Print this post Print this post

The Racial Makeup of the Turks

Turkish actress Beren Saat

1,248 words

Islamic Turkey, which may yet be incorporated into Europe by the “West’s” totalitarian leadership class, has recently fallen out of favor with elites because of a perceived lack of servility toward Israel—a departure from the historic norm.

Turkey recognized Israel shortly after its formation, and the Mossad, with Turkey’s cooperation, deeply penetrated the Turkish National Security Service. Manipulation of Turkey was part of Israel’s “periphery” or “triangular” strategy, which included similar relationships with Kurds (scattered across Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Armenia and Russia) and Iranians up to 1979. (Israelis trained the personnel of SAVAK, the Shah of Iran’s secret police.)

Apparently because all of these people were more or less racially Indo-European they were easily exploited by the Jews in their endless bloody schemes against the Arabs.

The Turks

The name Turk was first employed by the Chinese to designate the nomadic people who controlled the vast area from Mongolia to the Black Sea until 924 AD.

Turks are today found in Turkey, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, and Chinese Turkestan (Xinjiang). Their cultures and racial makeup vary considerably due to ethnic admixture. The only similarities among them are religious and linguistic: virtually all Turks are Muslim, and Turkic languages belong to the (non-Indo-European) Altaic language family spoken in western and central Asia. In 1980 Turks numbered about 73 million.

After Turkey, Germany hosts the largest Turkish population in the world. Bulgaria, France, Britain, the United States, Holland, and Austria also rank among the top ten countries with the largest Turkish populations.

In Race (1974), John R. Baker classified the Turks (“Turanids”) of Central Asia—the people who occupy the “huge territory extending from the shores of the Caspian Sea to the borders of Mongolia”—as a hybrid race created initially by the admixture of two geographic races (the Europid and Mongolid) followed by intermarriage within itself generation after generation. Since Europid influence predominates in the physical characters of the Turks, presumably because the original population intermarried with Europids more often than with Mongolids, Baker classified even Central Asian Turanids as a subrace of Europids. He wrote that “The Mongolid element in their features becomes progressively less towards the western limit of their territory.”

The Population of Turkey

Turkish actor Kivanc Tatlitug

Turkey has served as a bridge for the movement of peoples between Asia and Europe throughout history.

The base historical population was composed of Indo-European-speaking Hittites, who invaded the region around 1900 BC. They conquered earlier inhabitants speaking a non-Indo-European agglutinative language.

Subsequently, ancient Greeks settled along the Aegean coasts of Anatolia. The peninsula later fell to the Indo-European Persians and Romans. Present day Turkey ultimately formed the core of the thousand-year Byzantine, or Eastern Roman, Empire (395–1453).

The Battle of Manzikert (August 1071) was pivotal in the history of the Eastern Roman Empire. Following the Byzantine defeat, invading Seljuk Turks swiftly established hegemony over much of Asia Minor. The Seljuk empire split into independent states in the 1100s. During the next century these states were overrun by the Mongol hordes of Genghis Khan.

After the Mongol wave receded, Osmanli Turks completed the overthrow of the Byzantine Empire in 1453, establishing the Ottoman Empire in its stead. The Ottoman Empire was finally dissolved in 1918, following the end of World War I. At the height of its power, Ottoman territory encompassed much of the Middle East, large areas of Eastern Europe, and most of North Africa.

The Turks who conquered Anatolia were nomadic pastoralists. Although their arrival placed the distinctive stamp of Turkish language, religion and culture on the region, their numbers were insufficient to fundamentally alter the genetic makeup of the conquered peoples.

An interesting series of forced population transfers occurred after 1900, raising the percentage of ethnic Turks in Turkey from fifty-five to eighty percent. The transfers involved the expulsion of formerly large Armenian and Greek minorities from Anatolia and the importation of Turkic and non-Turkic Muslim populations. In the decade from 1989 to 2000, for example, 300,000 such Muslims were absorbed. The alleged genocide of 1.5 million Armenians by Turkey in 1915 also figures into the population shift.

In his Anthropological Glossary (1985), Roger Pearson wrote that Turks are “today absorbed into the Caucasoid population of Anatolia.” By Caucasoid he meant the Europid geographical race “customarily subdivided into Nordic, or Northwestern European, East Baltic or Northeastern European, Mediterranean, Atlanto-Mediterranean, Alpine, Dinaric, Armenoid, Iranic and Indic. Caucasoids are generally characterized by light skin, narrow to medium-broad faces, high bridged noses, and an absence of prognathism.”

Carleton Coon on the Turks

Physical anthropologist Carleton Coon, writing in the 1960s, used the Turks as an illustration of the principle that “races and cultures can change places.”

According to Coon, the Turks were virtually indistinguishable, physically, from the Greeks, except for having less body fat and slightly larger faces. Clinal variations were evident moving west to east: the lightest skins were seen along Turkey’s Aegean coast, and the percentage of mixed and light eyes among western Turks was as high as 85 percent.

At the time of their arrival in Asia Minor in the 1200s, the Ottoman Turks were “a small band of horsemen numbering between 400 and 2,000, the remnants of a nomadic tribe expelled from Central Asia by the Mongols.” They arrived without women, and intermarried with the comparatively numerous Caucasoid Greeks, Armenians, Kurds and the few Seljuk Turks and Turkomans who then populated Anatolia.

Coon concluded, “The Turkomans today are primarily Caucasoid. In body measurements, physical appearance, and in the ABO blood groups, the living Turks of Turkey show little visible trace of their Mongoloid origin.”

L. L. Cavalli-Sforza on the Turks

Turkish actor Burak Özçivit

Utilizing population genetics, Cavalli-Sforza and co-authors came to the same conclusion in The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994): “On the basis of present knowledge, Turks seem to have been relatively unsuccessful in making their genetic presence felt, even when they occupied modern Turkey, coming from the East.”

The reason for this is that recent historical migrations—at least prior to the advent of contemporary formal policies of white population destruction and replacement—could have undetectable genetic impacts when the local population density of the earlier inhabitants was high and armies of invaders were small:

When mobility [of pastoral nomadic peoples] became very high, the chance of influencing the local gene pools of the invaded countries decreased considerably. Small and efficient armies could rapidly conquer large countries, and there was no time for invaders to multiply fast enough for their contribution to the local gene pool to be easily discernible, especially if the invaded countries were highly developed agriculturally and had a high population density. The chance of influencing culture and language, however, is much greater than that of influencing genes. A powerful elite of conquerors can—even if an absolute minority—impose its rule and, with it, its language and customs, but is much more limited in extending its genes.

A parallel was drawn with Hungary: “Even in the case of the invasion of Hungary by the Magyars [nomadic, part-Turkic Finno-Ugric speakers], which was certainly of greater relative demographic weight than the Turkish expansion and was certainly followed by settlement, it has been laborious to find specific genetic traces, which turn out to be at the limit of detectability.”

In sum, the Turkish language and Islamic religion were imposed on a predominantly Indo-European-speaking people—Greek being the official language of the Byzantine Empire. Racially and genetically, Anatolian Turks are similar to other Caucasoid populations. Differences are largely cultural, linguistic, and religious. A caveat is that the region has a complex population history extending back several millennia, and deserves further genetic scrutiny. At present, however, the biological picture is as indicated.


This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , . Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. Otto Schindler
    Posted March 25, 2011 at 9:18 am | Permalink

    The article lacks serious historical accuracy and scholarship. To speak of an ” alleged Armenian genocide”; not to mention the slaughter ( not population transfers) of the entire christian population of Anatolia betrays any credibility for the author.

  2. Kieron Yates
    Posted March 25, 2011 at 9:49 am | Permalink

    Ditto. It is absolutely ludicrous to refer to the Armenian Genocide perpetrated by the sick men of Europe as “alleged.” While most Turks are racially Europids they are culturally simply sick, a lot worse than your average White wigger. I cannot possibly imagine a scenario in this day and age where these people can be rehabilitated for the lack of a better world back into Greek/Armenian/Balkan cultural mainstream.

    • Caleo
      Posted March 25, 2011 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

      What exactly does it mean when you say ” simply sick” ?
      The point of this article is that the vast bulk of the population of Turkey is of Indo-European ancestry.
      The photos provided are not anomalies. I’ve been to Istanbul, and almost everyone looks like the actors in the article.
      As far as the atrocities committed by the Ottomans, they certainly weren’t any worse than the abuse any warlike nation visits on those it conquers. And speaking truthfully, Europeans have done much worse on a much larger scale.
      This has always been my problem with WN. The seeming inability to deal with the reality that the much hated Turks( or Persians, Kurds, Chechens, etc.) are as white as most Europeans.
      History is much more complex, and interesting, than most WN seem to think.
      And for the record, I am a proud European American who does NOT want Turkey allowed into the EU.

      • Posted March 27, 2011 at 8:24 am | Permalink

        @ “…are as white as most Europeans”


        • Razvan
          Posted March 27, 2011 at 11:51 am | Permalink

          The belly dancers, actors, the girls at the hotel reception usually are pretty (meaning looking European and modern). The vast majority is not European. A visit at the Great Bazaar is enough to find the truth.

          The article fails to take into account the polygamy factor. In 100 years probably was enough to change the indo-european character.

          What looks “European” are the very few that managed to keep in a degree their racial purity. They are most probably the grandsons of Janissaries – the military elite who were pure Europeans – stolen by the Turks and raised as savage warriors.

        • Caleo
          Posted March 27, 2011 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

          Most Europeans don’t have blond hair and blue eyes, so yes, they look like most Europeans. And genomic testing has confirmed that the bulk of the population of Turkey has less than %10 Asiatic ancestry, if that.
          That was the point of the article. Anatolia was Indo-European, and the Ottomans were a warrior elite that imposed their language and culture on the masses. The Ottoman elite barely made a dent in the genetic makeup of the population.
          Again, I think the Turks belong in Turkey, and should not be allowed into the EU.
          But they are primarily an Indo -European people who happen to speak Turkish.

          • Kadphises
            Posted March 1, 2016 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

            “Anatolia was Indo-European, and the Ottomans were a warrior elite that imposed their language and culture on the masses. The Ottoman elite barely made a dent in the genetic makeup of the population.”
            Paraphrasing you, one could as well say: “Anatolia was racially Middle-Eastern, which means of a brachycephalic, ‘Armenoid’ type, just like most Jews, and the Indo-Europeans were a warrior elite that imposed their language and culture on the masses. The Aryan elite barely made a dent in the genetic makeup of the population.”
            Genetics and physical anthropology show that the original Indo-Europeans whose purest descendants live in modern-day Skandinavia, are very different from modern-day Anatolians. That the amount of genetic contribution of ‘Mongoloid’ Turks to the latter was low, doesn’t mean they are racially Indo-European or White.

      • Karsten
        Posted March 27, 2011 at 11:53 am | Permalink

        It doesn’t matter to me what percentage of whiteness they have. They don’t belong in Germany. They are an alien people, it’s as simple as that.

        I like the Turks just fine. In Turkey. That’s their homeland. That’s where they should return. Not creating miscegenation within Germany, to say nothing of their effect upon the culture.

  3. Posted March 25, 2011 at 10:07 am | Permalink

    For other reasons, as well as his, I tend to agree with the conclusion of the first comment. And with the second.
    Exhibiting the photos of a few westernised Turks serves no purpose.

    • Posted March 27, 2011 at 8:19 am | Permalink

      Absolutely. Years ago a Newsweek article asked humorously, “Is Mexico blond?” because the Mexican TV commercials show blond Mexicans even though they are a tiny minority here.

      The same with Turkey.

  4. Petronius
    Posted March 25, 2011 at 11:12 am | Permalink

    Allright… I live in Germany, in a big city with a large Turkish population, and 99% Turks look as Oriental as it gets, and can be spotted without any doubt miles away.

    • Erik Nordman
      Posted March 26, 2011 at 11:03 pm | Permalink

      I was born and grew up in Scandinavia, with several thousands of Turks (primarily labor immigrants and their offspring) in my home town. They are clearly Central Asian-looking. The actors/actresses on those pictures are surely atypical.

  5. mysmajcus
    Posted March 25, 2011 at 11:33 am | Permalink

    Using pictures of turkish actors and actresses are grossly misrepresentative. Beautyful people, i.e. people who look european will be overrepresentated. Most turkish people look neither european or mongolian but anatolian, similar to kurds, persians and armenians. The “caucasian race” also contains the people of the middle east but I wouldn’t say that they are white or european. They are strangers to this land and should be treated as such.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 25, 2011 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

      Most certainly these people are strangers to any land other than Turkey. Yet if one objects to their presence in Greece or Germany or Spain, the objection cannot be entirely boiled down to race, unless one wants to do fine-grained genetic distance studies a la Frank Salter, which frankly seems a far-fetched explanation for de facto xenophobia and a pretty uncompelling case for adopting xenophobia. Besides, while the average Turk represents a negative store of genetic interests for the average Englishmen, when you look at individuals, I know of plenty of Englishmen who would have been improved if one of their parents were one of the Turkish or Bosnian actors depicted here, save perhaps for the last one, whom I chose because he clearly does have some Asiatic blood.

      White Nationalism, especially pan-European racial nationalism, can’t really object to good-looking Turks entering one’s country and joining one’s family. Yet there are real and compelling cultural and religious objections. And beyond that, one can make the case that all immigration, even eugenic immigration, is a bad thing for indigenous populations, simply because every new immigrant makes life a bit harder for the native born. I discuss this in my essay “A Nation of Immigrants?” elsewhere on this site.

      Pan-European racial nationalism is a product of colonial melting pots, an accommodation to the blending of European stocks in the colonies, a political doctrine to create white unity in our struggle for survival. As such, it is a much thinner form of nationalism than exists in Europe. And merely racial white nationalism can rightly be seen as subversive from a European point of view, since to racial nationalist eyes, good-looking Turks might actually be a genetic improvement over ugly-looking Europeans.

      • Karsten
        Posted March 25, 2011 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

        White Nationalism, especially pan-European racial nationalism, can’t really object to good-looking Turks entering one’s country and joining one’s family.

        I’m afraid that I must strongly and vehemently disagree with this. This is an absolute dealbreaker, one of those places where the line must be drawn. I make no distinction between having Turks in Germany and having, say, Blacks in any white ethnostate. Both are racially ruinous. Turks are not Germans, certainly not Teutons, and thus they do not belong in Germany. Their presence changes the race and the culture (for the two are one) through miscegenation.

        • Euromike
          Posted March 29, 2011 at 7:31 am | Permalink

          I fully agree.

      • Razvan
        Posted March 26, 2011 at 11:56 am | Permalink

        “since to racial nationalist eyes, good-looking Turks might actually be a genetic improvement over ugly-looking Europeans.”

        The average Turk is waaaaay too different than those actors (probably grandsons of janissaries). A short visit in Istanbul might cure any wishful thinking regarding the mysterious oriental beauty. And what you call ugly will become suddenly pure beauty.

        The incident signals something different. The political elite has to prevent an Islamic revolution so they had to adopt a certain stance. But frankly speaking, Turkey without the American money (investments, technologies, military and financial aid) is zero.

        The region politics is really complicated and any gesture might signify many different things. One should be a good analyst to break the problem.

        Opening the gates to them is wrong and dangerous. The relations between Turks and Jews are much complicated and much older than someone can believe. During their Empire they used the Jews in important positions, gave them different monopolies (wine, salt and guess what: coin production) and the Jewish usurers in Istanbul played of course a major role.

        As an historical parenthesis Michael the Brave in Muntenia had to burn down an old palace – Turks ambassadors and Jewish usurers locked inside.

        The role of Jews in Turkey is not as new and surely not an exhausted one.

  6. Posted March 25, 2011 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    Look, the line has to be drawn somewhere. There are parts of Northern Africa racially indistinguishable from Sicily. There are parts of Portugal that wouldn’t strike the typical White American as racially kindred. A good subset of Eastern Europeans have a smattering of Mongoloid ancestry, and a hearty portion of White Americans have fractional Amerindian ancestry.

    I’m sure a lot of Turks are “pretty much White”, but you’ve got to draw the line at Europe. Any attempt to draw the line beyond the boundaries of the European Continent is ill-advised, as opening the topic up to a flexible anthropological debate will only threaten the inclusion of Portuguese, Italians, Greeks, and Spaniards. There is no line in the sand to be drawn where people are obviously White on one side and obviously non-White on the other, and questioning the legitimacy of the big obvious geographical line we’ve been granted with the hope of expanding the definition of Whiteness will have the opposite of the intended effect.

    I’m sure the two populations on each shore of the Aegean Sea look pretty similar. The whole thing is indeed somewhat arbitrary, favoring some relatively swarthy Greeks and penalizing some relatively fair Turks. But I could write a similar article on Tunisians, Moroccans, and Kazakhs, many of whom have light eyes, light complexions, and quite a bit of shared history with Europe.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 25, 2011 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

      If the issue is purely racial, then the lines drawn will be arbitrary. But if identity is more complex than mere racial identity then we might be able to draw finer lines without being arbitrary.

      • Verlis
        Posted March 27, 2011 at 10:36 am | Permalink

        Identity undoubtedly is more complex than race alone (at least in a “microracial” sense — macroracially is another story).

        In any case, there is simply no way known to man to draw fine lines without being arbitrary (only a “little bit” arbitrary is still arbtirary). And I’m not just referring to race here. Nature herself is fuzzy, in all of her manifestations. The extent to which this is so has only recently begun to be appreciated.

        Furthermore, you (or the Parrot or anyone) can “draw the lines” however you wish, but how will you enforce those dictates on your followers?

        Any attempt to draw the line beyond the boundaries of the European Continent is ill-advised, as opening the topic up to a flexible anthropological debate will only threaten the inclusion of Portuguese, Italians, Greeks, and Spaniards.

        Maybe. But you’re not the only one who can open up the topic, you know. I don’t know what percentage to put on it, but something like 50% of those places (and others beyond — all of the Balkans , even all the way up to Hungary) are at the very least visibly “questionable” and you can bet your bottom dollar that fact is going to be pointed out (as it often is on racial forums and blogs).

        And realistically, my lived experience is that people of those “European” backgrounds routinely experience greater “racial comfort” in the company of Turks and certain Arabs (but not all Arabs) than they do in the company of northern Europeans. (Not saying it’s always the case; only that it’s routine.) The difficulties are cultural, not racial, and not necessarily Islamic (qua Islam); it’s more the knowledge of belonging to different historical/civilizational spheres that tends to produce wariness.

        But if you’d like them to join you in “being for Race,” you could probably pull it off. Just lay out what’s on offer: a territory to call your own from which you can exclude people totally unlike yourselves, just as we [you, WNs] wish to exclude people totally unlike ourselves.

        And if they query why target them instead of making the offer open to all, answer that it is open to all, but that you are the people on who are most like us, the people with whom our interests overlap, and who can be expected to perplexed in a manner similar to us much more than other groups. That’s a sincere answer that doesn’t unnecessarily provoke or offend and which can still be relied upon (as much as anything else ) to garner support, at least in the crucial early stages.

        Lastly, Greg Johnson, this is difficult terrain to tread, yet it must be trodden. You’ve made a good start.

    • I
      Posted March 27, 2011 at 2:38 am | Permalink

      To me it’s a matter of numbers.

      A couple Turks? Like the small numbers that immigrated to the US pre-1965? Not a big deal. Count ’em as White. Same with the older waves of Armenian and Levantine Arab immigrants.

      At the numbers we’ve currently got in Europe, though? Not acceptable.

      • Verlis
        Posted March 27, 2011 at 10:43 am | Permalink

        You’re correct that it’s a question of numbers.

        Imagine a space alien visiting Earth. He’s new and exciting. Everyone loves him. One year later he points up at the sky. You look up. Space ships as far as the eye can see. He calls out, “Hey, come on down guys! They love us here!’

  7. Posted March 25, 2011 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

    Oh, and Kivanc Tatlitug is of Bosnian descent. So including him crosses over from merely being misrepresentative to being incorrect.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 25, 2011 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

      Yes and no. Yes, he is not a Turk, though apparently he is an actor in Turkey. But there are people in Western Europe who would consider him just as alien as a Turk because of his religion. Conversely, to a purely racial White Nationalist, he might look like a good son-in-law on purely eugenic grounds.

      • Euromike
        Posted March 28, 2011 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

        I grew up in Germany. Turks are NOT German. They can and should be friends and allies, but it serves no good to have them live in Germany, France etc and have their culture come into conflict with the local customs.
        Many people here are aware of the jewish question. But have you ever wondered how similar judaism and islam are? They are almost mirror images of each other, except one is particularist and the other is universalist. In any case, the same psychopathic desert godling rules them through different names. Yehovah=Allah. Very toxic and dangerous to white people. A Turk might be able to assimilate into Germany, but a muslim? Never.

        • mike
          Posted February 25, 2015 at 2:53 am | Permalink

          Let’s travel back in the sixtees. Who asked the Turks come to Germany as “guest workers” and let them settle down for good. It’s a two way street my friend. As a Turk I wouldn’t want Indians, Pakistanis, Arabs in my society regardless of their religion because of their culture and way of life. I certainly would’t want Turks in Germany or europe if I were a german. But this is way too late for Europe. Economic realities in terms of workforce dictates that Europe will invite more and more “guest workers” in the future aswell.
          Think about what would happen if all immigrants vanish one morning magically? Who would do all the low-paying jobs for you?

          • Greg Johnson
            Posted February 25, 2015 at 6:12 am | Permalink

            If capitalists cannot fill their factories in Germany, better they open factories overseas than bring foreigners in to work for them.

  8. FRANK C
    Posted March 25, 2011 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

    David Lane of The Order said it well: “If he looks white and he is on our side, then he is white.”

    • Caleo
      Posted March 25, 2011 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

      Exactly. And as Europeans become an ever smaller portion of the human population, we will have to decide wether or not we will let religion or geographical position determine who gets to join our family.
      I can say through direct personal experience that Persians, Kurds, Turks and Chechens all consider themselves white and have no interest in disappearing or allowing themselves to be dissolved into some greater African/Asian mass.
      That being said, I don’t believe Islam is beneficial to Europe, and Muslim immigration should be stopped.
      But if demographic trends continue, an attempt to build bridges with all Caucasian/white peoples may be the only way to bolster our numbers and strengthen our position.
      One thing is for sure, the groups I mentioned above all love large families and revel in their native warrior traditions. Decadent and effete Europeans could learn a thing or two from our cousins about maintaining and strengthening our families and nations.
      These people have been under the sway of Islam for centuries, and yet have maintained strong ethnic/tribal cohesion.

    • Fourmyle of Ceres
      Posted March 25, 2011 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

      Full marks to Frank C., for stating clearly what is clearly the Truth.

      If they look like us, and they fight with us, what else do you need to know?

      We can learn from this.

    • mark
      Posted March 25, 2011 at 10:32 pm | Permalink

      And David Lane’s statement is absolutely false because a scientific examination of one’s genome could show that a person has certain traits that are mostly found in non-whites and rarely found in Whites.

  9. Karsten
    Posted March 25, 2011 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

    I’m not quite following the ultimate argument of this piece. If the contention is that we can work with the Turks because they are anti-Israel, then yes, certainly, I agree.

    But on the other hand, ever single Turk has to be kicked out of Germany. Now. They are not a compatible people, and their presence diminishes the race.

    This site argues in favour of an ethnostate, yes? I have an ethnostate of my own that I dream of. It’s called “Prussia,” stretching at least from the Weichsel to the Memel, comprised of Teutons (and even Houston Stewart Chamberlain, unlike the national socialists, felt that Poles could be accommodated within the broad definition of Teutons). Not Turks.

    Okay, I recongize that that ethnostate has no great likelihood of existing in the foreseeable future. Therefore, turning from fantasy to reality, my real-world ideal ethnostate is called “Germany” — the Germany that exists today.

    The Turks are not compatible with it.

    I have nothing against the Turks. But they belong in Turkey.

    • Euromike
      Posted March 28, 2011 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

      You got that right. A large mosque is being built near the cathedral in Cologne. Turks and muslims want to be in Germany as Turks and muslims, not as Germans. Anyway, they can’t be German, because that is not their blood. It’s time for a big ‘Abschiedsfest’; a rousing good-bye party with lots of song and dance, paid one-way tickets home to Turkey, and maybe a small bonus payment. After the party any hold-outs get the boot. Get out of Germany! Get out of Europe! Now!

  10. Posted March 25, 2011 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    Speaking of France, the invasion of its soil by people coming from its colonies began in a modest way after the first world war. The French writer and journalist Lucien Rebatet devoted a study published in 1935 in the journal “Je suis partout”. In his study, he carefully examined each group of immigrants according to its racial origin and cultural particularities – needless to say that religion was an important topic. At the time, the phenomenon was still, in a certain way, picturesque and under control, and solutions, as offered by Rebatet, were possible.

    After the second world war and the victory of we know whom, the gates were opened and the cataracts of Africans and other aliens began to pour into France. This was a perfectly orchestrated plan for substituting the original French population by degenerated mulatoes, as well described in David Duke’s video interview.

    One has to remember that if race is of importance, culture and most of all religion is of prior importance. Indeed, there might be more in common between a catholic Frenchman and catholic from Japan – each in its own country – than between a French catholic and a French athéist or communist.

    For reference, here is the summary of Rebatet’s book, and, to give an idea of the spirit of the days, a short chapter.

    (the book is available here : )


    Note de l’Editeur… 9
    Les Etrangers en France… 13
    Les « Sidis »… 21
    L’Arménie de Paris… 39
    Les Noirs… 47
    Les Jaunes… 53
    Vieille et jeune Russie… 57
    Chez Les mineurs polonais… 75
    Les Italiens… 97
    Les Espagnols… 117
    Tchèques, Yougoslaves, Hongrois… 123
    Allemands rouges et Allemands bruns… 125
    Quelques aménités… 129
    Epuration… 139
    Quelques moyens d’être justes… 144

    III. Les Noirs

    Tous les journalistes, au cours de leur carrière, ont reçu quelques lettres datées de Port-au-Prince, de Fort-de-France, et dont la signature, au prénom fleuri, ne laisse aucun doute sur la race du correspondant. Je pourrais en citer pour ma part une demi-douzaine. Elles contiennent, en termes divers, les mêmes doléances, vives, surtout en Haïti. Ces braves gens se plaignent que nous les négligions. Nous ne leur adressons que des rossignols de librairie, des films éculés, dont ils sentent très bien le ridicule. Hollywood, au contraire, les inonde de ses derniers succès. Mais ils ne veulent pas apprendre l’anglais. Ces noirs refusent, aussi rigoureusement que les Canadiens, de se laisser américaniser. Cette fierté, ce souci de leurs vieilles traditions françaises, sont très touchants. Si nous demeurons, aux îles comme dans tous les autres pays, incapables d’organiser notre propagande, nous avons offert une assez large compensation aux Antillais, sujets français ou non, en ouvrant à leurs fils, surtout depuis la guerre, nos écoles et nos universités.
    Ces grands et joyeux garçons, très communicatifs, beaucoup plus mêlés que les Jaunes à la vie de leurs camarades blancs, constituent, avec les troupiers, l’essentiel de la colonie noire de Paris (trois ou quatre mille membres environ). Le reste de cette colonie est formée par un petit prolétariat de manœuvres, de chauffeurs, d’artisans, enfin par la troupe des messieurs dont les occupations hésitent entre le jazz, la boxe et le vagabondage spécial.
    Je parlais, au début de cette enquête, du cosmopolitisme nécessaire du Quartier Latin. Rien ne le justifie mieux, en apparence, que le cas de ces exotiques. On peut se demander pourtant si l’accueil, de plus en plus large, qui leur est fait, répond exactement à leurs intérêts. Nos universités devraient recruter, parmi les étudiants de l’extérieur, ceux qui ont déjà acquis chez eux une formation équivalant à notre licence, et qui viennent surtout nous demander un perfectionnement, une spécialité, ceux qui, par leur intelligence ou leur état de fortune, sont appelés à jouer dans leur pays un rôle de premier plan. Les jeunes Antillais affluent chez nous, sitôt après leurs études secondaires (quand ils ne les ont pas faites dans nos lycées), parce qu’ils ne possèdent aucun autre centre intellectuel. Souvent aussi l’attrait d’un séjour à Paris suscite chez eux des vocations médicales ou juridiques d’une solidité ou d’une utilité douteuses. Nous confectionnons ainsi une armée d’avocats, de journalistes et de médecins, appelée, à son retour dans les îles qui n’ont aucun besoin d’elle, à bien des déboires.
    Ces garçons suivent avec une passion atavique nos querelles de partis. Leur politique a gagné, par notre exemple, de se corrompre, de s’embrouiller davantage encore, si cela est possible. Je sais que l’extrémisme ne les a guère marqué jusqu’à ce jour. Pourtant, c’est un intellectuel antillais qui a été l’instigateur de La Voix des Nègres, le journal communiste et anti-impérialiste, où l’on réclame le soulèvement de la Guyane, de la Martinique, de Madagascar et du Sénégal contre le tyran français.
    Il va de soi que notre climat est plein de risques pour ces pays chauds. Nous en avons tous connu, lamentablement délabrés, au physique comme au moral, après un ou deux hivers de brumes. Il faut bien dire aussi que ces danseurs et joueurs nés sont poussés vers les milieux les plus interlopes. Ce qui n’était que sensualité et nonchalance sous les tropiques devient chez nous dépravation. On est étudiant depuis six, sept années. On veut arrondir ses mensualités, on joue du saxophone ou on tient la batterie dans quelque boîte. C’est la pente vers le trafic des femmes et de la drogue. Le souteneur noir de la place Pigalle, qui vient beaucoup moins rarement qu’on ne l’imagine de l’armée ou du Quartier Latin est, par malheur, un personnage très parisien. Celui-là, on s’en doute, nous reste pour compte, sans aucun espoir de retourner aux îles. La création, chez les Antillais, d’une université française, mieux adaptée à leurs besoins que les nôtres, eût été un encouragement à leur culture et leurs traditions plus flatteur pour eux, plus rationnel et utile que leur interminable et hasardeux apprentissage en Europe.
    Notre ami Lucien Dubech s’amusait un jour du poncif qui exige qu’un auteur dramatique, pour indiquer chez son héroïne le dernier degré de la perversité, lui fasse mettre un nègre dans son lit. Ces caprices de dames mûres devraient toujours appartenir au vaudeville. Mais notre confrère Edouard Helsey, dans une enquête sur l’Afrique occidentale, a raconté un roman qui ne relève plus des curiosités spéciales. C’est celui de la petite boutiquière, de l’employée éprise d’un superbe tirailleur, de famille royale bien entendue. Les parents, « qui n’ont aucun préjugé », consentent à une union. Un an plus tard, ils s’aperçoivent que leur gendre était un voyou de Dakar, que la vie de leur enfant a été marqué d’une aventure amère et grotesque.
    Il arrive que l’on rencontre aux alentours des casernes, le ménage légitime d’une blanche apparaissant le plus souvent comme une domestique campagnarde et d’un Sénégalais, d’un sous-officier martiniquais, d’un Malgache affecté aux sections d’infirmiers ou d’intendance, exécrable soldat, mou et vicieux, dont la peau prend, sous notre ciel, d’affreuses couleurs blettes, vert-de-grisées. Ces cas ne sont pas assez fréquents pour que les démographes en tiennent compte, pas assez isolés pour faire retourner la tête des badauds. Mais ne signifient-ils pas que les doctrines égalitaires ont fait, chez nous, leur chemin dans les plus humbles cervelles au détriment du sentiment racial ? Il est regrettable qu’aucune disposition légale ne mette entrave à ces unions, dont on ne peut pas imaginer l’avenir sans pitié. Passe encore pour le temps où l’homme a son uniforme, ses galons. Mais ensuite ? La femme l’accompagnera-t-elle en Afrique, pour se trouver vis-à-vis des autres blancs dans la plus humiliante condition ? Soit ici, soit à la colonie, les enfants risquent d’être le plus souvent des déclassés. Leur situation sera de toutes façons bien inférieure à celle des métis nés d’un père français qui a pu les reconnaître, les guider, les établir.
    Je ne trouve pas si ridicule que la seule idée d’un noir, maître et seigneur d’une femme blanche, soit devenue une phobie chez les Américains, car elle est vraiment contre nature. Nous n’aurions pas connu ces tristes mariages sans le stationnement en France des contingents indigènes, dont ce n’est pas le seul inconvénient. Demandons l’avis des officiers coloniaux. Ils diront tous qu’après quelques mois de service en France, en dépit de toutes les précautions, un impeccable bataillon sénégalais n’a plus les mêmes qualités militaires, que l’ancien soldat noir revenu de la métropole devient neuf fois sur dix un insupportable vaurien. On n’ignore pas que ces troupes indigènes ont été appelées chez nous pour suppléer à la faiblesse de nos contingents. Mais dans ce cas, c’est la loi d’un an, une fois de plus, qui a tous les torts.

  11. Posted March 25, 2011 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

    As the late Robert Frenz noted: If they look White and act White then they are White. I have seen White Arabs, even White Persians. Arabs tend to be Mediterranean Whites, not all but a substantial minority appear to be UNMIXED with negroes, which, as Richard Burton stated about Egyptians, that they had a propensity to miscegenation.

    Lebanese, some look dark, many look like Italians.
    Shall we banish Southern Italians because of their complexions?
    The best American National Socialist, save for Lincoln Rockwell, was an Italian-American Joe Tomassi, handsome fellow, at one time superbly, one might suggest, fastidious about his appearance.
    We are a tiny minority in the world today. We cannot have the luxury of excluding Whites because they find the ancient name of Allah to be relevant to their worship. Would you rather have the local Mexicans Catholics hanging around the front of Wal-Mart or the lads of Hizballah?
    Who do you think would be more likely to rape your wife or rob you?

    • Sam Davidson
      Posted March 26, 2011 at 11:52 am | Permalink

      As best as I can recall, the genetic maps of Europe show that much of Western Europe is predominately of “old European” stock, while Germany, Scandinavia, and parts of Eastern Europe have alot of the blonde-haired blue-eyed “Aryan” ancestry. Italy and the Balkans are heavily mixed and it’s obvious by simply looking at them.

      Someone with dark brown skin and coarse black hair does not “look white.” If we start accepting this kind of nonsense then we’ll be embarrassed when one of our recruits turns out to be racially mixed, like the Anthony Pierpont incident.

    • Razvan
      Posted March 27, 2011 at 4:02 am | Permalink

      Cronulla Beach Riot

  12. Rehmat
    Posted March 27, 2011 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    Turks living inside the modern Turkey are only 20% of the entire world population. Ottoman empire ruled most part of the world, directly and though proxy by it being considered a ‘Khilaphat’ (in Indian sub-continent, Afghanistan, Iran, etc.).

    Turkey has 99.7% Muslim population including a sizeable ‘Crypto-Jewish’ community and Polish Muslim community. The members of the ‘Crypto-Jewish’ community still control the Opposition politcal parties, military and the Judiciary.

    Both Turkey and Iran were the only two secular Muslim regimes which recognized Israel in 1949 based on their religious hatred toward Islam and inferiority complex vs the West. Since Turkey has common border with Israel, it was accepted as the only Muslim member of NATO. The military, trade and tourism between Turkey and Israel had reached its peak during the 1990s.

    The political rift did come as the result of AKP’s victory in 2002 – but because of prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s foreign policy to assert its influence over the eastern part of the world which was part of Ottoman empire, directly or indirectly. In 2005, the Israel Lobby, Anti-Defamation League presented Erdogan its highest award for Turkey’s saving of 100,000 European Jews during the Nazi era.

    In 2007, the Ankara-Tel Aviv relation hit the bottom when an Israeli-Turkish military plan to assassinate Erdogan and bring a regime-change was unearthed.

  13. Euromike
    Posted March 28, 2011 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

    Having grown up in Germany when it was all-German and all-white I never cease to be disturbed by the multiculturalism of modern Germany. Some Turks may have a substantial amount of ‘white’ blood. That is probably due to the large amount of white slavery practiced the Ottomans. Europeans were enslaved in the millions by these predators.
    The real deal breaker is Islam. It never ceases to amaze me when sincere white nationalists buddy up to Islam because of a shared hatred of the Jews. Whereas jews are known to work their mischief through dissimulation and subversion, Islam just flat out declares it mission to conquer the world. It is pure insanity to le the followers of this desert cult into our ancestral homelands.
    Islam is the mortal enemy of Europe, of the European Spirit.

    • Posted March 28, 2011 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

      Jihadist Muslims in Europe are the invading Orcs. But the real enemy is Sauron (the subversive Jew).

      • Spectator
        Posted March 30, 2011 at 8:02 am | Permalink

        Classic, Chechar. Classic.

        Good work.

        May it go viral: “Jihadist Muslims in Europe are the invading Orcs. But the real enemy is Sauron (the subversive Jew).”

        If you never provided any further help to the cause, this alone would secure you a place of honor. Thanks.

        • Posted March 30, 2011 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

          If you manage to quote that, you can use my real name, Cesar Tort, instead of just “Chechar”. Cheers.

    • Caleo
      Posted March 29, 2011 at 10:45 am | Permalink

      So I guess you didn’t read the article. It’s not that Turks have “white blood”.
      Genomic testing has shown the population of modern Turkey to be overwhelmingly Indo-European both in phenotype and genotype. The Ottomans were a nomadic warrior caste that imposed their language and culture on a large population of Indo -European peoples who had inhabited Anatolia from prehistoric times right through to the Ottoman conquest.
      The Asiatic Turks barely put a dent in the Anatolian genotype.
      The Turkish population doesn’t have some “white blood”. They are Mediterranean whites, with a dash of Central Asian spice sprinkled on top.

  14. John Smith
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

    Turks are not white. Here is why.

    1. If this or that Turk is what that does not mean that the people as a awhole are white. As a whole they are Asiatic.
    2. Turks carry Islam into Europe as a tool of conquest, subjugation of the European peoples, and destruction of the European culture including the religious traditions.
    3. Turks attempted to erase Greek Byzantine culture and later day Turks erase all Greek physical presence in Anatolia with their post ww`1 ethnic cleansing. They are the national enemies of the modern Greek nation.

    You have to choose between modern Greeks or the Turks. Because the Greeks will not appreciate having to keep on sharing soil with the dirty Turk bastards. Ever heard of Cyprus? Lets see if WN can take a simple position on current events that is coherent.

    And forget about one or two examples, they are irrelevant. Dont obfuscate the big picture of race and culture with a few stray examples.

    • Caleo
      Posted March 29, 2011 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

      My God, another comment from someone who didn’t read the article.
      Do you guys know what genomic research is and what the conclusion of this article was ???
      Was it that difficult ???
      What you believe about the population of Turkey is irrelevant. What you want to call them is also irrelevant. The only relevant fact is that the bulk of the population is either primarily or completely of Indo-European origin, with a veneer of Turkish language and culture.
      Now obviously, language and culture count for alot, but there are several tribes in Europe proper who don’t speak an Indo-European language and are still considered white and firmly imbedded in Western civilization. The Finns, Hungarians and Estonians all speak languages belonging to the Finno-Ugric family, but they are a part of Our Family, so to speak.
      Again, I’m not arguing for the admission of Turkey to the Family of Europe, but this nonsense that they aren’t white just because you don’t like them, or because their Muslims is ridiculous.

      • I
        Posted March 30, 2011 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

        They’re not White, just look at pics of Turkish crowds. A few look pretty White, but as a whole they are clearly not. “White” and “Caucasoid” are not synonymous – Whites are a subset of Caucasoids.

        “Indo-European” is not really a good term to use for ancestry. Is northern India “White” to you as well? Clearly, whenever the IE languages were brought to Anatolia they mostly mixed in with the native inhabitants.

        • FORP
          Posted March 30, 2011 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

          Personally, when I saw the videos/images of Greek protesters, I somewhat questioned if the Greeks, as a whole, were really White. Many looked perfectly White, but a lot of them looked “off-White” like a lot of Turks I’ve seen.

          I suspect that it is a matter of degree. More Greeks than Turks will look White, but there will be some Turks that are more White-looking than some Greeks.

          European Nationalists from particular countries I understand will take their less-than-White-looking local over a more-White-looking Turk, but here in the USA we should not be bothered by good looking White Turks like the Turkish women and the Bosnian-Turk guy pictured above.

  15. Wandrin
    Posted April 5, 2011 at 12:09 am | Permalink

    Why Tatlitug looks like Colin Farrell

    Turks aren’t Euro-White. Mobs of White people in the past went on various rampages and clumps of them settled in odd places here and there. One of those rampages headed NE from France and then down the Danube to Greece and then into what is now Turkey.

    *Some* Turks probably are still mostly Euro-White, especially in remoter areas but that’s not because they’re Indo-European it’s because they’re Euro-Whites who settled after a rampage. There are small tribes of people like that in Afghanistan dating from Alexander’s time.

    This is like taking pictures of Boers and using them as examples of typical ANC members.

    This isn’t just visual snobbery or something. Diversity Kills because genetic distance matters. I accept Indo-European as a broad grouping and Indo-Europeans as closer to me than Sub-Saharan Africans but it’s too broad a classification to give the benefits of homogeneity. Even Euro-White is too wide to be ideal but i think that’s the maximum limit.

    Colin Farrell Turks *in small numbers* would assimilate into a Euro-White nation rapidly because of genetic distance. The rest wouldn’t.

  16. Eric West
    Posted July 29, 2015 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    Interesting viewpoints but so misinformed about the modern Turkish or even Middle Eastern ethnic backgrounds. This is mostly due to the abject miscomprehension about the historical backgrounds to these regions. The Ottomans were the last institutional multi-ethnic expression of the Islamic Caliphate. At the outbreak of WW1 of the six most senior officers of the Ottoman army 2 were Albanian 2 were Circassian, one was a Kurd the other an Arab. Of the Ottoman army, one third were Arab troops under Arab Officers in Arab Regiments, another 15% were regiments made up of Albanians, Kurds, Circassians, and Pomaks under their own officers in their own regiments. Only about 55% of the Ottoman army in WW1 were made up of Anatolian peasants.
    There are several mass migrations in the 19th century of peoples seeking sanctuary from ethnic cleansing in the Ottoman State. 650,000 Circassians came after the Caucasian Wars with Russia (1783-1865), from the NW (Muslim) Caucasus, having been ethnically cleansed by the Russian from their ancestral homes. There were also the 515,000 Pomaks or Bulgarian Muslims (ethnically, descendents of ancient Thracian tribes) forcibly evicted following the 1877-1878 war and absorbed into the Ottoman State. The Pomaks were only a part of the estimated 1 million plus Muslims evicted from their homes following the conflicts with Russia and their Balkan allies in the 1877-1893 period. In terms of DNA these peoples were overwhelmingly Muslim Europeans, and their place of sanctuary is now, modern Turkey.
    There are also the mass expulsions and population transfers that occurred following WW1 and the treaty of Lausanne in which 550,000 Muslims from Greece were exchanged for 1.2 million Greeks from Anatolia (the former Phanariote, Cappadocian, and Pontic Greeks) to Greece. These European Muslims (Rumelian) were more often than not ethnically closer to the European population than their Anatolian co-religionists, these Rumelians were mostly of Macedonian ethnic origin.
    It is therefore not surprising that modern Turkey has such a diverse ethnic population especially following intermarriage between all these groups over a period of about 100 years.
    Today about 3 million modern Turkish Citizens identify themselves of Circassian descent. Not to put too fine a point on this, the Circassians are one of two autochtonous peoples who are considered the pre-historic original inhabitants (8,500 BC) of Europe, the others are the Basques. In addition when German Philosopher Christopher Meiners created the definition of the ‘white race’ in 1783 and coined the term ‘Caucasian’ he used the example of the peoples of the NW Caucasus, the Circassians as the archetypes of this race. Later still when the ‘Caucasoid’ race was further defined by the Meyers Konversation Lexicon 1885-90, the Circassians are classified as ‘Aryans.’
    Earlier in this thread a mention was made that the Janissaries who were of Balkan ethnic origin was responsible for the existence of European looking Turks, this is hardly the case, as the devshirme system (collection of Janisaries in lieu of Tax) was discontinued after 1703.

  17. Belil Lilu
    Posted March 26, 2016 at 3:08 am | Permalink

    Talk about the problem of Turks, Arabs, & their Islam (or the hidden jews amongst them), their effect on Germany/Europe, about them being white or whatever all you want. Discuss whether Greeks are Turkified Whites or whether it’s the other way around… BUT leave Armenians out your mouth & out of this discussion! Because, you apparently have no idea of what Armenian really is.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    Here’s the Thing

    Trevor Lynch: Part Four of the Trilogy

    Graduate School with Heidegger

    It’s Okay to Be White


    The Enemy of Europe

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace