galvez
Sunday, November 16th, 2003, 01:01 PM
Recently on other threads there have been heated debates between Slavs and Meds over, well, nothing. As far as I am concerned there is no war -- or at least, no good reason for war. In my view if Slavs and Meds are to fight each other there is nothing but crumbs left for the winner, if that -- and a lot of wasted time.
Anyway, it's not the best thing in the world for a Med racialist to click into this forum and to see the anti-Med hatred spewed from certain Slav racialists. But I know it goes both ways and no group is totally innocent.
Hopefully this thread will direct a lot of the discussion in other parts of the forum to a more relevant one (anthropology, which is linked to history).
I was accused by "The Blond Beast" (another Slavic "Nordicist") of basing all of my views on anecdotes. I decided to cite some (more) material for a good discussion. "Russian Patriot" says I am conflating a preference for Nords and their cultures with the ideology of Nordicism; this may seem oversimplified but it is not an attempt to be disingenuous or verbally tricky: I call them Nordicists because it's obvious to me they view Meds in contempt and have a subjective identification with Nords or "Nordish ideology" (even if not well-defined). Thus their identification is not positive ("I love my group") but negative: their racial politics revolves around playing a game of one-upmanship against Meds (and possibly other groups/ideologues). Thus, their ideas are formed with a type of obsession towards Meds, albeit a negative one. Furthermore, as would be expected, the discussions often dissolve to personal attacks, with a denial that such attacks are even taking place.
Here is Arthur Kemp, author of "March of the White Titans," on Russia:
"This was divided into four regions: Russia proper, comprising the easternmost part of Europe and including the Grand Duchy of Finland and most of Poland; the Caucasus; all of northern Asia, or Siberia; and Russian Central Asia, divided into the regions of the Steppes, in the southwest; and western Turkistan in the southeast."
Only the first two of these regions contained majority White populations: the rest was (and still is) inhabited by Mongol racial types, all of whom settled the region after the great Hunnish invasion of Europe. The subsequent absorption of the Mongols produced the mixed race population in the vast regions of southern and eastern Russia which to the present day characterize that part of the world." (emphasis added)
Kemp asserts that the southern and eastern parts of Russia are majority "Mongol," and that merely a "majority" in the European part is White (which implies that there is a minority, and given the wording throughout his chapter, perhaps not insignificant). At least, that is Kemp's interpretation.
http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr40.htm
I will add that I do not endorse Kemp's views, and find him to be a distorter of history. My point is that a lot of the history of Russia is quite unflattering from a racialist perspective, which ought to humble some of the Slavic racialists who look down on Meds.
Anyway, it's not the best thing in the world for a Med racialist to click into this forum and to see the anti-Med hatred spewed from certain Slav racialists. But I know it goes both ways and no group is totally innocent.
Hopefully this thread will direct a lot of the discussion in other parts of the forum to a more relevant one (anthropology, which is linked to history).
I was accused by "The Blond Beast" (another Slavic "Nordicist") of basing all of my views on anecdotes. I decided to cite some (more) material for a good discussion. "Russian Patriot" says I am conflating a preference for Nords and their cultures with the ideology of Nordicism; this may seem oversimplified but it is not an attempt to be disingenuous or verbally tricky: I call them Nordicists because it's obvious to me they view Meds in contempt and have a subjective identification with Nords or "Nordish ideology" (even if not well-defined). Thus their identification is not positive ("I love my group") but negative: their racial politics revolves around playing a game of one-upmanship against Meds (and possibly other groups/ideologues). Thus, their ideas are formed with a type of obsession towards Meds, albeit a negative one. Furthermore, as would be expected, the discussions often dissolve to personal attacks, with a denial that such attacks are even taking place.
Here is Arthur Kemp, author of "March of the White Titans," on Russia:
"This was divided into four regions: Russia proper, comprising the easternmost part of Europe and including the Grand Duchy of Finland and most of Poland; the Caucasus; all of northern Asia, or Siberia; and Russian Central Asia, divided into the regions of the Steppes, in the southwest; and western Turkistan in the southeast."
Only the first two of these regions contained majority White populations: the rest was (and still is) inhabited by Mongol racial types, all of whom settled the region after the great Hunnish invasion of Europe. The subsequent absorption of the Mongols produced the mixed race population in the vast regions of southern and eastern Russia which to the present day characterize that part of the world." (emphasis added)
Kemp asserts that the southern and eastern parts of Russia are majority "Mongol," and that merely a "majority" in the European part is White (which implies that there is a minority, and given the wording throughout his chapter, perhaps not insignificant). At least, that is Kemp's interpretation.
http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr40.htm
I will add that I do not endorse Kemp's views, and find him to be a distorter of history. My point is that a lot of the history of Russia is quite unflattering from a racialist perspective, which ought to humble some of the Slavic racialists who look down on Meds.