The Sordid 'Untold' History of Race-Mixing.

If you got most of your news, ideas, and information from modern Western media and schools, you likely associate 'racial purity' with hate, war, genocide, slavery, imperialism, conquest, and oppression. And you likely associate 'race mixing' with love, tolerance, equality, 'diversity', and liberation. The prevailing narrative owes mainly to four factors: Anglo-imperialism, American slavery, National Socialism(or Nazism), and Jewish control of the media and elite academia.
Perhaps no people in history conquered and controlled as much as the Anglos with only limited race-mixing. Also, American slavery was very race-conscious, and most whites didn't mix with blacks. And then, there was the racial ideology of the Nazis that obsessed about 'Aryan' racial purity. Finally, Jews, having been among the main victims of Nazism and ever so paranoid and fearful of Anglo-American whites as their main rivals, developed and disseminated an ideology that came to see 'racism' as the source of all great evil. To counter and eliminate such 'evil', Jews have put forth the ideology of 'diversity' and race-mixing. Indeed, the main reason for Jewish support for Obama is he serves as the poster-boy of mulatto-ism. He's the product of a white woman sexually surrendering herself to a Negro. The fact that so many white women swoon over the punk and so many white guys get thrills from being politically cuckolded by his ilk shows how low the white race has fallen in the modern world.

But, let us look at the real history of race-mixing. Only recently has race-mixing been a matter of individual choice and personal freedom. For most of human history, race-mixing was generally the product of violence, invasion, oppression, slavery, imperialism, genocide, and what have you. If race-mixing has such a wonderful history and pedigree, I suppose we should laud the Mongol hordes who came stampeding into Eastern(and even parts of Central)Europe to rape white women. You see, the bad guys were not the interracist Mongols but the white warriors who resisted them. How dare all those 'evil racist' white males not welcome the Mongols who were only trying to spread their race-mixing love!  Following the logic of Political Correctness, any Russian or Polish guy who was enraged by Mongol abduction and/or rape of white women were 'evil racists' or proto-Nazis, just like the proud white men of THE BIRTH OF A NATION or Ethan character(played by John Wayne) in THE SEARCHERS. According to Political Correctness, it is wrong for white men to feel protective of their mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters even against vicious raids by Indian tribes. Using this logic, I suppose Russians should forever have yielded to 'progressive' interracist Mongols who were only trying to mix the races.  But seriously, Mongols were among the most brutal conquerors in history, and they were TOTALLY into race-mixing. Mongols have often been compared with the Nazis, but if 'racial purity' is the source of all evil, how could a people as interracist as the Mongols commit such horrors? Wouldn't it have been better for Europeans--and other victims of the Golden Horde--if the Mongols had been into racial purity--like the Japanese for most of their history--and remained in their own little Mongol world? I mean the epic Mongol experiment in race-mixing wasn't exactly fun for most people--unless they happened to be Mongols thugs raping Chinese, Persian, Russian, and other women.

Ottoman Turks were also interracists, but were they peaceful? No, they used extensive violence to control vast territories. They ruled over Greece for nearly 400 yrs. During that time, many Greek women were abducted and raped by Turks. And many Christian Greek boys were conscripted and raised as Janissaries--fanatical Muslim warriors against Christendom. Just think about it. Wonderfully interracist Ottomans kidnapped and brainwashed Greek boys to wage war their own kind--Christian Europeans. Greece under Ottoman rule was not a happy place as any Greek who knows his or her history can tell you.
But then, Greeks too have their long history of interracist violence. Though Ancient Greeks were proud to be Greek and some city-states insisted on Greek purity, the fact is Greeks invaded and enslaved a lot of non-Greeks, and through rape of these conquered peoples, Greek blood got mixed with non-Greek blood. And when Greeks joined Alexander the Macedon's invasion of North Africa and the Orient, a whole bunch of them went into interracist mode, Alexander leading by example. While some Greek leaders resented Alexander's 'race-mixing', it became more and more necessary as Macedonian and Greek men became further separated from their homelands. They conquered foreign lands and took foreign women. So, all this supposedly wonderful interracism came with imperialism, conquest, slavery, and mass bloodshed.

Arabs, Moors, Muslims, Persians, Moghuls, and other great empire builders were also interracists. Arabs enslaved and raped all sorts of people. They enslaved black Africans, captured and sold white slaves. Many of them, especially among the whites, were women. Lots of interracist Arab men raped white women. Arab pirates didn't just plunder white wealth but sexually ravaged white women. Moors conquered large swaths of Southern Europe and raped a lot of white women. So much for the wonders of interracism. And of course, Jews in Europe often aided and abetted in the Muslim conquest of Europe. Jews were also involved in slave trade and sold white women to Arabs and Muslims. Do you suppose all those white women who were enslaved and raped had a good time because the 'love-making' happened to be interracist?  Today, the Jewish shmafia lures many Slavic women with false promises and turns them into sex slaves in brothels that cater to men of all races from around the world. White women are used as interracist sex slaves. Is that progress? It may be a great boon to greedy Jews who control pornography and white slavery, but what do white men and women gain from it? And who are these craven Jews to tell you or me how we should think about race and racial politics? Of course, Israel has very stringent laws and policies against non-Jews, and recently, Israel used harsh measures to round up and expel a whole lot of black African migrants and refugees. And Jews constantly talk about maintaining their genetic integrity, and even when they mix with other races, they are very selective, careful to mix with gentiles who are either very good looking or very intelligent; in other words, Jews steal beauty and IQ from other races. Jews act like this, but we don't hear any outrage from MSM because Jews control most of the media.

Though Anglo-imperialism is most often associated with the evils of white oppression, historical truth says otherwise: the most brutal form of European imperialism was perpetuated by interracist Portuguese and Spanish. Portuguese created Brazil, and the main reason for its huge number of mulattoes owes to the fact that Portuguese, far more than Anglos, created an empire of interracist rape as well as of slavery. So-called 'racist' America imported only 300,000 to 400,000 black slaves. Brazil alone is said to have imported anywhere from 3 to 5 million black African slaves, which is more than all the rest of the New World combined. So, just think about it. The most interracist colony/nation in the New World was more committed to slavery than all the others.

The rest of Latin America came under Spanish rule, and how did the 'mestizo race' come about? Free love, 'tolerance', and 'multi-culturalist' ideology?  No, it came about through imperialism, conquest, slavery, mass rape, and the like.  More often than not--at least among white Latinos--, all this politically correct 'diversity' mongering-and-promotion is essentially a justification for their sordid history than anything else. It's a very convenient way for white Latinos to convert their 'historical crimes' into 'historical virtues'. Though Hispanic and Portuguese whites created the mestizo and mulatto races in the New World by conquest, slavery, rape, plunder, and imperialism, they can make believe that it was all ultimately for the good since it led to the creation of the wonderful new race of mestizos and mulattos. That way, white Latinos can justify their own history and place all the blame on Yanquis and gringos who'd been less into race-mixing. Latin whites essentially say, "We conquered, enslaved, and exploited the non-whites, but we racially mixed with the victims and acquired some 'victim blood' ourselves--even if it's only a tiny drop--, and so that expunges whatever guilt we might have had." If 'one drop rule' in America made even very light-skinned mulattos count as 'black', the one drop rule in Latin America makes even the whitest Latin elite a member of the 'people of color'. It is no wonder that so many white Latinos in America insist on being part of the 'people of color' and bitch endlessly about being 'oppressed' and 'marginalized' by Yanqui blancos, which is rather ironic since it is the Yankee states in the North that embrace the new hysteria of 'diversity' as the solution to all problems.
Anyway, all said and done, the racial history of Latin America is many times more violent and sordid than what happened in United States and Canada--or Australia for that matter.

While it is true that the theory of racial purity and the practice of imperialism don't mix well in the long run--especially if the racial ideology is as radical as that of the Nazis--, the fact is many nations that upheld the ideal of racial purity tended to be peaceful and non-aggressive. After all, it was the racially less pure Southern Europeans who'd pioneered imperialism and world conquest. It was the Greeks, Romans, and then Spanish and Portuguese who were ahead of the curve in conquering, exploiting, and plundering the world.  The British and the Dutch were relative late-comers, and among the Northern Europeans, only the Anglos became prominent players in world conquest. Germans came to imperialism rather late. Bismarck the famous builder and modernizer of Germany hated the idea. He was for Germans focusing their energies on Germany. He fought wars but mostly against other Germans in order to create larger German state. He had no wish to grab non-German land and deal with non-German peoples. If anything, it was the relatively more interracist Russians who'd invaded and plundered whole swaths of non-Russian territories in Asia and Muslim lands.
Indeed, both among reactionaries and progressives, interracism was often used as a disingenuous justification for conquest and imperialism. French were interracists in North Africa and Southeast Asia and portrayed themselves as spreading the blood of higher civilization in both the figurative and literal sense. This accounts for the rise of the Eurasian elite under French rule in Indo-China. And why did so many Vietnamese become 'Amerasians' in the 60s and 70s? Leftists call the Vietnam War an act of American Imperialism, and if that was indeed the case, then it was American Imperialism that practiced interracism during the Vietnam War. One might even call it a form of sexual imperialism or sexual conquest since almost all Amerasian children were born of American(white or black)men and Asian women. Throughout the history of interracism, generally the males of the powerful side took the women of the oppressed, occupied, or conquered side. So, interracism was very often an act of sexual imperialism by the males of one race against the females of another race. It not only meant the sexual conquest of the women but the sexual humiliation of the defeated men who could do nothing about it. What could Trojan men do when the interracist Greeks enslaved surviving Trojan women to be used as servants and sex slaves? When Germans invaded France, French women went with German men while French men could only watch as 'limp-dick' losers. When Soviets steamrolled into Germany, they practiced 'interracism' on a large scale, raping millions of German women while all German men could do is watch. When Americans occupied Japan, whole bunch of Japanese women became interracist prostitute-stooges of American G.I.'s while Japanese men were reduced to a bunch of dorks.  In other words, so much of the history of interracism is 'unfair', unequal, violent, oppressive, and cruel. If you have a time machine, take a trip to Nanking when Japanese soldiers were rampaging through the city and raping scores of Chinese women. I'll bet those women wished Japanese hadn't been into interracism. Japanese also practiced 'interracism' with Filipino and Korean women who were lured to China with promise of jobs--just like Slavic women are lured to Israel under false pretense--but were then turned into sexual slaves who had to put out to Japanese soldiers all night and day. The history of interracism sure was bright and wonderful.

Now, I don't wish to come to the fallacious conclusion that because the history of interracism has been violent and sordid, every case of interracism is of that nature. Many individuals sincerely fell in love with members of other races/nations/religions/ethnic groups and found true love and bliss. I'm not one to tell who should marry whom--though interracism on a large scale will always compromise the racial-and-cultural integrity of a people. And even though a new social order may have been created via violent and oppressive use of interracism, the new population eventually come to some kind of accommodation. Whatever one may say about the history of Mexico--and it's very bloody one--, most Mexicans of mixed racial heritage today just go on with their lives.

But then, we must be careful not to apply the same kind of fallacy to racial purism. Just because Nazism was an especially evil case of racial purism doesn't mean that all forms of racial purism or racial consciousness are evil or 'hateful'. Just like there's free interracism(of individual freedom) as opposed to violent/forced interracism, there's racial purism or intraracism--racial sexualism within the race--that doesn't deny OTHER peoples the right to the preservation of their own cultures and nations. Japan is one of the most homogeneous nations on Earth, but it has also been one of the least aggressive. Except for Hideoyoshi's attempts in the late 16th century and modern Japan's invasion of Asia--enabled and encouraged by European powers, one might add--, the racially pure Japanese have been content to mind their own business. It was not Japan that invaded India, the New World--north or south--, Greece, Africa, and etc.  The interracist Spanish, Portuguese, Arabs, Moors, French, Turks, and Mongols did far more conquering than the Japanese ever did.

Also, intra-racism was the impetus behind many national liberation struggles. Why did the Third World rise up against Western Imperialism? Because most non-white nations wanted self-rule. Indians wanted to rule over Indians, and  Indians wanted to be ruled by Indians. They wanted the British to go back home. Vietnamese wanted to rule over Vietnamese, and Vietnamese wanted to be ruled by Vietnamese. They didn't want to be ruled by the interracist French. Algerians wanted to rule over Algerians, and Algerians wanted to be ruled by Algerians. They too didn't care for the interracist French who insisted that France and Algeria were one nation and one people. Algerians did not wanted to be ruled by foreigners even if the foreigners were willing to 'make love' to them.

Many 'progressives' criticize the Vietnamese for their discrimination against 'Amerasians', but to many Vietnamese, such children are the racial-sexual products of interracism of Western imperialism. Indeed, racial purism or intra-racism has generally been defensive than offensive. If Bolivian Indians at the time of the arrival of Spanish Conquistadors had expressed a wish for racial purity and self-rule, would they have been 'evil' and 'Nazi-like'?  Only according to the logic of Political Correctness--but then PC generally only attacks the white race for harboring intra-racist feelings. This is really a Judeo-centric view for it's the Jews who have most to lose if white Europeans and white Americans were to realize the worth of preserving their own races and cultures and stood up to venality of Jewish Supremacism.

Nazi racial policies became dangerous only when they were exported outside Germany. Within German lands, Nazi ideology did much good as it encouraged a sense of national unity, national health, national purpose, and national pride. Why shouldn't Germans be into German blood and soil, German 'race', German culture? The real problem of Nazism was less the emphasis on racial purity than the ambition for grabbing more land(populated by huge numbers of civilized peoples; it's one thing to grab mostly barren lands but quite another to invade heavily populated civilizations; the Anglo conquests of Australia and North America were doable since the territories were vast and sparsely populated; Russians were able to secure control over vast Siberia because despite its great size, the entire population was less than ten million. But it was another thing when Germans tried to conquer Russia or when Japanese tried to conquer China.) German purity in Germany was not a problem. But German purity in non-German lands was a violation of the idea of nationalism. But would it have been much better if Nazi Germans had been interracists like Japanese and Spanish? The reason why Nazi soldiers generally didn't commit mass rape--like Japanese did in Nanking--was because the ideal of racial purity demanded that German soldiers not mix with non-'Aryans'. If Hitler had been more like Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great, he might have ordered his men to rape a whole bunch of Russian women and Polish women in the name of 'interracism'. I don't see how that would have been any more civilized. Indeed, whatever one can say about Anglo-American slavery, it led to less rape of black and brown women than in Latin America. Anglos and Anglo-Americans may have been racially more arrogant, but it also meant mostly leaving non-whites alone sexually.

There was nothing wrong with Japan's belief in their racial uniqueness as long as the Japanese minded their own business and didn't invade other nations. If intra-racism leads to 'evil conquest and oppression', how come Japanese didn't go to Africa and bring millions of black slaves to Japan? It was the interracist Portuguese who brought millions of blacks to Brazil. Should Japanese have been happily interracist and welcomed the Spanish and Portugal to do to Japan what  had been done in the New World? Rape millions of Japanese women and create a mestizo race of European and Asian blood? I guess the Japanese were too 'evil and racist' to accept such a wonderful bargain. I mean interracist Peru and Bolivia are wonderful nations whereas intra-racist Japan today is a basketcase nation of no hope & progress.

And let us condemn all those Tibetan intra-racists who want to be rid of Han Chinese interracists who want to mix the races and make every inch of Tibet into part of the Han empire. You see, the wonderfully 'progressive' Chinese wanna be one with the Tibetans, but Tibetans insist on their own blood, their own soil, their own language and culture, their own religion, and their own power. What a bunch of Nazis! We must stop Tibetan intra-racism because if we allow it to grow, it will invade Poland any time soon, and then Russia. It might even go about killing six million Jews!