PDA

View Full Version : Race, Nation, or Subrace?



Hermod
Thursday, January 23rd, 2003, 03:05 AM
Race, or

Nation, or

Sub-Race?

Conquistador
Thursday, January 23rd, 2003, 04:45 AM
I voted: 1.Race, 2.Nation, 3.Subrace. As I can see, four other people have thought the same way.

Dominator
Thursday, January 23rd, 2003, 04:53 AM
I took a new option which is:

My sub race is my entity and therefore containing my real Nation also. its my archetypical Spiritual bounded people. all other things come next to my Sub race. Nation is therefore irrelevant in this pursuit and Race well how do you define race? Negro, Asian, Casusien? That's primitive.

Heil....

Hermod
Thursday, January 23rd, 2003, 07:25 AM
My choice was: Race, Nation, Sub race.
I can imagine the life with other White nations and sub races, but I can't imagine the life amongst individuals of any other race than White/Caucasian.

Nation which is cultural and spiritual element I favor before the sub race out of the simple reason - It is more easy to adapt your self to the commune life amongst the members of your own nation regardless to which sub -race they belong than to individuals of the same sub race but completely different cultural background.

I look more like the Southern European than Nordic, but its most likely that I would mate with the Nordic member of my Polish nation than with someone from South Europe with whom I share nothing except the same sub race.
We would (not necessarily)not fit together because of the different language, cultural background, mentality and costumes. And the fact that we both have the same dark hair would not make much difference.

Here is even better example; What do you think with whom would some ideal Nordic nationalist German mate with first; with some darker type from southern Germany (which you also call "Untermansh") or with the Blond Hallstatt from Poland?

Dominator
Thursday, January 23rd, 2003, 08:19 AM
Originally posted by Hermod

My choice was: Race, Nation, Sub race.
I can imagine the life with other White nations and sub races, but I can't imagine the life amongst individuals of any other race than White/Caucasian.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I know but In my opinon it would still be atleast Sub-Race before Nation. Maybe its because your mixed you feel this way?
I cant imagine Life with only Meds or Alpines For that sake.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Nation which is cultural and spiritual element I favor before the sub race out of the simple reason - It is more easy to adapt your self to the commune life amongst the members of your own nation regardless to which sub -race they belong than to individuals of the same sub race but completely different cultural background.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm im not sure I understand this the way you want me too?
Im not sure if I agree.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I look more like the Southern European than Nordic,
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hard to say, perhaps in-between.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
but its most likely that I would mate with the Nordic member of my Polish nation than with someone from South Europe with whom I share nothing except the same sub race.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
but what you are saying now is that you are a minority in your own country or total isolated from other species looking like you?
Sorry that does not make sense, and it certainly not justify why you have to mate a Nordic girl. im not condemning you just trying to cast some light on the whole deal.

If I was living in a country with no one of my subtype and I was adopted to another Nations costumes, I would still go back to my people because only their costumes is my custumes, you make it sound so faceless is my opinion. it could almost make me wonder about your reasons for even staying with Cacasius and not lets says Asians?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

We would (not necessarily)not fit together because of the different language, cultural background, mentality and costumes. And the fact that we both have the same dark hair would not make much difference.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hair is not everything. who cares if you fit together because of some brain-dead society, what about your own individuality. I choose any girl I want and any girl worthy is mine. I do not care what kind of corrupted limbonic yard she grew up in.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is even better example; What do you think with whom would some ideal Nordic nationalist German mate with first; with some darker type from southern Germany (which you also call "Untermansh") or with the Blond Hallstatt from Poland?
------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont call anyone Untermensch, and I doubt many people do.
Well first of all you just say Nordic German Nationalist, who said he was Hallstatt? like the supposedly coming wife in Poland, well no one did, lets assume that's what you meant. Well why should he choose over Nation instead of sub-type? that would make no sense to me, there are all kinds of scums being called citizens in almighty countries. so please now you know why Sub-type is most important and not Nationhood (even though its symbiotic but yet repressed in concentrations of many fluctuated subtypes). I would also like to say that Love is not always so godamn easy and im not to say whose best for him. but the best would be if he took the one assimilating his own Characteristics.

Hermod Thanks for making the post. you seem like a thoughtful young man.

Hermod
Thursday, January 23rd, 2003, 11:36 AM
@Dominator

>>>>>>>Maybe its because your mixed you feel this way?

Perhaps, but also because I'm a Nationalist of my country.

>>>>>>>I cant imagine Life with only Meds or Alpines For that sake.

Me also, I live in the area with a variety of White types and I doubt I would feel comfortable amongst pure mediterranians of South Italy or amongst pure Norwegians.

>>>>>>>but what you are saying now is that you are a minority in your own country or total isolated from other species looking like you?

In a hypothetical situation.

>>>>>>>Sorry that does not make sense, and it certainly not justify why you have to mate a Nordic girl. im not condemning you just trying to cast some light on the whole deal.

lol You insinuate that I suffer from a subconsciously desire for a Nordic females! Hahahaha Well I do favor girls with the lighter complexion but not necessary Nordic or even blond.

>>>>>>>If I was living in a country with no one of my subtype and I was adopted to another Nations costumes, I would still go back to my people because only their costumes is my custumes.

Lets say that you was adopted in Lombardy. You can find members of your sub race there in relatively fine number, but are the costumes of Northern Italy the same like the costumes of Iceland? No. Are Italians generally similar in culture with Icelanders? No. Some Italian can have a Nordic in flesh and blood, but shall his mentality also be Nordic, or shall he act like all the other Italians with which he share the same environment, education, language, folklore ect.

Don't get me wrong, I do care about the sub races, and specially for their preservation, but there are also a "mental sub races" that does not always fit with the physical sub races. Just like our mind is not always in harmony with our body.
Nations are social expressions of that "mental sub races"

>>>>>>>>Hermod Thanks for making the post. you seem like a thoughtful young man.

Thank you for a most interesting debate

Ederico
Thursday, January 23rd, 2003, 01:09 PM
I voted the first options because I am a Racialist and not a Nationalist in the first place, so Race is more important than Nation to me. Another reason are the characteristics of the Nation which I live in which alienate me from this Nation. I live amongst people who in their majority are not of my Race and therefore this Nation does not reflect my Racial Identity, therefore from the Racialist perspective my Nation is not important to me, because it is barely mine in Racialist terms.

Any Racialist living in a Racially heterogeneous Nation (if it can be called a Nation) should vote in my opinion Race, Subrace, Nation or Subrace, Race, Nation. On the other hand any Racialist who lives in a Society whose National Identity is traditionally Racially homogeneous should in my opinion vote Nation, Race, Subrace or Nation, Subrace, Race, for the reason that in his Society his Race is his Nation. It all depends on the Racial Characteristics of one's National Society and one's Racialist and/or Nationalist views.

This is an interesting thread.

Hermod
Thursday, January 23rd, 2003, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Nazzjonalist
I voted the first options because I am a Racialist and not a Nationalist in the first place, so Race is more important than Nation to me. Another reason are the characteristics of the Nation which I live in which alienate me from this Nation. I live amongst people who in their majority are not of my Race and therefore this Nation does not reflect my Racial Identity, therefore from the Racialist perspective my Nation is not important to me, because it is barely mine in Racialist terms.

Any Racialist living in a Racially heterogeneous Nation (if it can be called a Nation) should vote in my opinion Race, Subrace, Nation or Subrace, Race, Nation. On the other hand any Racialist who lives in a Society whose National Identity is traditionally Racially homogeneous should in my opinion vote Nation, Race, Subrace or Nation, Subrace, Race, for the reason that in his Society his Race is his Nation. It all depends on the Racial Characteristics of one's National Society and one's Racialist and/or Nationalist views.

This is an interesting thread.


Yes, it sounds logical. If I was a member of some largely racially mixed nation like USA or Australia I would also put my Race and sub-race on the first place and ignore my Nationality However I'm not aware of such countries in Southern Europe in which the European genotype is in such oppressed minority except in Istanbul-Turkey or Albania.
May I ask where are you from?

Azdaja
Thursday, January 23rd, 2003, 04:24 PM
In the truest sense of the word, I see "nation" so intimately bound up with "race" that ranking one against the other makes no sense to me.
I put sub-race over race because the race can exist without the sub-race, but the sub-race cannot exist without the race. By fighting to preserve your sub-race, you are also fighting to preserve your general race by default.

GreenHeart
Thursday, January 23rd, 2003, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by Nazzjonalist
I voted the first options because I am a Racialist and not a Nationalist in the first place, so Race is more important than Nation to me. Another reason are the characteristics of the Nation which I live in which alienate me from this Nation. I live amongst people who in their majority are not of my Race and therefore this Nation does not reflect my Racial Identity, therefore from the Racialist perspective my Nation is not important to me, because it is barely mine in Racialist terms.

I have to agree. I feel the blood of my ancestors and I follow their ways, this country I live completely goes against my very nature, so I do not feel a genuine part of all this selfishness, laziness, and unworthyness. For this reason I have always prefered men from Northern Europe, since they don't seem to be infected with this American degeneracy.

The biggest problem for the nordish race is that many in Europe would choose someone completely different in race or sub-race from their country, over someone from a different country who is the same sub-race as them. And then americans have a total lack of regard as to either of the two and wish only for a woman (they don't care what color, race, or even if their face is pretty) who lives close (how convenient!) with huge fake boobs and who shared their love of football, fast food, pop culture, beer, and drugs..........

American culture - if you can call it that - seriously makes me ill. x_barf

Ominous Lord Spoonblade
Thursday, January 23rd, 2003, 06:14 PM
I said Race, Nation, subrace because of a cultural bond between people of the same nation that does not always exist between people of the same subrace (as some people already pointed out). I am not talking about nations that are not built on a common culture such as America and Canada (the multi-cultural hell-holes), but I am speaking of European nations that still have a chance. There is such rich history and culture in each European nation from Ireland to Russia that it is hard to ignore for something like subrace, which most people would not identify with (even if everyone was racially aware). It is easier to identify with the language, flag, food, song, dance, history, etc, of your nation, and that is truly what makes a people...

Ederico
Thursday, January 23rd, 2003, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by Hermod
May I ask where are you from?

I live in Malta and Whites are a minority here. Eventually there are Whites here who also have Nordic phenotypical characteristics, they are a rarity though considering the geographical location.

I am mainly Alpine but I have dark blonde hair, my father has medium/dark blue eyes and had fair hair (when he still had it, lol)which is not so common here. I would say most of the people would be classified as Semites or rather Muds because they tend to have brownish skin pigmentation and not white skin pigmentation. The best thing to do would be visit to get an idea for yourself. Most Whites here are mainly of the Mediterrenean Subrace probably, but I am not good with Racial Classifications.

GreenHeart
Thursday, January 23rd, 2003, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by Nazzjonalist
I would say most of the people would be classified as Semites or rather Muds because they tend to have brownish skin pigmentation and not white skin pigmentation. The best thing to do would be visit to get an idea for yourself. Most Whites here are mainly of the Mediterrenean Subrace probably, but I am not good with Racial Classifications.

And so you would think about countries like Italy, and Spain, and Greece........ the US is of course headed in the same direction, as well as England too.

Ederico
Thursday, January 23rd, 2003, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by NordicPower88
And so you would think about countries like Italy, and Spain, and Greece........ the US is of course headed in the same direction, as well as England too.

You would have to consider the various regions in those Nations, Northern Italy for example is totally White to my knowledge and I watch Italian TV practically everyday so I know a bit what Italians look like. When I went to Rome I remember mostly White people too, but back then I was not a Racialist. Do not know about Spain and Greece though but I am sure they Spaniards and Greeks are not purely White, non-White Racial influence in those Nations has left an effect most probably, but I would prefer if Racialist people from those Nations spoke for themselves.

Italia_Ariana
Saturday, January 25th, 2003, 05:09 AM
S. Italy is white, but however, if you want to include immigrants, we do have our Albanians, and Moroccans. I know a Moroccan who speaks well Italian, and sometimes Foreigners assume that they are Italian.

S. Italy does have it's ties to Spain and Greece. The Kingdom of Napoli was ruled by Spain for a long time. My region has no Greeks in it, but Calabria does, and so does Sicily. An interesting thing down here, is we have an endangered species- the white Albanians, called Alberesh. They fled Albania when they Turks conquered the Balkans. I've been to several Alberesh villages and they appear Slavic. You also have nordish people who are the descendents of Celtic and Germanic slaves by the Roman Empire, and the Normans, whom, my city was like a second or third capital....they liked Palermo, Napoli, and Barý.

S. Italy is not mixed racially, but we are mixed heavily subracially.
But, the same for N. Italy too! They are a mix of alpine and nordic, with some atlanto-mediterreanean in them.

Johnson
Saturday, January 25th, 2003, 06:06 AM
Nation.

Conquistador
Saturday, January 25th, 2003, 06:08 AM
Originally posted by NordicPower88
And so you would think about countries like Italy, and Spain, and Greece........ the US is of course headed in the same direction, as well as England too.

You mean Non-Nordics or people not as "lily-white" as you are. :rolleyes:

Hermod
Sunday, January 26th, 2003, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by Johnson
Nation.


Is the term "Nation" identical with the term "State"?

The old-fashioned Italian Fascism had that tendency.
If the answer is yes, I cant say that I agree with you because that means every citizen of your state is also a part of your nation and legally equal with you.
Can you really be a fascist and American in the same time knowing that blacks and Mexicans have a full right of citizenship?
The Nation is an ethnic and cultural community, and the NATIONAL state is one segment of it.
The nation is the real goal, the national state -only instrument,not purpose.

Ederico
Monday, January 27th, 2003, 09:21 PM
Upon observing the membership of this board (at least upon observing those who contribute posts) I have noticed that there are differing Racialist views present, and I would like members to expand on their views regarding Race and Racialism. For example are you a Pan-Aryan/European Racialist or are you a Nordicist? Perhaps this thread could help us understand better the perspectives from where each one of us views the Racialist Movement and the whole surroundings and our own lives and lifestyles.

This could become an interesting thread, I'll post my position further on in the discussion when I view some of your Racialist Perspectives.

Legio_Melita
Monday, January 27th, 2003, 09:42 PM
I consider myself more of a Fascist. However, I do believe that true Nordics are the Elite of our race, i.e. yes we are Aryans (for the rest of Europe/Americans) but the Nordics are "that something extra". I have an admiration, almost a fascination with all true Nordics, especially Swedes and Danish.

cosmocreator
Monday, January 27th, 2003, 10:12 PM
I am a racial separatist.

It is absurd when some one claims to be pure or almost pure racial type. However, if I ever get my way, purity will be the standard for all subraces.

Hellstar
Tuesday, January 28th, 2003, 10:46 AM
Dear consortium,

How can one be Nordicist without being Nordic?





It is absurd when some one claims to be pure or almost pure racial type.
Not really.

Sicklecellanemia
Tuesday, January 28th, 2003, 11:00 AM
So you are an Untermench to the Nordic Aryan?

That is a hell of a lot better then a nigger/jew loving communist.


I myself am more of a White separatist.
I think that I am a borderline White supremacist but I see a lot of lemming/communist bastards out there who happen to have White skin and that makes it really hard for me to be a White supremacist.

I feel that if Whites are allowed to have a Nation free of non whites and their influence we would be far better off.
Just imagine what we could do if we did not have to carry the muds on our backs.

I will go futher into my beliefs later.

gundalb1118
Saturday, February 1st, 2003, 12:24 AM
Spain is White, if someone thinks otherwise you are talking about our race-trash: gipsies, moors and negroes, asians and the very low percents of people being mixed with subhuman races... but mainly the whole percent of natural Spanish people are only white.

If you dont like Mediterranean Aryans is your problem, we got dark hair and we are not so light skinned as other people in the north are, but you can swear we are mostly Aryans.


Gundalb
Gundalb1118@yahoo.es

GreenHeart
Saturday, February 1st, 2003, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by ns1488ca
I am a racial separatist.

It is absurd when some one claims to be pure or almost pure racial type. However, if I ever get my way, purity will be the standard for all subraces.

How would you extract purity from impurity? Sounds kind of hypocritical to me......

leonidas
Saturday, February 1st, 2003, 11:12 PM
Race,nation,sub race.My choice on instinct.

Think its seen me fine so far,made me who i am.

Tryggvi
Wednesday, April 16th, 2003, 12:19 AM
I chose "1. Nation, 2. Sub-Race, 3. Race", as this order is the most natural and realistic. It reflects my cultural, linguistic, tribal and historic roots, and represents my genetic interest as an individual.

Mankind (the species of man) is the whole, of which my race (Europid) is a part. My sub-race (Nordish) is a part of my race. My nation is (roughly) a part of my sub-race.

1. Preserving my race does not guarantee that my sub-race or nation will survive. If I succeed to preserve my nation on the other hand, also my sub-race and race will survive.

2. The genetic similarity decreases the larger the community becomes. It actually works in "concentric" circles, and the thought can be extended:

1. Individual (you) -> 2. Core Family (parents, siblings, children) -> 3. Relatives (Uncles, nices, cousins, &c.) -> 4. Tribe/Region/Province (e. g. Allemanic/Bavarian or Prussian) -> 5. Nation/People/Ethnicity (e. g. German) -> 6. Branch/Group (Germanic) -> 7. Sub-Race/Local form (Nordish), 8. -> Race (Europid) -> 9. Sub-Species (Caucasian) -> 10. Species (Mankind)

The share of one's genes, one's similarity, and also one's influence decreases continually from 1. to 10. - Each larger category contains at least parts of the smaller entities, and preserving a smaller entity guarantees automatically the survival and preservation of all larger categories.

Most people instinctively work in accordance with these concentric circles; they care more about their own children than about the ones of their relatives, less about the ones of their neighbors, even less about the ones in another nation and least about the ones in India. It's actually a naturally unfolding order of blood relationships.

In the last centuries, due to increased mobility and consequently increased (inter-tribal, inter-ethnical, sub-racial and racial) miscegenation some of the categories appear often blurred, in particular for individuals in the New World. A person that is ╝ German, ╝ Russian, ╝ Italian, and ╝ Greek will often have difficulties to assign a sub-race or ethnic identity to himself, not to mention a tribe. These categories will become less important, and "the race" will take over. I am sure that the vote of many people that chose "1. Race" can be seen in that light.

Ironically, by their egalitarian policies of unification, integration and anti-nationalism the architects of the NWO might have created exactly the prerequisites for a future global racial consciousness, solidarity and unity amongst men of European heritage, which the latter during the cause of their history due to tribal, ethnic, and national prejudices, quarrels and animosities have never been able to embrace.

Kind regards,

- Thorburn

Nordhammer
Wednesday, April 16th, 2003, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by Nordidu
In the truest sense of the word, I see "nation" so intimately bound up with "race" that ranking one against the other makes no sense to me.
I put sub-race over race because the race can exist without the sub-race, but the sub-race cannot exist without the race. By fighting to preserve your sub-race, you are also fighting to preserve your general race by default.

Absolutely and logical. They are one in the same. To care about race, to me, is to care about sub-race. To not care about sub-race is to not care about race, except only hating blacks maybe. :)

Nordhammer
Wednesday, April 16th, 2003, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by Thorburn
I chose "1. Nation, 2. Sub-Race, 3. Race", as this order is the most natural and realistic. It reflects my cultural, linguistic, tribal and historic roots, and represents my genetic interest as an individual.

My answer is from the modern understanding of nation, which is just a geographic location with imaginary borders, as it really exists today in regards to white survival.

To not have a racial foundation for a nation is to not have a nation, IMO. It becomes something else.

I do of course believe in having roots, in having a connection with the land, and honoring those who have fought and died for principles. I don't find a rootless, cosmopolitan race interesting. But as far as priorities go, the race comes before the land, the language or the nation. Obviously many people felt the same, as millions of Europeans left their motherland, most lost their native tongues and customs, etc, just to be a part of a new nation that gave them freedom and a better way of life.

Glenlivet
Wednesday, April 16th, 2003, 04:27 PM
I chose 1.Sub race, 2.Race, 3.Nation. I don't disagree that your order is the most natural. But as I don't have a clear cut ethnicity I must look for the preservation of my sub-race. I still understand that there are differences of mentality, culture and manners when it comes to people of similar outward appearance but with different cultural backgrounds, and thus giving different inward qualities.

First, as I think you recognise, humans are part of the natural world. That is, the rules that can be observed to apply to the non-human parts of nature, such as those related to competition for scarce resources, natural selection, and limitations on population growth, apply to humans as well. Further, it is demonstrable that humans are descendant from non-human ancestors. It follows then, that the man-made rules related to zoological nomenclature and classification should be applied to humans in the same manner in which these rules are applied to all other organisms.

This should all be obvious. However, popular ideology is dominated by those who hold that humans are either "sacred" (religious humanists) or "precious" (secular humanists) and are separated by an unbridgeable gulf from the rest of nature. On the human side of this gulf, humanists/egalitarianists imagine a level plane and refuse to see any differences between individual humans or groups of humans. The only exception to this being that those, like me, who do see differences are uniquely evil.

Having said that I can still be egalitarian in some ways. My vulnerability is that the world is not built on sub-racial kinships.

Second, the distinction between "species" and the next lower unit of classification, "race" or "variety" is also not as profound as is commonly thought.

"Differences, however slight, between any two forms, if not blended by intermediate gradations, are looked at by most naturalists as sufficient to raise both forms to the rank of species. Hereafter, we shall be compelled to acknowledge that the only distinction between species and well-marked varieties is, that the latter are known, or believed, to be connected at the present day by intermediate gradations whereas species were formerly thus connected. . . . It is quite possible that forms now generally acknowledged to be merely varieties may hereafter be though worthy of specific names. . . . we shall at least be freed from the vain search for the undiscovered and undiscoverable essence of the term species." [Darwin, C. 1859 _On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life_ 1st ed. London (Murray)]


One final thought on taxonomy. Suppose an honest and bold physical anthropologist were to publicly declare that what we refer to human "races" would be better classified as human "species." How many hours do you think it would take for him to be stripped of his livelihood and his reputation?

But I must also say that aside from the fact that "race/variety" and "subspecies" are much fuzzier concepts than species. Race can vary between parent and child, based upon which recessive genes the parents carry.

The upbringing is also important, and all people of the same sub-race and ethnicity don't need to behave in the same way. Society at large normalise things, and the conformist nature we have in Sweden because of "jantelagen" make the people like sheeps.

So I don't know about those pseudo-scientific and subjetive (sometimes based on historical facts going by tribes) ideas about the personalities of the Europid races.

The Nordish (or it could be called North Europid because of all the native sub-races that are found in North Europe, giving a geographical meaning) term is made up of several sub-races. But let's say it's useful and we need to simplify a bit.

I want to preserve my sub-race, and not only in my own nation. We would then need federalism (e.g. the Swiss canton model).

I agree with your concentric circles. But you can have more in common with people of the same sub-race in your nation and the neighbouring countries than those who are of a different sub-race but happen to be in the same nation. It might not be common, but it happens. Europe is more regional than national (except some isolated parts of Scandinavia and islands like Ireland and the British Isles).

I don't have a difficulty to assign a sub-race for myself, although I'm of several ethnicites (similar to the New World people, but not with 7 ethnicites as some of them are made of), and like you say why those people pick race (I would say sub-race) first. You analysed well why certain people chose sub-race first. I cannot see that many people of one ethnicity are easier to classify. I'm at least "arverwandt" ("related race") to the Nordid. I'm glad that I'm racially self-aware.

I feel at home in "Celtic", "Germanic", "Baltic" and the "Slavic" world. But I'm a product of the "North Germanic" society. It's only the "Romance", "Greek", "Finno-Ugric" and "Turko-Tatar" world which is foreign for me.






Originally posted by Tryggvi
I chose "1. Nation, 2. Sub-Race, 3. Race", as this order is the most natural and realistic. It reflects my cultural, linguistic, tribal and historic roots, and represents my genetic interest as an individual.

Mankind (the species of man) is the whole, of which my race (Europid) is a part. My sub-race (Nordish) is a part of my race. My nation is (roughly) a part of my sub-race.

1. Preserving my race does not guarantee that my sub-race or nation will survive. If I succeed to preserve my nation on the other hand, also my sub-race and race will survive.

2. The genetic similarity decreases the larger the community becomes. It actually works in "concentric" circles, and the thought can be extended:

1. Individual (you) -> 2. Core Family (parents, siblings, children) -> 3. Relatives (Uncles, nices, cousins, &c.) -> 4. Tribe/Region/Province (e. g. Allemanic/Bavarian or Prussian) -> 5. Nation/People/Ethnicity (e. g. German) -> 6. Branch/Group (Germanic) -> 7. Sub-Race/Local form (Nordish), 8. -> Race (Europid) -> 9. Sub-Species (Caucasian) -> 10. Species (Mankind)

The share of one's genes, one's similarity, and also one's influence decreases continually from 1. to 10. - Each larger category contains at least parts of the smaller entities, and preserving a smaller entity guarantees automatically the survival and preservation of all larger categories.

Most people instinctively work in accordance with these concentric circles; they care more about their own children than about the ones of their relatives, less about the ones of their neighbors, even less about the ones in another nation and least about the ones in India. It's actually a naturally unfolding order of blood relationships.

In the last centuries, due to increased mobility and consequently increased (inter-tribal, inter-ethnical, sub-racial and racial) miscegenation some of the categories appear often blurred, in particular for individuals in the New World. A person that is ¼ German, ¼ Russian, ¼ Italian, and ¼ Greek will often have difficulties to assign a sub-race or ethnic identity to himself, not to mention a tribe. These categories will become less important, and "the race" will take over. I am sure that the vote of many people that chose "1. Race" can be seen in that light.

Ironically, by their egalitarian policies of unification, integration and anti-nationalism the architects of the NWO might have created exactly the prerequisites for a future global racial consciousness, solidarity and unity amongst men of European heritage, which the latter during the cause of their history due to tribal, ethnic, and national prejudices, quarrels and animosities have never been able to embrace.

Tryggvi
Wednesday, April 16th, 2003, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by volksdeutsche
One final thought on taxonomy. Suppose an honest and bold physical anthropologist were to publicly declare that what we refer to human "races" would be better classified as human "species." How many hours do you think it would take for him to be stripped of his livelihood and his reputation?Actually, just as a curiosity: John R. Baker was still in the 70's bold and honest enough to claim even that. I read the German edition of his masterpiece "Race", and I don't have it with me, thus I quote and (re-)translate from memory into English:

"After all what has been set forth [...] the facts of human hybridism seem not to prove that all human beings belong to the same species."
-- John R. Baker, Race, Oxford University Press, 1974

Maybe someone has the book at hand, and can paste the original quote? The book would not be available as an online edition, by the way?

Prince Eugen
Wednesday, April 23rd, 2003, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by Iovvs Optimvs Maximvs
You would have to consider the various regions in those Nations, Northern Italy for example is totally White to my knowledge and I watch Italian TV practically everyday so I know a bit what Italians look like. When I went to Rome I remember mostly White people too, but back then I was not a Racialist. Do not know about Spain and Greece though but I am sure they Spaniards and Greeks are not purely White, non-White Racial influence in those Nations has left an effect most probably, but I would prefer if Racialist people from those Nations spoke for themselves. :amok
Greeks are whites sub race mediteranians o.k? Yes there is a little non white influance but it's not very big to say that Greeks are not Whites.

Viking Blood
Thursday, April 24th, 2003, 10:48 AM
I chose "Race, Sub-race, Nation", assuming the traditional meanings of the word. I really consider my nation to BE my race. Canada is just where I live.

Sigrun Christianson
Thursday, April 24th, 2003, 12:40 PM
1. Race 2. Subrace 3. Nation

I'm American. In other words, I don't have a nation.

-ZoŰ

Katinkatze
Sunday, May 4th, 2003, 02:15 PM
Well I chose the first option... Race, sub-race, Nation... Race is most important i guess coz It gives you identity...your sub-race gives you back ground... but nation is what i see as the most irrelevant, for the pure reason you might be the purest of white and happen to be living in central africa... its very possible... thats why i give ones nationality and country were one resides very little importance coz after all its what your blood say you are thats important and not your passport... am i not right?

Oberst Jager
Sunday, May 4th, 2003, 03:40 PM
1. Race 2. Nation 3. Subrace

Sieg Heil

ROMA
Thursday, May 15th, 2003, 09:26 AM
1.Nation, 2.Race 3.Subrace

Italy first

actually 1. is City
Roma

Italia_Ariana
Friday, May 16th, 2003, 02:06 AM
Originally posted by ROMA
1.Nation, 2.Race 3.Subrace

Italy first

actually 1. is City
Roma


Ah, il campanilismo, eh? :)

Siegfried
Wednesday, March 24th, 2004, 08:51 PM
Btw: Loki stated that a 80% of Dutch nationalist would be against a Nord/Med mixing, i'd like to know if he was right.

I don't know where he got the 80% from. From what I have encountered, many Dutch nationalists are not very preoccupied with the Nord/Med thing. They are mostly concerned with ethnicity, not so much subrace; they want to see the Netherlands and the northern half of Belgium (Flanders) reunited into a 'Dietsland', or, among the National-Socialist scene, the unification of the Germanic lands. I have noticed that many Dutch ethnic nationalists (they call themselves 'volksnationalisten') would not only oppose the mixing of Dutch with Sicilians, but also Dutch with Scotts. This has often nothing to do with a feeling of superiority towards Southern Europeans; it's just ethnocentrism, which predominates over (sub)racialism in the European nationalist scene.


A dutch friend of mine is closer on my wauy of thinking than Loki's, it would be nice to hear more

There are certainly Mediterranean Dutch. As I said, the Imperium Romanum, the Spanish Empire and Napoleon's army overran my nation, which I think caused the presence of Southern blood here. I have yet to meet a Dutch nationalist who considers a dark-haired, Euro-Mediterranean looking Dutchman less than a blond-haired one (excluding a few extremists over at Stormfront).
The most common hair colour here is a light shade of brown, while many Dutch people have Nordic features. Alpine and Mediterranean Dutch can also be found though; most Dutch are a blend of these three subraces. I am predominantly Nordic, though I think there's also some Alpine blood in my veins.

Gesta Bellica
Wednesday, March 24th, 2004, 09:32 PM
I don't know where he got the 80% from. From what I have encountered, many Dutch nationalists are not very preoccupied with the Nord/Med thing. They are mostly concerned with ethnicity, not so much subrace; they want to see the Netherlands and the northern half of Belgium (Flanders) reunited into a 'Dietsland', or, among the National-Socialist scene, the unification of the Germanic lands. I have noticed that many Dutch ethnic nationalists (they call themselves 'volksnationalisten') would not only oppose the mixing of Dutch with Sicilians, but also Dutch with Scotts. This has often nothing to do with a feeling of superiority towards Southern Europeans; it's just ethnocentrism, which predominates over (sub)racialism in the European nationalist scene.



There are certainly Mediterranean Dutch. As I said, the Imperium Romanum, the Spanish Empire and Napoleon's army overran my nation, which I think caused the presence of Southern blood here. I have yet to meet a Dutch nationalist who considers a dark-haired, Euro-Mediterranean looking Dutchman less than a blond-haired one (excluding a few extremists over at Stormfront).
The most common hair colour here is a light shade of brown, while many Dutch people have Nordic features. Alpine and Mediterranean Dutch can also be found though; most Dutch are a blend of these three subraces. I am predominantly Nordic, though I think there's also some Alpine blood in my veins.

Thank you very much, i can see that your opinion is perfectly in line with what i expected, expecially about the compariosion between dutch/sicilian and dutch/scott.
In effect we Europeans are mainly ethnocentrist and i still gotta meet a true European (both ethnically ans culturally) nationalist that disagree about that.

And the situation of your country (Nordics, Alpines and also Meds all together, co-exisiting for centuries) is really a good example of the general situation in Europe, i think that u will agree with me if i say that without the extra-european immigration the Nordic subrace would not be in danger there..