[Definer]

(10-26-2014 11:36 AM)bacardi123 Wrote:  

(10-26-2014 11:25 AM)Bey Wrote:  

Hailing from the UK, I suppose that I'd fall under the category of 'Western men', and I must say that I was very impressed with what I saw in Sofia, Bulgaria. But then I've never been to Poland, Ukraine, etc.

Hm I guess being from the UK you've been exposed to some level of propaganda whose goal is to show that Bulgarians and Romanians are gypsies. It was very common last year to read stories about gipsies from these countries stealing and begging on the streets of London (in the dailymail...).

In reality though: less than 5% of the population are gypsies, some 30% have russian/ukrainian heritage (light eyes and light hair...), about 20% are Turks and the rest are just "bulgars": dark eyes but light,pale skin - similar to the tones of northern iran.

typical bulgarian beauty:

The gypsy population in Bulgaria is some how high, but not as high as in romania, plus that many Romanians have mixed with gypsies also and this is very evident in their DNA.

There are not significant Russian admixture among Bulgarians because the number of Russians was never high.

The '' turks'' are mostly gypsies and other muslim slavs that mixed with some ottomans, they are around 10%.

Other Bulgarians are mostly native Balkaners. The original Bulgars were Turkic and not Iranic.

They came from central Asia, subjected a large number of Slavs in central europe and than moved to Balkans.

They subjected a large number of native Balkaners and lots of slavs who had already started to settle there.

They were mostly a military elite and applied Tenngrism and used to speak a turkic language.

With the passing of time in the dawn of the 10th century, they became officially Orthodox and accepted as an official language the language of the people they were ruling over as a pragmatic policy, todays Bulgarian language.

Less than 5% of the modern gene pool of Bulgarians is made of turkic Bulgars.

Your post is entirely inaccurate or trolling.