What It Will Look/Feel/Be Like

[N.M. Valdez]

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Valdez: I've been to Argentina, Uruguay and Mexico. You have likely been to none.

I haven't been to Argentina or Uruguay, but I have been to Brazil, and to Spain. And of course I've been to Mexico.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

#1) The problem with these genetic studies you post is that they are misleading. For example those studies on Argentina in particular, tested a disproportional amount of people from Northern Argentinian provinces like Tucuman, which have a small % of the population and mostly amerindian population. Most of the population is concentrated in Buenos Aires, and yet a large percentage of the people they tested were from these periphery regions that have few of the population.

It's strange that the first study I posted would be called "Characterization of Admixture in an Urban Sample from Buenos Aires, Argentina," then. But if that's really how you feel, here are some more to add weight to that evidence.

1. Relevant genetic contribution of Amerindian to the extant population of Argentina: "Over 50% of the individuals tested carried either mtDNA or Y Amerindian markers, 10% both, 20% were of Amerindian patrilineage and less than 40% denoted non-Amerindian contribution in the uniparentally inherited markers. By this simple approach a different contribution can be suggested within the most European country of Latin America."

2. Amerindian ancestry in Argentina is associated with increased risk for systemic lupus erythematosus: "The Argentine population is predominantly European with approximately 20% Amerindian admixture, and a very small (<2%) contribution from West Africa."

3. Inferring Continental Ancestry of Argentineans from Autosomal, Y-Chromosomal and Mitochondrial DNA: "Argentineans carried a large fraction of European genetic heritage in their Y-chromosomal (94.1%) and autosomal (78.5%) DNA, but their mitochondrial gene pool is mostly of Native American ancestry (53.7%); instead, African heritage was small in all three genetic systems (<4%)."

4. African ancestry of the population of Buenos Aires: "The results of this analysis suggest that 2.2% (SEM = 0.9%) of the genetic ancestry of the Buenos Aires population is derived from Africa."

5. Argentine population genetic structure: Large variance in Amerindian contribution: "Using the Bayesian clustering algorithm STRUCTURE, the mean European contribution was 78%, the Amerindian contribution was 19.4%, and the African contribution was 2.5%. Similar results were found using weighted least mean square method: European, 80.2%; Amerindian, 18.1%; and African, 1.7%."

6. Population structure and admixture in Cerro Largo, Uruguay, based on blood markers and mitochondrial DNA polymorphisms: "Based on 18 autosomal markers and one X-linked marker, we estimated 82% European, 8% Amerindian, and 10% African contributions to their ancestry, while from seven mitochondrial DNA site-specific polymorphic markers and sequences of hypervariable segment I, we determined 49% European, 30% Amerindian, and 21% African maternal contributions."

7. Frequencies of the Four Major Amerindian mtDNA Haplogroups in the Population of Montevideo, Uruguay: "Abstract mtDNA Amerindian polymorphisms were studied in 108 inhabitants of Montevideo, Uruguay, using PCR RFLP analysis. Amerindian haplogroups were found in 20.4% of the sample."

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

2): A very obvious flaw is the fact that they average out percentages. Are the people they tested self-described as white? In the last census in Argentina only around 60 something percent of the people identified as white. What would America's average genetic structure look like if I took a genetic sample without asking race first of Texas, Detroit, Chicago, New York, and Alabama? Exactly

In the first study that I posted, the researchers did not sample the "purer" Amerindian population, and therefore did not incorporate their average admixture levels into the gene pool proportions.

Martinez-Marignac et al. write that, "Because no historical records of direct admixture of La Plata inhabitants with Amerindians exist, we decided not to include in the study samples from donors with Amerindian surnames to avoid bias resulting from atypical and recent Amerindian gene incorporations to the ‘‘main La Plata’’ genetic pool. The number of samples of Amerindian origin not included in our analysis was low (
2%); therefore the biological material used for this study can be considered a random sample representing the population of ‘‘main La Plata’’ city. The La Plata sample was represented by 87 DNA samples (64 males and 23 females) obtained from donors whose surnames were all of European origin (Table 1)."

Yet they still find that, "The average European contribution at the individual level was 67.7% (
4.5%), the Native American contribution was 25.6% (
4.35%), and the African average contribution was 6.7% (
0.9%). These values are similar to the population admixture levels estimated with Chakraborty’s gene identity method."

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

3) A person that has an indian in the woodpile, is still white, even in America that was true.

Really? How about two? Three? Four? Five? Where is the line drawn?

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

In those studies they said they averaged out an amerindian input that was very high (likely Peruvians or Paraguayan immigrants) and all the way down to 1% amerindian.

Do you understand that these studies measure the admixture proportions of specific individuals? You seem to think that they take 10 Europeans and 10 Indians and declare 50/50 admixture on average.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

How does a country as young and late settled as Argentina have people that are 1% Amerindian, and how does that make you a mestizo?

Technically, any sort of mixture makes a "mestizo." That's what the word means.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

The reality is that those studies were motivated by politics, the government of Argentina wants white Argentines to accept low IQ, nation-wrecking muds from Peru and Paraguay by telling them "WE ARE ALL MESTIZOS". "Indigenismo" is a type of cultural Marxism Jewish college professors teach in Argentinian universities.

This is a rant without even the pretension of refuting these studies or exposing methodological errors in them.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

In my opinion if you're 1/8 injun (which is weak DNA), you're still white for all intents and purposes (this is true in America too), and even that's not as common in Argentina as you want to make people think.

So if you're 12.5% Indian, you're all right? How about 13.5%? 14.5? 15.5? 16.5? Where is the line drawn, again?

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

I don't think when you say "Europeans go back to Europe" , you're talking about yourself despite being probably more than 1/8 European.

I don't believe that Europeans should go back to Europe.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

4) Uruguay is definitely not a mestizo country, and not even close to as bad off as Argentina in the racial sense. There are mestizos and blacks, in different proportions, but Uruguay is still a majority European culture.

Most Uruguayan genomic heritage is European. However, a significant minority is Amerindian, and a smaller minority is African.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

And yes, some parts of Northern Mexico have many whites, Vicente Fox for example is an Aryan in appearance, but that doesn't mean most of Mexico is a cesspool.

The typical inhabitant of northern Mexico is majority European and minority Amerindian. Your problem is that you consider phenotype rather than genotype.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Go look up how people in those regions you say are so safe live. Those are coincidently the regions most Mexicans leave when coming to America.

I never claimed that southern Mexico had high living conditions; I merely said that it was far safer than northern Mexico and many areas of the U.S. Obviously, there is immigration, as trade liberalization deepened cross-country inequities and created push and pull factors for southern Mexicans to migrate.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Here is another politically motivated genetic study about uruguay, note the confusing language and massive ranges they use to "prove" their point:

There are probably some e people (by no means 62%, as this phoney study by the Jew Brum reports), especially in the countryside, with an Indian in the woodpile. Does that really make them the same as a 90% indian cholo like you Valdez?

The real problem is that you don't actually understand the research methods used in these genetic studies. You just understand that you dislike the conclusions, so your only recourse is to call the studies "politically motivated" and attack the "Jew" authors without actually refuting anything they have written.

That study said that 62% of mtDNA haplogroups were of Native American descent, which is not surprising given the historical legacy of pairings of European men and Indian women. It did not say 62% of the total population, because if you didn't know this, Y DNA also factors into the picture.

[Joe_Smith]

Originally Posted by N.M. Valdez

I haven't been to Argentina or Uruguay, but I have been to Brazil, and to Spain. And of course I've been to Mexico.

Why are you rolling your eyes? Your tourist resort experiences in Mexico and Brazil don't mean anything.

How can you give a sure opinion of a nations demographics, if you've never even been there?

It's strange that the first study I posted would be called "Characterization of Admixture in an Urban Sample from Buenos Aires, Argentina," then. But if that's really how you feel, here are some more to add weight to that evidence.

Where? The neighborhoods? Wouldn't it skew a DNA sample if scientists took them from the Bronx, Manhattan, and Queens without accounting for self-description of race?

I wasn't talking about that study in particular.

1. Relevant genetic contribution of Amerindian to the extant population of Argentina: "Over 50% of the individuals tested carried either mtDNA or Y Amerindian markers, 10% both, 20% were of Amerindian patrilineage and less than 40% denoted non-Amerindian contribution in the uniparentally inherited markers. By this simple approach a different contribution can be suggested within the most European country of Latin America."

So is Argentina a mestizo country or is it one that has a 50-60% of mestizos and 40% of thorough bred whites? If you were to take a nation-wide study of America, you'd probably get very similar results. Do you consider America a mestizo country?

2. Amerindian ancestry in Argentina is associated with increased risk for systemic lupus erythematosus: "The Argentine population is predominantly European with approximately 20% Amerindian admixture, and a very small (<2%) contribution from West Africa."

So everyone in Argentina is exactly 78% European, 20% Amerindian, and 2% West African?

3. Inferring Continental Ancestry of Argentineans from Autosomal, Y-Chromosomal and Mitochondrial DNA: "Argentineans carried a large fraction of European genetic heritage in their Y-chromosomal (94.1%) and autosomal (78.5%) DNA, but their mitochondrial gene pool is mostly of Native American ancestry (53.7%); instead, African heritage was small in all three genetic systems (<4%)."

"Sample came from eight provinces from three geographical regions of the country (Fig. 1): Formosa (AFO, N = 11), Chaco (ACA, N = 1), Misiones (AMI, N = 28) and Corrientes (ACO, N = 21) from the north-eastern Argentinean region (N = 61); Santa Fe (ASF, N = 3) and Buenos Aires (ABS, N = 150) from the central Argentinean region (N = 153), as well as Río Negro (ARN, N = 31) and Chubut (ACH, N = 1) "


Here is the problem:

The overwhelmingly European Santa Fe has 3 times more people than Mendoza (the place where people are concentrated in Central Argetina, which is more similar racially and hence culturally, to Chile, they even speak differently than other Argentinians more similar to Chileans) , so why did they only use 3 samples from Santa Fe and 153 from Northern Argentina? And North-Eastern Argentina, which is very densely populated and culturally distant from most Argentinians (they are more similar to neighboring countries) has 61 samples?

To add more hilarious bias, the "North Eastern" provinces of Argentina, which are culturally and racially closer to Paraguay, Formosa and Santiago Del Estero (since Chaco has its own category, in this "study") have less than a million people in population when combined (out of 40 million people in Argentina), yet they used 61 (note the total of samples is 246 according to your study) from this region. Meanwhile, Rio Negro, which is the traditional Germanic stranglehold in Argentina, has an equal number of population to North Eastern Argentina and yet only used 31 samples from this region .

I can go on and on. There's more

4. African ancestry of the population of Buenos Aires: "The results of this analysis suggest that 2.2% (SEM = 0.9%) of the genetic ancestry of the Buenos Aires population is derived from Africa."

Yes a well known troll study. 2.2% is statistical static, "rounded up" to make some political point about how Argentina needs more niggers.

5. Argentine population genetic structure: Large variance in Amerindian contribution: "Using the Bayesian clustering algorithm STRUCTURE, the mean European contribution was 78%, the Amerindian contribution was 19.4%, and the African contribution was 2.5%. Similar results were found using weighted least mean square method: European, 80.2%; Amerindian, 18.1%; and African, 1.7%."

So everyone in Argentina is exactly these proportions?

6. Population structure and admixture in Cerro Largo, Uruguay, based on blood markers and mitochondrial DNA polymorphisms: "Based on 18 autosomal markers and one X-linked marker, we estimated 82% European, 8% Amerindian, and 10% African contributions to their ancestry, while from seven mitochondrial DNA site-specific polymorphic markers and sequences of hypervariable segment I, we determined 49% European, 30% Amerindian, and 21% African maternal contributions."

Without asking people to identify their race this is irrelevant. Besides someone who is 82% European and the rest euro-asian (Amerindians of the southern cone are different from the squat block-heads in your home of Oaxaca, by the way, they were known in Argentina, Uruguay and Chile of being metrically reminding of Aryans like the cherokees in America, probably from mixing with the first whites that came before Siberians crossed the landbridge) is white by every colonial standard.

7. Frequencies of the Four Major Amerindian mtDNA Haplogroups in the Population of Montevideo, Uruguay: "Abstract mtDNA Amerindian polymorphisms were studied in 108 inhabitants of Montevideo, Uruguay, using PCR RFLP analysis. Amerindian haplogroups were found in 20.4% of the sample."

So Amerindian haplogroups were found in 20% of Uruguayans and that makes it a "mestizo country", yet you could probably find similar Abo or Asiatic results in Australia, New Zealand, or even areas of Hungary.

In the first study that I posted, the researchers did not sample the "purer" Amerindian population, and therefore did not incorporate their average admixture levels into the gene pool proportions.

What pure Amerindian community exists in Uruguay?

Martinez-Marignac et al. write that, "Because no historical records of direct admixture of La Plata inhabitants with Amerindians exist, we decided not to include in the study samples from donors with Amerindian surnames to avoid bias resulting from atypical and recent Amerindian gene incorporations to the ‘‘main La Plata’’ genetic pool. The number of samples of Amerindian origin not included in our analysis was low (2%); therefore the biological material used for this study can be considered a random sample representing the population of ‘‘main La Plata’’ city. The La Plata sample was represented by 87 DNA samples (64 males and 23 females) obtained from donors whose surnames were all of European origin (Table 1)."

Yet they still find that, "The average European contribution at the individual level was 67.7% (4.5%), the Native American contribution was 25.6% (4.35%), and the African average contribution was 6.7% (0.9%). These values are similar to the population admixture levels estimated with Chakraborty’s gene identity method."

Propaganda addressed above.

Really? How about two? Three? Four? Five? Where is the line drawn?

Easy, familiarize yourself to how the early colonists to the new world identified race.

Wikipedia (Links)

Casta

From what we know about Mendellian genetics, the principles were sound. The laws in North America, despite popular belief, were pretty similar to the spanish casta.

A person that was 7/8 European and 1/8 Amerindian (who are Euro-Asian to begin with) was considered Aryan. Some who are 1/4 Amerindian can be considered Aryan as well, in my view, but it's not that important. The people who care most about that, are ironically antifa darkies like you, Jews with a multi-culti agenda ("there are some Argentinians who are 1/8 or 1/16 Amerindian, so let's let millions of low IQ indios from Peru in and make them citizens!"), or a Christian Identity tard here and there.

Do you understand that these studies measure the admixture proportions of specific individuals? You seem to think that they take 10 Europeans and 10 Indians and declare 50/50 admixture on average.


Technically, any sort of mixture makes a "mestizo." That's what the word means.

Mestizos (1/2 Amerindian & 1/2 Spanish)

Persons with one Spanish parent and one Amerindian parent. The term was originally associated with illegitimacy because in the generations after the Conquest, mixed-race children born in wedlock were assigned either a simple Amerindian or Spanish identity, depending with which culture they were raised. (See Hyperdescent and Hypodescent.) The number of official Mestizos rises in censuses only after the second half of the 17th century, when a sizable and stable community of mixed-race people with no claims on being either Amerindian or Spanish appeared.

Wikipedia (Links)

Casta

So if you're 12.5% Indian, you're all right? How about 13.5%? 14.5? 15.5? 16.5? Where is the line drawn, again?

Is Val Kilmer a white? He has about the same proportion of Amerindian heritage as above. Looks indistinguishable from millions of Northern Europeans :




Ditto for Kevin Costner. You are just being facetious with that question, i'm frankly shocked when ANTIFA's manage to use this canned trick and it works on some of the dumber "white nationalists".

The key now is damage control for the whites whose ancestors committed an error at some undetectable point, and thankfully Mendel's laws means your weak indian blood gets bred out and disappears pretty fast. Also, some people, who may have an Amerindian ancestor, do not show up on various tests.

It's a complex topic , but I think the Nuremberg laws are the best model, refer to that if you'd like.

I don't believe that Europeans should go back to Europe.

Most Uruguayan genomic heritage is European. However, a significant minority is Amerindian, and a smaller minority is African.

The typical inhabitant of northern Mexico is majority European and minority Amerindian. Your problem is that you consider phenotype rather than genotype.

How is it possible that the average Uruguayan looks like a normal white person from Italy, Spain or Germany when you visit Uruguay, while some of the "white" Mexicans look strange and non-European?

I never claimed that southern Mexico had high living conditions; I merely said that it was far safer than northern Mexico and many areas of the U.S. Obviously, there is immigration, as trade liberalization deepened cross-country inequities and created push and pull factors for southern Mexicans to migrate.

That's right, just change the rocks and the 80 IQ beaner becomes a rocket scientist.

The real problem is that you don't actually understand the research methods used in these genetic studies. You just understand that you dislike the conclusions, so your only recourse is to call the studies "politically motivated" and attack the "Jew" authors without actually refuting anything they have written.

The problem is that they are political, not objective. See my explanation above.

That study said that 62% of mtDNA haplogroups were of Native American descent, which is not surprising given the historical legacy of pairings of European men and Indian women. It did not say 62% of the total population, because if you didn't know this, Y DNA also factors into the picture.

The european man indian woman thing is more common in countries that had few European women like Colombia. For Argentina this is not true.

Argentina became 35-40% nonwhite (not just Amerindian from Peru and Bolivia, but also Asian, Negroes from Africa and Dominican Republic, it's a multicultural shithole like America today) after WWII.

Anyone who tells you it's 97% is out of date or lying, anyone who tells you its 30% white is lying too. The truth is whites are a plurality in Argentina, just like in every other new world Western nation. The only reason American WN's dismiss Argentina or Uruguay (the latter which is more Western and in better shape racially than the Jew S A) is because they speak a dialect of Spanish and Americans are mentally retarded.

[N.M. Valdez]

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Why are you rolling your eyes? Your tourist resort experiences in Mexico and Brazil don't mean anything.

Tourist resort? You really have no idea, do you? I was staying with family out there, not a "tourist resort."

[Delusions Demise]

Originally Posted by N.M. Valdez

Tourist resort? You really have no idea, do you? I was staying with family out there, not a "tourist resort."

Well You see, if you were really White or even American for that matter, you would be staying at the tourist resourt enjoying delicacies and luxories while ignoring all of the drug cartels and mass shootings or whatever Latinos like doing now-a-days away from our fun Haven. If you were completely integrated American, you would not have recognizable Family in Latin America anyways, just sayin'

Also, weren't you just talking about being in some L.A. Gang on some other forum section? Oh my, how unciviled you are Indian. Have you no shame? Society weeps for the damage you and your ahem homies have wrecked upon it. I would have loved to see Los Angeles before it was covered in spray paint and the oh so unwelcoming faces of gang members who act very territorial even though in most cases they don't even pay for the land they claim. Indian, is that not what you claim the Whites have done to you in the past? I thought you believed the land belonged to everyone.

I'll tell you what, I will respect you and your whole family for that matter if you prove you've got the 'cajones' to:
Desist all Gang activity
Attempt to remove/paint over the spray paint you have done in the past
Given more than the amount of illegally obtained $ to charity

And lastly, do stop using personal insults in your 'arguments' they hardly if at alp justify your point.

[N.M. Valdez]

Originally Posted by Delusions Demise

Well You see, if you were really White or even American for that matter,

Why would anyone want to be white?

Originally Posted by Delusions Demise

you would be staying at the tourist resourt enjoying delicacies and luxories

Do you have spell check?

Originally Posted by Delusions Demise

while ignoring all of the drug cartels and mass shootings or whatever Latinos like doing now-a-days away from our fun Haven.

Did you know that "Latinos" originally refers to Europeans?

Originally Posted by Delusions Demise

If you were completely integrated American, you would not have recognizable Family in Latin America anyways, just sayin'

Americans don't have family in...America.

Originally Posted by Delusions Demise

Also, weren't you just talking about being in some L.A. Gang on some other forum section?

No, I was talking about another forum member being in some white L.A. gang.

Originally Posted by Delusions Demise

Oh my, how unciviled you are Indian. Have you no shame?

What does "unciviled" mean?

Originally Posted by Delusions Demise

And lastly, do stop using personal insults in your 'arguments' they hardly if at alp justify your point.

I respond to fascists as they address me.

[Joe_Smith]

Originally Posted by N.M. Valdez

Tourist resort? You really have no idea, do you? I was staying with family out there, not a "tourist resort."

I see you have no more argument. Go back to your amen kike university corner, Chief Gramsci, your injun ancestors spit on your beJew'd commie ass.

Did you know the Anarchist and Marxist theorists believed an economic event in the 18th and 19th century West (industrialization, which divided labor into proletarians vs bourgeoisie) is the pinnacle history and reason the world exists, and nothing that came before it or outside of it matters?

That's right, the Jewish philosophy you've internalized says your race and its culture is completely irrelevant. While you call us white supremacists for saying all races have a right to self-determination, the foundation of the hocus pocus leftism you espouse says your race would never have mattered were it not for your interaction with the white man. Of course the conclusion to the narrative, is that half-breeds like yourself must fight under the command of a anti-Western Jew like Trotsky or Luxembourg in order to vindicate your inferior race.

[N.M. Valdez]

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

I see you have no more argument. Go back to your amen kike university corner, Chief Gramsci, your injun ancestors spit on your beJew'd commie ass.

Maybe you have no life and can type away furiously, but some of us work for a living and can't churn out a wall of text in ten minutes.

I will say, you know essentially nothing about me. From "tourist resorts" in Mexico to "university," you seem to think I've been places I've never been to.

[Jimmy McQuade]

Originally Posted by N.M. Valdez

I have been to Brazil, and to Spain. And of course I've been to Mexico.

How does someone who "qualifies for food stamps" afford all that?

[N.M. Valdez]

Originally Posted by Jimmy McQuade

How does someone who "qualifies for food stamps" afford all that?

My mother took me to Brazil and Spain when I was about seven or eight. As for Mexico, you don't have to be a high roller to go where I go.

[Joe_Smith]

I will never understand why a proud Amerindian would identify with the poisonous doctrine of Emma Goldman and use the made up buzz words of yid Leon Trotsky.

The real Indians were barbarians, but they still had a saner view of life than Jews ever will. If you are proud of your ancestors, why not follow what they taught, instead of being a participant in the anti-nature plan 19th and 20th century Ashkenazi Jews you were brainwashed into following. Some foodstamps for thought, Chief.

[N.M. Valdez]

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

The real Indians were barbarians

Indians never did anything more barbaric than what Europeans have done in two world wars.

[MikeTodd]

Originally Posted by Balls-On-His-Chin

Indians never did anything more barbaric than what Europeans have done in two world wars.

Goths, Picts, Vikings, et al; those were Barbarians.
You gut-eaters are simply savages.
Self-respecting barbarian is something you could never rise to.

[N.M. Valdez]

Originally Posted by MikeTodd

What spaniard is here?

Originally Posted by MikeTodd

Goths, Picts, Vikings, et al; those were Barbarians.
You gut-eaters are simply savages.
Self-respecting barbarian is something you could never rise to.

The Celtic druids were "gut eaters" too, bitch. I teach you something every time your dumb ass tries to step up.

[N.M. Valdez]

You know, if you take the very unique position (among white supremacists) that an individual with 25% Amerindian admixture can be considered as "white," then I don't see the point of you even trying to argue with me. It shouldn't even matter to you if these studies are accurate or not; even if they are, you've declared the admixed populations "white" anyway...unless you actually do believe that such significant Indian admixture is a problem, and want to try to deny the validity of this research on that basis.

That you continue to comment on this thread while claiming that I have "no more argument" is laughable, given that you neglected to offer any counter-arguments to my points that Argentina experienced a crime wave from Spanish and Italian immigrants that was blamed on their inferior genetic background, that the Mexican drug war is most severe in the regions with admixture proportions most similar to the "white" populations of South America rather than the most Indian regions, and that the black countries of Barbados and the Bahamas have higher HDI scores than Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay. Temporary amnesia there?

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

How can you give a sure opinion of a nations demographics, if you've never even been there?

What you seem to be implying is that your anecdotal experiences and perceptions are more accurate in determining the admixture proportions of millions of people than actual genetic research that uses large data sets.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Where? The neighborhoods? Wouldn't it skew a DNA sample if scientists took them from the Bronx, Manhattan, and Queens without accounting for self-description of race?

They did ask for participants' ethnic self-identification. Why don't you actually read these studies before commenting on them?

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

I wasn't talking about that study in particular.

Oh no, of course not. It's just a coincidence that you say that there's no analysis of populations in Buenos Aires when the first study in my post had the name "Buenos Aires" in the title.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

So is Argentina a mestizo country or is it one that has a 50-60% of mestizos and 40% of thorough bred whites?

There's almost no such thing as "thorough bred whites" when it comes to South America, because Europeans have been present there intermingling with the indigenous population for more than five centuries.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

If you were to take a nation-wide study of America, you'd probably get very similar results. Do you consider America a mestizo country?

Strictly speaking, if the archaic and relatively useless term "mestizo" refers to anyone with both European and Amerindian admixture, the average "white" in the U.S. is a "mestizo." BTW, America is a continent, not a country.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

So everyone in Argentina is exactly 78% European, 20% Amerindian, and 2% West African?

How do you derive "exactly" from "approximately"?

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

The overwhelmingly European Santa Fe has 3 times more people than Mendoza (the place where people are concentrated in Central Argetina, which is more similar racially and hence culturally, to Chile, they even speak differently than other Argentinians more similar to Chileans) , so why did they only use 3 samples from Santa Fe and 153 from Northern Argentina? And North-Eastern Argentina, which is very densely populated and culturally distant from most Argentinians (they are more similar to neighboring countries) has 61 samples?

To add more hilarious bias, the "North Eastern" provinces of Argentina, which are culturally and racially closer to Paraguay, Formosa and Santiago Del Estero (since Chaco has its own category, in this "study") have less than a million people in population when combined (out of 40 million people in Argentina), yet they used 61 (note the total of samples is 246 according to your study) from this region. Meanwhile, Rio Negro, which is the traditional Germanic stranglehold in Argentina, has an equal number of population to North Eastern Argentina and yet only used 31 samples from this region .

Can you refer to admixture mapping that demonstrates that these variances in European-Amerindian admixture between regions of Argentina are as significant as you claim? If disproportionate sampling is as great a problem as you allege, then it stands to reason that this study would have resulted in vastly different admixture estimates than the others, but it produced the same European proportion of 78%. That shouldn't matter to you, since you consider "castizos" to be "white" anyway, of course.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Yes a well known troll study. 2.2% is statistical static, "rounded up" to make some political point about how Argentina needs more niggers.

By all means, provide a detailed refutation of the methodology. I look forward to your analysis, Professor.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

So everyone in Argentina is exactly these proportions?

Did you not learn about "mean, median, and mode" in fifth grade math class?

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Without asking people to identify their race this is irrelevant. Besides someone who is 82% European and the rest euro-asian (Amerindians of the southern cone are different from the squat block-heads in your home of Oaxaca, by the way, they were known in Argentina, Uruguay and Chile of being metrically reminding of Aryans like the cherokees in America, probably from mixing with the first whites that came before Siberians crossed the landbridge) is white by every colonial standard.

Really? That fascinating piece of lore you picked up is certainly news for population geneticists.

It certainly conflicts rather sharply with Wang et al.'s Genetic Variation and Population Structure in Native Americans, PLoS Genet 3(11):e185. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.0030185: "We examined genetic diversity and population structure in the American landmass using 678 autosomal microsatellite markers genotyped in 422 individuals representing 24 Native American populations sampled from North, Central, and South America. These data were analyzed jointly with similar data available in 54 other indigenous populations worldwide, including an additional five Native American groups. The Native American populations have lower genetic diversity and greater differentiation than populations from other continental regions."



I don't even see why you'd go the route of trying to claim that the Southern Cone Indians had ancient European admixture that Mesoamerican Indians lacked, since the latter group was far more technologically and politically advanced. Isn't that the opposite of what your theory would predict?

Your lie about ancient European populations that "came before Siberians crossed the land bridge" has been refuted many times over on this forum, but I'll gladly point you back to Fagundes et al.'s Mitochondrial Population Genomics Supports a Single Pre-Clovis Origin with a Coastal Route for the Peopling of the Americas, The American Journal of Human Genetics 82, 583–592, March 2008:"Here we show, by using 86 complete mitochondrial genomes, that all Native American haplogroups, including haplogroup X, were part of a single founding population, thereby refuting multiple-migration models. A detailed demographic history of the mtDNA sequences estimated with a Bayesian coalescent method indicates a complex model for the peopling of the Americas, in which the initial differentiation from Asian populations ended with a moderate bottleneck in Beringia during the last glacial maximum (LGM), around ~23,000 to ~19,000 years ago. Toward the end of the LGM, a strong population expansion started ~18,000 and finished ~15,000 years ago. These results support a pre-Clovis occupation of the
New World, suggesting a rapid settlement of the continent along a Pacific coastal route."

Also, I have no relatives from Oaxaca. My maternal family is from Guatemala; my paternal family is from Chihuahua, New Mexico, and western Texas.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

So Amerindian haplogroups were found in 20% of Uruguayans and that makes it a "mestizo country", yet you could probably find similar Abo or Asiatic results in Australia, New Zealand, or even areas of Hungary.

No, those haplogroups were found in 20% of the sampled population of Montevideo. That's why the study's name is "Frequencies of the Four Major Amerindian mtDNA Haplogroups in the Population of Montevideo, Uruguay." See, it's just like "Characterization of Admixture in an Urban Sample from Buenos Aires, Argentina" was about Buenos Aires. You certainly have trouble paying attention to the titles of these studies.

But anyway, allow me to quote from that particular study: "The frequency of Amerindian polymorphisms in Montevideo differed significantly from that observed in Tacuarembo, a city about 400 km away, indicating the high level of variation within Uruguay...On the basis of historical records, Tacuarembo is expected to have the greatest amount of Amerindian admixture in Uruguay (Zum Felde 1967)...When we compared the frequencies of the genetic markers for Montevideo and Tacuarembo, we found statistically significant differences between the two populations."

You'll note that the other two studies that you failed to refute sampled populations outside of Montevideo.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

What pure Amerindian community exists in Uruguay?

Try to pay attention. I mentioned Argentina, not Uruguay.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Easy, familiarize yourself to how the early colonists to the new world identified race. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casta

From what we know about Mendellian genetics, the principles were sound. The laws in North America, despite popular belief, were pretty similar to the spanish casta.

Mendelian genetics? Can you give the class a lesson on Newtonian physics too?

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

A person that was 7/8 European and 1/8 Amerindian (who are Euro-Asian to begin with) was considered Aryan. Some who are 1/4 Amerindian can be considered Aryan as well, in my view, but it's not that important. The people who care most about that, are ironically antifa darkies like you, Jews with a multi-culti agenda ("there are some Argentinians who are 1/8 or 1/16 Amerindian, so let's let millions of low IQ indios from Peru in and make them citizens!"), or a Christian Identity tard here and there.

You could be a tap dancer with the way you keep going around the question, so I'll ask again. If 25% is good with you, and 50% is not, at what point between 25 and 50 do you draw the line.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Is Val Kilmer a white? He has about the same proportion of Amerindian heritage as above. Looks indistinguishable from millions of Northern Europeans. Ditto for Kevin Costner. You are just being facetious with that question, i'm frankly shocked when ANTIFA's manage to use this canned trick and it works on some of the dumber "white nationalists".

Do you have actual admixture mapping of these individuals that supports this, or are they people with "Cherokee princess great grandmothers"?

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

The key now is damage control for the whites whose ancestors committed an error at some undetectable point

Actually, admixture mapping can produce fairly reliable estimates of how many generations ago admixture occurred.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

and thankfully Mendel's laws means your weak indian blood gets bred out and disappears pretty fast. Also, some people, who may have an Amerindian ancestor, do not show up on various tests.

It's a complex topic , but I think the Nuremberg laws are the best model, refer to that if you'd like.

I'd rather refer to actual empirical research from the twenty-first century.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

How is it possible that the average Uruguayan looks like a normal white person from Italy, Spain or Germany when you visit Uruguay, while some of the "white" Mexicans look strange and non-European?

Consider Suarez-Kurtz et al.'s Self-reported skin color, genomic ancestry and the distribution of GST polymorphisms, Pharmacogenetics and Genomics, 2007, 17:765–771: "Interethnic admixture is a source of cryptic population structure that may lead to spurious genotype– phenotype associations in pharmacogenetic/-genomic studies. Logistic regression modeling of GST polymorphisms shows that admixture must be dealt with as a continuous variable, rather than proportioned in arbitrary subcategories for the convenience of data quantification and analysis."

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

That's right, just change the rocks and the 80 IQ beaner becomes a rocket scientist.

Who are you to talk about beaners, sudaca?

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

The problem is that they are political, not objective. See my explanation above.

Your "explanation" is itself the fascist political rant that involves no actual methodological criticism.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

The european man indian woman thing is more common in countries that had few European women like Colombia.

During initial colonization, when these admixture events occurred, all of South America "had few European women." That's why mtDNA haplotypes are far more Indian than Y-DNA haplotypes throughout the continent.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Did you know the Anarchist and Marxist theorists believed an economic event in the 18th and 19th century West (industrialization, which divided labor into proletarians vs bourgeoisie) is the pinnacle history and reason the world exists, and nothing that came before it or outside of it matters?

That's right, the Jewish philosophy you've internalized says your race and its culture is completely irrelevant. While you call us white supremacists for saying all races have a right to self-determination, the foundation of the hocus pocus leftism you espouse says your race would never have mattered were it not for your interaction with the white man. Of course the conclusion to the narrative, is that half-breeds like yourself must fight under the command of a anti-Western Jew like Trotsky or Luxembourg in order to vindicate your inferior race.

Is that right? Marx wrote in The Communist Manifesto that, "discovery of gold and silver in america, the extirpation, enslavement, and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalized the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production."

The late Marxist scholar J.M. Blaut elaborates further in Colonialism and the Rise of Capitalism, Science & Society, Vol. 53, No. 3 (Fall, 1989), pp. 260-296:

The crux of this theory is a pair of propositions: (1) Prior to the 16th century, Europe had absolutely no advantage over Africa and Asia as to level and rate of development out of feudalism and toward capitalism, a process that was going on in many regions of the Eastern Hemisphere. The fact that Europeans reached the Western Hemisphere before Africans or Asians did so is a reflection only of location (accessibility), not level of development.

(2) The conquest of America and exploitation of Americans provided European protocapitalists (merchants, artisans, acquisitive land- lords, freehold peasants, and others) with massive capital accumulation which they used to dissolve feudal relations in Europe, destroy competing protocapitalist communities outside of Europe, and thus acquire the ability to gain political power in northwestern Europe.

It may be more accurate to say that the white man would not have mattered were it not for interaction with Native Americans.

[John MacMillan]

Originally Posted by N.M. Valdez

Maybe you have no life and can type away furiously, but some of us work for a living and can't churn out a wall of text in ten minutes.

Your joking, right? Verbosity seems to be your weapon of choice. No one likes responding to a wall of text. Pot, it'd my pleasure to introduce you to Señor Kettle

[N.M. Valdez]

Originally Posted by John MacMillan

Your joking, right? Verbosity seems to be your weapon of choice. No one likes responding to a wall of text. Pot, it'd my pleasure to introduce you to Señor Kettle

Yes, I do stand by to stand by at times, and can debate fascists. At other times, I'm busy training.

[N.M. Valdez]

[N.M. Valdez]

Cat got your tongue there, Joey?

[Joe_Smith]

Originally Posted by N.M. Valdez

You know, if you take the very unique position (among white supremacists) that an individual with 25% Amerindian admixture can be considered as "white," then I don't see the point of you even trying to argue with me. It shouldn't even matter to you if these studies are accurate or not; even if they are, you've declared the admixed populations "white" anyway...unless you actually do believe that such significant Indian admixture is a problem, and want to try to deny the validity of this research on that basis.

What I was denying is how common it is. There is a percentage of whites in Argentina (smaller in Uruguay) who are 1/8th Amerindian or less, but it's by no means the majority of the whites as those studies suggest.

That you continue to comment on this thread while claiming that I have "no more argument" is laughable, given that you neglected to offer any counter-arguments to my points that Argentina experienced a crime wave from Spanish and Italian immigrants that was blamed on their inferior genetic background, that the Mexican drug war is most severe in the regions with admixture proportions most similar to the "white" populations of South America rather than the most Indian regions, and that the black countries of Barbados and the Bahamas have higher HDI scores than Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay. Temporary amnesia there?

Northern Mexico does not have similar racial demographics to Argentina and Uruguay. While the drug war is indeed most severe in the North, it is still far more desirable to live in the north (where the wealth and development is concentrated) than it is to live in the low-IQ indian provinces.

The Mexican drug war is also not comparable to crime by Spanish and Italian immigrants to Argentina. The fact that you would compare what is essentially a civil war in Mexico to percentage of immigrants who were drunkards or thieves in the 19th century is petty legalism.

Barbados and Bahamas are cesspools outside of the resorts. Those countries have tiny populations, and the wealth is concentrated in the hands of multi-national corporations that profit from tourism. Put Barbadians in a place with more than a couple hundred thousand people, and you'll get Detroit or Johannesburg.

What you seem to be implying is that your anecdotal experiences and perceptions are more accurate in determining the admixture proportions of millions of people than actual genetic research that uses large data sets.

Those studied a few hundred to a few thousand people, cherry picking a larger amount from low population indio parts. That's worse than anecdotal evidence, it's agenda-driven.

They did ask for participants' ethnic self-identification. Why don't you actually read these studies before commenting on them?

Show me where it said that?

Oh no, of course not. It's just a coincidence that you say that there's no analysis of populations in Buenos Aires when the first study in my post had the name "Buenos Aires" in the title.

I didn't say there was no analysis of Buenos Aires.

There's almost no such thing as "thorough bred whites" when it comes to South America, because Europeans have been present there intermingling with the indigenous population for more than five centuries.

Depends on the region. Places like Argentina and Uruguay had few people in them until European immigration in the 19th and 20th century. Most who have been to Buenos Aires, at least until the cancer of Peruvian and bolivian immigration, used to call it the Paris of the South. Why don't they say that about the Machu Pichu? Is it a social construct, did it fall out of the sky like that?

Strictly speaking, if the archaic and relatively useless term "mestizo" refers to anyone with both European and Amerindian admixture, the average "white" in the U.S. is a "mestizo." BTW, America is a continent, not a country.

So you refer to people who are 1% Amerindian (an impossibility your study presents knowing how recently Europeans and Amerindians had contact in Argentina) as mestizos, then turn around and say mestizo is an archaic term, then say the Average white American is a mestizo? You smoke much peyote, medicine man JewVez

How do you derive "exactly" from "approximately"?

Because when you talk about the average racial admixture of country that was predominately European until the last 20-30 years of non-white immigration, you are being dishonest. Argentina is a multicultural country like the USA and Canada today, so taking a study under the assumption that today's "Argentinians" (including the millions of illegal paraguayans and peruvians who got amnesty over the years from the Jewish government) can be studied like you would a homogenous country, such as Poland, is a gaping hole in the study.

What they are suggesting is that the average Argentinian is 78% European, and the rest Amerindian, glossing over the fact that you find more people who are fully European and mostly Amerindian immigrants, with a sprinkle of colonial whites, concentrated in rural areas, that are 1/8 or 1/16 Amerindian.

Some white man voodoo for you, Chief JewDez -if you group together a person that is 100% Amerindian , with 1 person that is 100% European, you get an average of 50-50. That is the manipulation of your politicized, judaic, mercosur justifying studies.

Can you refer to admixture mapping that demonstrates that these variances in European-Amerindian admixture between regions of Argentina are as significant as you claim? If disproportionate sampling is as great a problem as you allege, then it stands to reason that this study would have resulted in vastly different admixture estimates than the others, but it produced the same European proportion of 78%. That shouldn't matter to you, since you consider "castizos" to be "white" anyway, of course.

My problem isn't necessarily that I think it's a big deal if someone has an indian ancestor in the woodpile, my problem is that the study paints a dishonest of Argentinian and Uruguayan demographics.

By all means, provide a detailed refutation of the methodology. I look forward to your analysis, Professor.

I already did.

Did you not learn about "mean, median, and mode" in fifth grade math class?

Did you learn averages?

Really? That fascinating piece of lore you picked up is certainly news for population geneticists.

It certainly conflicts rather sharply with Wang et al.'s Genetic Variation and Population Structure in Native Americans, PLoS Genet 3(11):e185. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.0030185: "We examined genetic diversity and population structure in the American landmass using 678 autosomal microsatellite markers genotyped in 422 individuals representing 24 Native American populations sampled from North, Central, and South America. These data were analyzed jointly with similar data available in 54 other indigenous populations worldwide, including an additional five Native American groups. The Native American populations have lower genetic diversity and greater differentiation than populations from other continental regions."

What groups? From that list in the image, there aren't any Indians such as Cherokees or some of the tribes from the Southern cone. Big difference between some gracile, pseudo-European featured Indians, and some pineapple headed cuac cuac like you.

I don't even see why you'd go the route of trying to claim that the Southern Cone Indians had ancient European admixture that Mesoamerican Indians lacked, since the latter group was far more technologically and politically advanced. Isn't that the opposite of what your theory would predict?

Judging from anthropological evidence, Mesoamerican Indians were at some point in contact with Europeans before colombus. Oh and did I mention, the Aztecs et al no longer exist, while the inferior indians now compose the majority? Of course, little is studied regarding this, by Jews who do not want it to get it. Academia and science are not free institutions in the West, anonymous polls of scientists show this, where pre-packaged jew propaganda "science" proves race does not exist, yet more scientists believe there is a correlation between race and intelligence.

When it comes to the Southern cone, there were very few indians there to begin with. However, according to certain Spanish explorers, some of the indians in Argentina and Chile were close in appearance to white men, bearded, etc. The Araucanos, for example, are known for their fair features.

Your lie about ancient European populations that "came before Siberians crossed the land bridge" has been refuted many times over on this forum, but I'll gladly point you back to Fagundes et al.'s Mitochondrial Population Genomics Supports a Single Pre-Clovis Origin with a Coastal Route for the Peopling of the Americas, The American Journal of Human Genetics 82, 583–592, March 2008:"Here we show, by using 86 complete mitochondrial genomes, that all Native American haplogroups, including haplogroup X, were part of a single founding population, thereby refuting multiple-migration models. A detailed demographic history of the mtDNA sequences estimated with a Bayesian coalescent method indicates a complex model for the peopling of the Americas, in which the initial differentiation from Asian populations ended with a moderate bottleneck in Beringia during the last glacial maximum (LGM), around ~23,000 to ~19,000 years ago. Toward the end of the LGM, a strong population expansion started ~18,000 and finished ~15,000 years ago. These results support a pre-Clovis occupation of the
New World, suggesting a rapid settlement of the continent along a Pacific coastal route."

The theory hasn't been debunked, you injuns just bury the evidence, to maintain your folklore and status as welfare queens.

There is strong evidence for the Clovis theory. If you only buy system academics, look up Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian to see the archaeological finds regarding this.

Also, I have no relatives from Oaxaca. My maternal family is from Guatemala; my paternal family is from Chihuahua, New Mexico, and western Texas.

LOL! Guat? The country with the IQ of 79? I'm surprised you can actually work a computer. I congratulate you.

No, those haplogroups were found in 20% of the sampled population of Montevideo. That's why the study's name is "Frequencies of the Four Major Amerindian mtDNA Haplogroups in the Population of Montevideo, Uruguay." See, it's just like "Characterization of Admixture in an Urban Sample from Buenos Aires, Argentina" was about Buenos Aires. You certainly have trouble paying attention to the titles of these studies.


But anyway, allow me to quote from that particular study: "The frequency of Amerindian polymorphisms in Montevideo differed significantly from that observed in Tacuarembo, a city about 400 km away, indicating the high level of variation within Uruguay...On the basis of historical records, Tacuarembo is expected to have the greatest amount of Amerindian admixture in Uruguay (Zum Felde 1967)...When we compared the frequencies of the genetic markers for Montevideo and Tacuarembo, we found statistically significant differences between the two populations."

I'll try to explain my point in a way a Guat fresh-out of Jew taught brown self-esteem class can understand:

Population of Uruguay: 3,368,595

Population of Montevideo: 1,319,108

Population of Tacuarembo: 90,053

Which one is more representative of the population of Uruguay, Marrano Valdez?

You could be a tap dancer with the way you keep going around the question, so I'll ask again. If 25% is good with you, and 50% is not, at what point between 25 and 50 do you draw the line.

There aren't that many people in Argentina or Uruguay who are 25% Amerindian, and the ones who are generally are indistinguishable from whites since Amerindians are very recessive, racially speaking. I'm not some Christian Identity tard, there are bigger fish to fry.

The Nuremberg laws work in my opinion, as they realistically limit racial damage while retaining a populist dynamic against the enemy. That is precisely why people like you hate it so much.

Do you have actual admixture mapping of these individuals that supports this, or are they people with "Cherokee princess great grandmothers"?

Proof they're lying about being partially Amerindian?

Actually, admixture mapping can produce fairly reliable estimates of how many generations ago admixture occurred.

I thought there was no genetic test for race?

I'd rather refer to actual empirical research from the twenty-first century.

What is this in reference to, Mendel's laws?

Consider Suarez-Kurtz et al.'s Self-reported skin color, genomic ancestry and the distribution of GST polymorphisms, Pharmacogenetics and Genomics, 2007, 17:765–771: "Interethnic admixture is a source of cryptic population structure that may lead to spurious genotype– phenotype associations in pharmacogenetic/-genomic studies. Logistic regression modeling of GST polymorphisms shows that admixture must be dealt with as a continuous variable, rather than proportioned in arbitrary subcategories for the convenience of data quantification and analysis."

What does a study done in a well-known raceless place like Brazil have to do with Argentina and Uruguay?

Who are you to talk about beaners, sudaca?

The son of those who civilized you

Your "explanation" is itself the fascist political rant that involves no actual methodological criticism.

So you are denying that there is no policy to "de-construct" and define European descended people around the world out of existence?

I know, in the back of your head, you know these studies are politically motivated. Argentinians in the 80's and part of the 90's were very angry and resistant about the flood of brown grub-eaters from neighboring countries, and they still are. However, the Jews of Argentina have been on a campaign to de-Westerize Argentina and Uruguay and turn them into typical South American nations like Peru, with a thin layer of wealthy Jews ruling over teeming hordes of Amerindian/mestizo servants. You break a people by destroying their culture, via demographic bombs, critical theory, and "We're all Latinos (term made up by Nixon)" baloney.

During initial colonization, when these admixture events occurred, all of South America "had few European women." That's why mtDNA haplotypes are far more Indian than Y-DNA haplotypes throughout the continent.

Argentina and especially Uruguay had few people until European immigration to these countries.

Is that right? Marx wrote in The Communist Manifesto that, "discovery of gold and silver in america, the extirpation, enslavement, and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalized the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production."

I guess you're too thick to see that he is relating this to, yes, the industrial revolution. All of the world's history is irrelevant to Marx, everything everywhere was simply leading up to a Western European phenomenon in the 18th century, that is the beginning and end of history until the Proletarians overtake the bourgeoisie.

The late Marxist scholar J.M. Blaut elaborates further in Colonialism and the Rise of Capitalism, Science & Society, Vol. 53, No. 3 (Fall, 1989), pp. 260-296:

There have been probably millions of college kikes that get paid to sit around and write new ways to spin Marx. It doesn't debunk the fact that Marxism is Euro-centric, and for an Amerindian like you to take it up is assuming "white"(Jewish) supremacy.

It may be more accurate to say that the white man would not have mattered were it not for interaction with Native Americans.

Even the most advanced amerindians were thousands of years behind whites. Aztecs and Incas were interesting and advanced races, but they were still light years behind even Rome and Ancient Greece.

[N.M. Valdez]

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

What I was denying is how common it is. There is a percentage of whites in Argentina (smaller in Uruguay) who are 1/8th Amerindian or less, but it's by no means the majority of the whites as those studies suggest.

And the reason that you futilely try to make that denial is because you actually do believe that such admixture matters, despite your assurances to the contrary. You say it doesn't matter, because deep inside, you probably know that your moronic attempts to dismiss this genetic research just looks stupid.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Northern Mexico does not have similar racial demographics to Argentina and Uruguay.

Indian admixture averages are less than 15% higher in northern Mexico than in Argentina and Uruguay. I thought you said that Indian admixture proportions less than 25% weren't relevant?

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

While the drug war is indeed most severe in the North, it is still far more desirable to live in the north (where the wealth and development is concentrated) than it is to live in the low-IQ indian provinces.

That's true in part (though you've still not explained the narco violence, because you have no explanation), yet why are there southern Mexican states with higher HDI scores than northern Mexican states?



Have you considered how population differences and government policies factor into these averages or have you once again stupidly jumped to a predetermined conclusion?

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

The Mexican drug war is also not comparable to crime by Spanish and Italian immigrants to Argentina. The fact that you would compare what is essentially a civil war in Mexico to percentage of immigrants who were drunkards or thieves in the 19th century is petty legalism.

I never made that comparison. What I actually asked you was why "white" immigrants should be a social underclass that caused crime problems while the "mestizo" population was the middle and upper classes. That's the opposite of what your genetic determinism predicts.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Barbados and Bahamas are cesspools outside of the resorts. Those countries have tiny populations, and the wealth is concentrated in the hands of multi-national corporations that profit from tourism.

That's a complete lie, as evidenced by the HDI scores that I referenced. I referred to HDI, not GDP or GNP, so moronically referring to "wealth concentrated in the hands of multinational corporations" doesn't work.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Those studied a few hundred to a few thousand people, cherry picking a larger amount from low population indio parts. That's worse than anecdotal evidence, it's agenda-driven.

The European admixture component is higher in Buenos Aires because the capital was an entry point for Spanish and Italian immigrants, who, as previously mentioned, disproportionately contributed to crime and poverty.



It is shown in Bobillo et al.'s Amerindian mitochondrial DNA haplogroups predominate in the population of Argentina: towards a first nationwide forensic mitochondrial DNA sequence database, International Journal of Legal Medicine, July 2010, Volume 124, Issue 4, pp 263-268: "The study presents South American mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) data from selected north (N = 98), central (N = 193) and south (N = 47) Argentinean populations. Sequence analysis of the complete mtDNA control region (CR, 16024–576) resulted in 288 unique haplotypes ignoring C-insertions around positions 16193, 309, and 573; the additional analysis of coding region single nucleotide polymorphisms enabled a fine classification of the described lineages. The Amerindian haplogroups were most frequent in the north and south representing more than 60% of the sequences. A slightly different situation was observed in central Argentina where the Amerindian haplogroups represented less than 50%, and the European contribution was more relevant."

We can also consider Garcia and Demarchi's Incidence and Distribution of Native American mtDNA Haplogroups in Central Argentina, Human Biology Volume 81, Number 1, February 2009 pp. 59-69: "We report the incidence and distribution of Native American mtDNA haplogroups in nine villages across the Sierras Centrales archeological area, located in central Argentina. The aims of the study were (1) to investigate the relative incidence of native maternal lineages, (2) to determine whether or not the homogeneous pattern observed in a previous study persists at this larger scale, and (3) to ascertain the genetic affinities between the studied population and other native populations of the Southern Cone of South America. Of the 310 individuals from whom DNA was extracted, 249 (80.3%) were assigned to one of the founding native American haplogroups. This finding confirms the persistence at high prevalence of native maternal lineages in the rural populations of central Argentina. The haplogroup distribution is homogeneous in the population samples from Córdoba province, with haplogroups C and D always found at the highest frequencies. The sample from San Luis province, Tilisarao, presents a different genetic pattern, with haplogroups A and B being the most frequent. Principal components analysis and SAMOVA at the regional level show that the Córdoba, Patagonia, and Tierra del Fuego populations cluster together, which suggests a common origin."

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Show me where it said that?

"The samples are composed of individuals from the following native American groups: (1) Humahuaquen˜o and Quechua from the province of Jujuy in northwestern Argentina; (2) Tehuelche from Pampa de Chalõ´a and Loma Redonda, province of Neuque´n; (3) Mapuche, from the province of Rõ´o Negro; (4) Mataco-Mataguayo from the village of Santa Victoria, northwest of the province of Salta; (5) Chorote and (6) Toba from the village of Santa Victoria, in the northwest province of Salta; and (7) Ayoreo and (8) Lengua from southern Paraguay."

Maybe you should try actually reading these studies.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Depends on the region. Places like Argentina and Uruguay had few people in them until European immigration in the 19th and 20th century. Most who have been to Buenos Aires, at least until the cancer of Peruvian and bolivian immigration, used to call it the Paris of the South. Why don't they say that about the Machu Pichu? Is it a social construct, did it fall out of the sky like that?

As evidenced by quoted authors, people referred to Spanish and Italian immigration as a cancer in its day too.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

So you refer to people who are 1% Amerindian (an impossibility your study presents knowing how recently Europeans and Amerindians had contact in Argentina) as mestizos,

In the technical sense of the word, they would be "mestizos."

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

then turn around and say mestizo is an archaic term, then say the Average white American is a mestizo?

That's why it's an archaic term, idiot!

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

You smoke much peyote, medicine man JewVez

Are you calling a member of this forum a Jew without proof? That's a bannable offense.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Because when you talk about the average racial admixture of country that was predominately European until the last 20-30 years of non-white immigration, you are being dishonest. Argentina is a multicultural country like the USA and Canada today, so taking a study under the assumption that today's "Argentinians" (including the millions of illegal paraguayans and peruvians who got amnesty over the years from the Jewish government) can be studied like you would a homogenous country, such as Poland, is a gaping hole in the study.

What they are suggesting is that the average Argentinian is 78% European, and the rest Amerindian, glossing over the fact that you find more people who are fully European and mostly Amerindian immigrants, with a sprinkle of colonial whites, concentrated in rural areas, that are 1/8 or 1/16 Amerindian.

That's not true. Catelli et al., for example, mentioned the "important genetic heterogeneity of the country." Of course there are variances in admixture proportions, but many of these admixture events occurred many generations ago. That's why the comparison with the USA and Canada is disingenuous and misleading; there weren't the same admixture events, and the average level of Indian admixture in the people of those countries, though still present, is far lower.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Some white man voodoo for you, Chief JewDez

That's the second time that you've referred to a member of this forum as a Jew without proof.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

-if you group together a person that is 100% Amerindian , with 1 person that is 100% European, you get an average of 50-50. That is the manipulation of your politicized, judaic, mercosur justifying studies.

Hey, idiot, I referred to mtDNA distribution, which could only exist in the pattern it does if there was admixture between Indian females and European males. I also referred to studies that distinguished between different regions and found clear variances in admixture proportions as a result of different immigration pressures. So while you may be so stupid as to believe that there's people that are "100% European" in these studies, there is a minimum level of admixture in every individual sampled, and you already claimed that 1% is too low.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

My problem isn't necessarily that I think it's a big deal if someone has an indian ancestor in the woodpile, my problem is that the study paints a dishonest of Argentinian and Uruguayan demographics.

Not at all. Numerous studies that sampled numerous populations and individuals have reached a consensus.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

I already did.

LMAO, no you didn't. You just proved that you didn't actually read them.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Did you learn averages?

Those are forms of averages, you idiot.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

What groups? From that list in the image, there aren't any Indians such as Cherokees or some of the tribes from the Southern cone. Big difference between some gracile, pseudo-European featured Indians, and some pineapple headed cuac cuac like you.

LMAO, you are a fucking idiot. I guess you misses Wang's comment that, "The Native American populations have lower genetic diversity and greater differentiation than populations from other continental regions."

If you're confused about the genetic affinities between geographically and linguistically dispersed South American populations, you can always read Paleogenetical Study of Pre-Columbian Samples From Pampa Grande (Salta, Argentina), AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 141:452–462 (2010): "Successful ancient DNA extraction and amplification of various complementary genetic markers allowed us to characterize from a biological point of view individuals from the ancient population of PG. The PG samples present genetic similarities to other Andean populations, in particular when considering the frequencies of mitochondrial haplogroups. In spite of the Candelaria culture of PG being local and specific, we can hypothesize that gene flow between Andean populations, facilitated by an important cultural network, allowed the genetic similarity between populations of the region to be maintained. We can also hypothesize a common starting gene pool for all the populations of the Andean region."



You can supplement that with Saint-Pierre et al.'s An Alternative Model for the Early Peopling of Southern South America Revealed by Analyses of Three Mitochondrial DNA Haplogroups: "The distribution of the major clades in the Southern Cone did not show large differences among the populations; we did not find clusters linked to a specific population. The principal difference encountered was the high proportion of clade D4h3a5 in southern Patagonia. This clade was originally defined by Perego et al. (2009) [21] but is redefined here (see nomenclature), and is signposted by the presence of 16051 in the control region. D4h3a5 was found exclusively in southern Patagonia-Tierra del Fuego, with the sole exception of one Huilliche. The limited distribution of this lineage reinforces our hypothesis of the continuity of the current Patagonian populations with the initial founders."

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Judging from anthropological evidence, Mesoamerican Indians were at some point in contact with Europeans before colombus

Really? By all means, post this "anthropological evidence" that you refer to.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Oh and did I mention, the Aztecs et al no longer exist, while the inferior indians now compose the majority?

You didn't, because I would have mocked your stupidity if you had. Nahuatl is still a widely spoken language in Mesoamerica.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Of course, little is studied regarding this, by Jews who do not want it to get it. Academia and science are not free institutions in the West, anonymous polls of scientists show this, where pre-packaged jew propaganda "science" proves race does not exist, yet more scientists believe there is a correlation between race and intelligence.

Most population geneticists believe in the non-existence of "race," actually, since they're informed enough to realize that there's greater genetic diversity within so-called "racial" populations than between them.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

When it comes to the Southern cone, there were very few indians there to begin with. However, according to certain Spanish explorers, some of the indians in Argentina and Chile were close in appearance to white men, bearded, etc.

According to certain Spanish explorers, they sighted mermaids in the Atlantic Ocean. Your point?

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

The Araucanos, for example, are known for their fair features.

I'm sure that some Mapuche might be known for their "fair features" now that their population has experienced admixture with Europeans, but pre-Columbian Mapuche were descended from the same stock as other Indians.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

The theory hasn't been debunked, you injuns just bury the evidence, to maintain your folklore and status as welfare queens.

LMAO! Do you really think that this pathetic whining constitutes a refutation of the study that I posted? Try posting an actual primary source, idiot.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

There is strong evidence for the Clovis theory.

The problem is that you have no idea what you're talking about. It's not called "the Clovis theory." It's the "Solutrean hypothesis." The Clovis-first theory is an entirely separate theory of settlement of the Americas that has also been debunked.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

If you only buy system academics, look up Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian to see the archaeological finds regarding this.

LMAO! Are you really under the impression that I don't know who Dennis Stanford is? I schooled kinder on this subject long before your dumb ass came on the scene.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

LOL! Guat? The country with the IQ of 79? I'm surprised you can actually work a computer. I congratulate you.

Are you suggesting that everyone in Guatemala has an IQ of 79, after you just finished whining about the misleading nature of statistical averages? I mean, even if we accepted that IQ score average as correct (and there are reasons not to), there seem to be some problems with your insinuation that it's genetically determined.

Let's have a look at this:



How does Indian Peru best "mestizo" Mexico and Colombia? Why is there such a disparity between Indian Peru and Indian Guatemala (11 points) despite the similar genetic structure of their populations, and the historic technological superiority of Mesoamerican Indians to Andean Indians?

Come to think of it, how does the admixed Italian population come to hold an average IQ score identical to that of Austrian, German, and Dutch populations, and above various other euro populations? How does the Spanish population hold an average IQ score only one point above the Argentine population, when Argentina was settled by ethnic Castilians (already admixed) who proceeded to reproduce with the Indian population, producing a modern castizo population in Argentina, and on top of that, subject to waves of Italian immigrants in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? How do similarly admixed Uruguay and Portugal come to beat Ireland and Greece? (I've not mentioned former Soviet-bloc countries because I know you'll say something stupid about them being "Jew Bolshevik controlled.")

Solve this one for me, professor. As recorded in Genetic admixture, self-reported ethnicity, self-estimated admixture, and skin pigmentation among Hispanics and Native Americans, "Among self-identified Hispanics, the average NA admixture is 32.7%...(see Table 1), slightly lower than the 34.1% found by Bonilla et al. (2004a) in their southern Colorado sample. Among self-identified NAs, the average NA admixture is 71.8%..., a value significantly larger than observed in Hispanics (P \ 0.001)." Native Americans have more Amerindian admixture than the descendants of Mexicans, and far more than Puerto Ricans and Cubans, so how does it come to pass that their IQ scores are approximately equivalent, measured as slightly higher or lower in different assessments?





Enthralling questions, to which I'm sure you'll have equally enthralling answers.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

I'll try to explain my point in a way a Guat fresh-out of Jew taught brown self-esteem class can understand:

Population of Uruguay: 3,368,595

Population of Montevideo: 1,319,108

Population of Tacuarembo: 90,053

Ah, but that (incorrectly) assumes that Montevideo and Tacuarembo were the only areas sampled, idiot. Do you even bother to read the studies that you try to "refute"?

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Which one is more representative of the population of Uruguay, Marrano Valdez?

This is now the third time that you have accused another forum member of being a Jew without proof.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

There aren't that many people in Argentina or Uruguay who are 25% Amerindian, and the ones who are generally are indistinguishable from whites since Amerindians are very recessive, racially speaking. I'm not some Christian Identity tard, there are bigger fish to fry.

"Recessive, racially speaking" isn't any kind of description that has an actual meaning within population genetics. It's just something that white supremacists made up, playing with words that they don't understand.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Proof they're lying about being partially Amerindian?

LOL, no. You see, in science, you search for proof to affirm positive statements, not to deny them. Unless you can produce admixture maps of these individuals, there is no proof that they are 12.5% or 25% Amerindian.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

I thought there was no genetic test for race?

Haha, no one said that it was a "genetic test for race," moron. What I said was admixture between distinct continental populations, not "races."

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

What does a study done in a well-known raceless place like Brazil have to do with Argentina and Uruguay?

The whole world is a well-known raceless place. It's well known to everyone except moronic white supremacists.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

So you are denying that there is no policy to "de-construct" and define European descended people around the world out of existence?

I'm a European-descended person myself.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

I know, in the back of your head, you know these studies are politically motivated. Argentinians in the 80's and part of the 90's were very angry and resistant about the flood of brown grub-eaters from neighboring countries, and they still are.

Argentines in the 20's and part of the 30's were very angry and resistant about the flood of pink grub-eaters from Europe.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Argentina and especially Uruguay had few people until European immigration to these countries.

Evidence for this statement?

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

I guess you're too thick to see that he is relating this to, yes, the industrial revolution.

Obviously, idiot.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

All of the world's history is irrelevant to Marx, everything everywhere was simply leading up to a Western European phenomenon in the 18th century, that is the beginning and end of history until the Proletarians overtake the bourgeoisie.

LOL! Far from being "irrelevant," the historical events he described were integral to the foundations of the Industrial Revolution, which would not have occurred without the Columbian exchange, the Atlantic slave trade, etc.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

There have been probably millions of college kikes that get paid to sit around and write new ways to spin Marx. It doesn't debunk the fact that Marxism is Euro-centric, and for an Amerindian like you to take it up is assuming "white"(Jewish) supremacy.

I am not a Marxist...and I thought you fascists said that Jews were Middle Easterners.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Even the most advanced amerindians were thousands of years behind whites. Aztecs and Incas were interesting and advanced races, but they were still light years behind even Rome and Ancient Greece.

A moronic statement. Sixteenth century Tenochtitlan was more heavily populated than London or Paris, with Mesoamerica boasting science, mathematics, and medicine more advanced than that of Europe.