A polar bear doesn’t stop being a polar bear because they’re on the verge of extinction. Khoisan are significantly different to Black Africans, which was immediately evident to anthropologists of previous centuries. European South Africans call them Colored and distinguish them as a different racial group.
There is no consistent definition of “race” since it’s an informal taxonomic category that can be applied to any taxonomic division.
Taxonomically, the polar bear is not a subspecies, it is a species. Khoisan and Bantu are both of the same species (and technically subspecies (homo sapiens sapiens)) and in order for a group to be a subspecies it must be significantly different (e.g. dogs are a subspecies of the wolf species). All they have to do is just slightly redefine or refine the word ‘race’ to make it ‘formal’ much in the same way Pluto was abruptly stripped of its planet status after they redefined ‘planet.’ Perhaps we may agree to disagree on that front but more importantly I think we both agree that race (or subspecies) exists and should be scientifically recognized as such.
I thought polar bears were a subspecies of brown bear but regardless the point still stands that colored Africans are significantly phenotypically different to black Africans, plus the genetic distance between Khoisan and Bantu is huge. You may as well start lumping Melanasians in with Bantu if you include Khoisan within the same racial grouping.
Nobody before the 1960s thought that “races” weren’t subspecies and the modern taxonomic classification of “Homo sapiens sapiens = all of humanity” was invented around the 1980s and is complete nonsense, H. s. sapiens was originally just an alias for H. s. Europaeus.
Plus there’s no need to make “race” an official taxon rank when you can just use the correct rank: subspecies.
Italians and Swedes are significantly phenotypically different but are still of the same race. Again, no one would mistake Khoisan people as any other race than Black. Just because the Khoisan people inbred their way to being genetically distant from Bantus does not make it a race or a subspecies. Essentially, they are a degenerative ethnic group of the Black race. No different with most Siberian ethnic groups, they inbred their way to their own genetic signature distancing themselves from other Asians. Finally, Melanesians look Black but they cluster far apart from one another (as far apart as Asians are from Blacks).
Khoisan vs Black:
Obviously far more divergent than North European vs South European. They have completely different skull shapes, for starters.
Khoisan vs Black distinction appears at K=5
Diversity within Caucasoid population appears slightly at K=8 and significantly at K9
Admixture analysis of African populations:
(from this paper https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/787515v1.full.pdf)
Feel free to disagree with the majority of European anthropologists and racial theorists for the last few hundred years and call Khoisan “Black” (because you can’t tell the difference) someplace else, but don’t post nonsense in my comment section.
Pre-colonial Eurasian gene.
Yellow-brown skin which was likely SE Asian color originally.
SA was never black land.
Thanks for a fact-packed summary. I have been interested in the “horse cultures” of Europe/Central Asian for a long time.
“White,” does not include Turkish, North African, Middle Eastern, or Caucasus peoples,
In North africa Turkey and the levant specifically especially before the islamic conquests specifically i must politely disagree at least to a general extent, although i realize this statement rings more with the present day. because alot of these people are now very mixed with arab, or blacks especially the muslims.
In Lebanon for example they speak arabic and have alot of arabic names but this is due to the arabic islamic influence.
Many of the christians in Lebanon however are very majorly med white especially the marionite christans. The pre islamic berbers were largely of european descent and the ones that mixed with phonecians are included. The phonecians are not mentioned anywhere here but the phonecians are aryan. The also were one of the most productive and powerful race in the mediterranian and worshipped blue eyed red haired Gods, one of them being Baal, known to the germanics and nordics as Thor. There is also a city in Lebanon named after him called Baalbek. I am half lebanese from my dads side, and the lebanese share 90 percent of their dna from the ancient canaanites/phonecians. phonecians have been shown to have europan DNA, and are even said to be the origins of the britons and scots. The ancient Lebanese mixed with greeks romans and berbers. This not only comes from my father but my own research and looking at my own genetic samples back this up. no one in my family tree from his side is muslim. I realise you mentioned cherry picking and maybe you would put this in that category. I am saying however that there are still groups in that region who have their original genetics mostly intact who have not forgotten who they are :). And many have kept to their own.
my grandfather from my fathers side had black hair and blue eyes. my fathers mother had red hair and was part italian. there is alot of italian blood in Lebanon and palestine as well. some people there are even descendants of the ancient roman armies, and byzantine empires and theres even as small cluster of people who are descendants of the philistines who still worship Baal. As a pagan that made me happy as fuck to hear. Present day Canaan consists of Lebanon Jordan and Palestine. my cousins mother was from Jordan and he looks completely southern European. Alot of present day lebanese have some armanid strain which is more recent, and the rest pass for italians or spaniards. (the ones who dont have any arab blood) I also found i had distant cousins with haplogroups that came from vikings. thats either from the ancient white tribes of Canaan or from the crusades. The canaanites actually originated in Palestine not Lebanon. When the isrealites tried to genocide them along with the phillistines hittites and amorites ect, alot of them fled to lebanon. thier descendants where then the phonecians. Surpise, they didnt get us all! Whitie is still here!
i took an ancient sample report that told me my fathers side was mostly roman and ancient greek. but i also got phonecian, hittite, a tad of ottoman, and philistine. Rest assured alot of these “extinct white tribes” DNA live on and some even remember their anscestral Gods! My mother was germanic. i dont think it would be honest to say i was 100 percent white, but i am in the 90th percentile. i could have a tad of arab but if i do i dont know where from. i actually thought i was half arab for most of my life untill learning about genetics and history. My father has some armanid strain that didnt pass to me phenotypically. my phenotype is pretty much pure med white. dads family was fair to tan skinned also and everyone was very tall even the women.
As i mentioned before The preislamic berbers had alot of european DNA and some mostly. the amazigh specifically, and these were also deemed aryan by Hitler. my fathers haplogroup EL-618 is said to be in the european/mediterannean category and others have also speculated it to be phonecian specifically. Wikepedia told me it was paleoberber. again preislamic berbers didnt have a drop of arab blood. alot were also closely related to the egyptians and followed the egyptian pagan pantheon.
I like your articles alot they’ve got good reads
Middle Easterners of any region are not White, but there is genetic overlap with M-E populations and Europeans due to Indo-Europeans invading the Middle East and also due to shared Anatolian Neolithic Farmer ancestry in both Europe and M-E.
There is a big misconception that Arabs significantly changed the DNA of the Middle East when they expanded but that isn’t true. Most M-E populations are very similar or even near-identical to before the Arab expansion. MENA was never a White region, as many people like to claim, but ethnically it was almost the same as it is today.
(EEF = TUR_Barcin_N)
Check your email sometime.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How does the migration period around the collapse of Rome fit into this picture? There’s such a huge gap in time from the thousands BC age until the “historical” “European” times that it’s hard to make sense of the genetic maps… the people who are Germans in Germany for example supposedly migrated there around the fall of Rome…. but then they were there thousands of years previously. That whole narrative makes little sense when it’s contrasted against the genetic story that historians are attempting to narrate these days.
these maps explain. i summarized main events depicted in each one : https://thuletide.wordpress.com/2021/05/06/maps-ancient-prehistory-atlases-eurasian-migrations-from-the-paleolithic-to-the-middle-ages/
Excellent presentation as always, Thule! Keep up the good work.
TLDR; white = Caucasian. Caucasians can be found in Europe, the MENA region, and parts of the Indian subcontinent.
No, no, wrong.
White = European.
“Caucasoid” = all West Eurasians including non-White people like Arabs.
Caucasian (accurately defined) means “People from the Caucasus,” which is a very tiny subset of West Eurasians.
Please explain to me why South Europeans should be considered White…they are phenotypically so far removed from what we think a quintessential White person looks like, that it honestly feels disingenuous to consider them White.
Don’t get me wrong I’m not a Nordicist, I have nothing against Meds, I’m just saying. The average Med does not look White at all to me.
I think White = North European might be a better definition.
That’s a stupid definition and if you read the article you would know why it’s a stupid definition.
I did read your article, but you did not explain why pan-european definition is imperative. You just said white = European and moved on.
I explained that all Whites descend from the same tree ancestral populations and form an obviously distinct genetic cluster. That’s how the term has always been used. Except in some old anthropological classifications where it was also applied to Middle Easterners, North Africans, and even South Asians. But in these cases it had no relation to pigmentation phenotype.
Can you please make an optics-friendly version of this and post it on one of your Substacks?
Would like to send this to a confused normie or a leftist, but I fear they’ll dismiss it once they see the rest of your blog and find out you’re a white nationalist
Definitely. It’s on the long list of articles I need to finish/revise.
Are Germans and Austrians distinct or are they the same ethnicity?
It seems there is a bit of confusion on this topic at Wikipedia
Germany arose from the Holy Roman Empire which was a multiethnic confederation of various Germanic peoples and although Germans have largely merged into one ethnic group, there are still differences in the population on a north-south gradient in terms of culture, language, and phenotype.
German and Austrian languages are mutually intelligable, and Austrians are pretty much identical to southern Germans, like Bavarians. However, they differ culturally and phenotypically from northern Germans, like Saxons.
You could probably classify them as a sub-ethnicity of “German,” in the same way that you would classify Bavarians or Saxons.