PDA

View Full Version : Subrace Types: Just As Ridiculous As The Zodiac!



Rodskarl Dubhgall
Monday, May 3rd, 2004, 04:48 PM
I am really critical of the whole classifying thing. It's very carried away with itself, much like that non-white elitist astrological rubbish(like Aryanism) from Asia. When will it end? I generally agree with ethnicity based upon genealogy, but also birthplace. This whole limited view of subracial types is inapplicable. I don't care for it. I judge people by their ethnicity of region, culture and lifestyle, not some percieved ideas about some archaeological effects onward to today. For instance, I think Mediterraneans aren't really white, but they are blowhards when it comes to White Nationalism as though they are afraid of criticism from Nordics about the issue. I think Nordics rely of fantasy connections between themselves and Mediterranean culture, as if they believe that "barbarian" rhetoric of no culture in the North and everything best comes from the south, unless they each are poseurs playing some sick and twisted game. You know what, Mediterraneans? I am happy that the Goths tore your asses to pieces, your kind deserved it at the time. Guess what, Nordics? I think you are a bunch of ignorant wusses who suck up too much to the Meds to avoid being strong and acknowledging our achievements, preferring to let their insults bind you. Come, challenge it! Let's see what you've got!

Mac Seafraidh
Monday, May 3rd, 2004, 05:06 PM
Personally I am not against the fact that sub-race classifications exist. I think it is pretty interesting actually. I believe in a United Europe though as well.Somewhat. I am not anti-Nord or anti-Med.

cosmocreator
Monday, May 3rd, 2004, 06:58 PM
It does exist but many here just throw contradictory classification around which makes it look like it's all non sense. The only valid method to determine a subracial type is by measurement.

Esther_Helena
Monday, May 3rd, 2004, 07:10 PM
I am really critical of the whole classifying thing. It's very carried away with itself, much like that non-white elitist astrological rubbish(like Aryanism) from Asia. When will it end? I generally agree with ethnicity based upon genealogy, but also birthplace. This whole limited view of subracial types is inapplicable. I don't care for it. I judge people by their ethnicity of region, culture and lifestyle, not some percieved ideas about some archaeological effects onward to today. For instance, I think Mediterraneans aren't really white, but they are blowhards when it comes to White Nationalism as though they are afraid of criticism from Nordics about the issue. I think Nordics rely of fantasy connections between themselves and Mediterranean culture, as if they believe that "barbarian" rhetoric of no culture in the North and everything best comes from the south, unless they each are poseurs playing some sick and twisted game. You know what, Mediterraneans? I am happy that the Goths tore your asses to pieces, your kind deserved it at the time. Guess what, Nordics? I think you are a bunch of ignorant wusses who suck up too much to the Meds to avoid being strong and acknowledging our achievements, preferring to let their insults bind you. Come, challenge it! Let's see what you've got!
Let me get this straight:
You're, for the most part, against classifying?
You believe in ethnicity based upon genealogy AND birthplace?
So, by your standards, if both my parents had 100% French ancestry, moved to Sweden and had me, I would be Swedish? That is what you're saying.
Then, to top it all off, despite disliking classifications, you use those same classifications to pass judgement. Isn't that being a bit hypocritical?

Scoob
Monday, May 3rd, 2004, 10:34 PM
Classification can be fun and interesting. However I wonder to what extent people really replicate ancestral types in their looks, especially when they are largely mixed.

Perhaps there is some morphogenic mechanism in the human genome that causes people to resemble "types" to a large degree, with small modifications. Or maybe not.

However, in a broad sense, especially with not-so-mixed individuals, classifying facial type can be somewhat predictive of other physiological and psychological features. I am not a believer in the "we are all the same under the surface" school of thought - I think humans have many subtle and sometimes profound differences regarding perception, cognition, memory, emotion, etc. - and that many of these differences have been strongly selected for in certain cultural and climactical environments.

Vestmannr
Tuesday, May 4th, 2004, 05:02 AM
I think the reaction against classification is like those who hate astrology based upon newspaper horoscopes. A thug 'classifying' your picture on the net is not the same as having cranial and other biometric measurements taken, and in depth comparison of phenotypes. Either way, 'mixtures' have been studied for over a hundred years by scientists. Mixed folk arent 'muddled' ... they either tend to one of their ancestral types or another, or are a throwback 'reemergent' form of an earlier type, or they contribute to the emergence of newly evolved or 'stabilized blend' types.

I would think the whole business was absurd as well if I had not had training in the area, as I measure within the populations of Iron Age 'Kelts' found in the old La Tene areas. No large population exists today of that type, so I'm a 'reemergent' type. However, judgements of my phenotype get the absurd range of: Borreby, Brunn, Atlantid, Keltic Nordic, Sub-Nordic, Dinaric, Pontic, Amerind-mix, Alpine, Mediterranean, Armenoid, and other sorts of silliness. There might be some issues with what exactly these terms mean, but the real issue is not with the science but with some of the uneducated wielders of the terminology... sort of like those who try to claim anyone who is skinny and good looking as 'Med', or anyone fat as 'Alpinid', or Nordics and UPs with exotic eyes and slightly everted lips as being part Asian/Amerind. Go figure. A good proverb says 'dont throw the baby out with the bathwater.' There is worth in subracial classifications, and I think I see enough correlation between population groups by haplotypes, and subraces by phenotype for there to have to be some importance to the study. Medical Science is already far ahead by paying attention to physical differences amongst people of various racial/ethnic/national groups ... ignoring race and subrace would only be at our own peril.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Tuesday, May 4th, 2004, 11:23 AM
Nature vs nurture doesn't apply, they are equally relevant, especially in a psychological context.

Scoob, don't get too carried away with descriptions about archaeological findings. It is who we are today that matters, according our diverse origins and fusions, but tracking our history is good. Matching the two up don't work so well, but it is a noble effort to try and connect the dots, however sometimes futile.

Frontiersman, I see you are paralysed by the labels. They don't apply half the time, I understand. People like McCulloch try to link up people in those ways though.

I have one infusion of Cherokee blood, supposedly. I don't know those people personally(have read they are related to the Iroquois Long House dwellers, like vikings), but the Welsh look in me is stronger in my complexion than I thought it would be, when I have one recorded name from North Wales. I am not saying that Cherokee and Welsh are related closely at all, but their features seem to be, and my Irish side seems to enjoy that to show itself. I consider myself Nordic in outlook though(born blonde/blue pale white with large build), with contribution by Atlantic side(auburn/greenish change to hair/eyes with freckles). In fact, I feel bonded closer to Norse, Anglo-Frisian/Frankish people as well as Irish/British on a whole than the rest of Europe. I do not feel close to Danish, Swedish, German, Belgian, Swiss, Dutch, Italian, Greek etc(my viking forefathers were Norse but called Danes but geographically located from what is now old Swedish land west of Stockholm; my foremothers were Anglo-Frisian/Franks, but called Anglo-Saxon when there aren't as many Saxon names in my bloodline, and mostly by males married into the family). I believe that Anglo-Saxon was an exchange for the original Anglo-Frisian, dated from when the Franks broke off the Frisians after the invasions of Britain and were at odds with the Angles over land conquered(Normans, Angevins, Plantagenets), but since the Saxons also came in large numbers to Britain, the terming was changed to reflect the newer alignment. Yngvi-Freyr is the name of the Anglo-Frisians's god.

I believe North Sea_Nordic-Insular(Norse/AngloFrisian/Frank) and Baltic Sea_Germanic-Continental(Swede/Geat/Dane/Saxon/Thuringian etc.) are two quite different things, but since they border eachother, they share a few common bonds. I believe British/Irish are different than Celtic, however, so many people want them the same, but like the last sentence, they share some things. Celtic and Germanic seem more Iberian and Italian, that those four share an Alpine background(Balto-Slavic-Balkan and Uralic/Caucasian peoples seem to be Eastern Europeans), while I feel connection to Iceland, Frisia, Brittany(including the north of France), Kjolen, the North/Norwegian Sea and Biscay Bay, but the Alps and Baltic Sea I have little feeling for, it seems alien to my blood, even if it seems historically familiar by associations and alliances of my peoples with them. The same goes for the entire Mediterranean/Black Sea lands. Whenever I see historical/political associations, they always refer these peoples as the chief Europeans(who have always tried to enslave Europe), but to me, they represent the buffer/border zones between what is extremely ethno-geographically European and the Afro-Asiatics. It is true that Northwestern Europe has the highest concentration of UP derived genetic strains, because all the older strictly Euro peoples have migrated there(Basques are Caucasians who migrated like Phoenicians), and when little happiness was found by encroaching Southeastern peoples, they were crammed up in their place and stomped on, which is why the initial colonisation overseas was begun by the British/Irish and Norse, which represent the largest ex-European collective in recorded history.

Vestmannr
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 08:58 AM
"Frontiersman, I see you are paralysed by the labels. They don't apply half the time, I understand. People like McCulloch try to link up people in those ways though. "

I wouldnt say paralyzed, rather it is that so many have little training in anthropology that they mislabel or have unclear understandings of the categorizations done by various anthropologists. As for McCulloch, I think he gets a bad rap here. I say this as one who opposed him for some time (directly to his face as well), but came to terms with his stance. What he says is much common sense, at least for the situation in North America.

"I have one infusion of Cherokee blood, supposedly. I don't know those people personally(have read they are related to the Iroquois Long House dwellers, like vikings),"

I do know them personally, as I live amongst them atm, and am related to many by marriage. They are linguistically part of the Iroquoian group along with the five Iroquoian tribes, the Tuscarora, and a few minor tribes. Cherokee, however, are racially a mixture. Their 'nation' is a conglomeration of three distinct peoples (Underhills, Overhills, and Middle People) who likely had various genetic origins. There is enough cultural and genetic data to suggest Cherokees to have blood from the south (Florida-Caribbean), the west (Mississippi and Ohio Moundbuilders) and the north.

" but the Welsh look in me is stronger in my complexion than I thought it would be, when I have one recorded name from North Wales. "

Well, which Welsh :) I spend much time in Wales, and the sheer diversity (and not from immigration, I'm talking ancient stock) from valley to valley is staggering. Everything from tall skinny long-headed redheads, to short stocky round-headed swarthy folk, and even near stereotypical 'Nordics' in some places.

"I am not saying that Cherokee and Welsh are related closely at all, but their features seem to be, and my Irish side seems to enjoy that to show itself."

No relation, and I dont think Cherokee or Welsh have any similarity in looks. I'll change my mind if you can find a native Welshman of pure Welsh stock for the past 1000 years, who looks like Wes Studi. :)

"I believe British/Irish are different than Celtic, however, so many people want them the same, but like the last sentence, they share some things. Celtic and Germanic seem more Iberian and Italian, that those four share an Alpine background(Balto-Slavic-Balkan and Uralic/Caucasian peoples seem to be Eastern Europeans), while I feel connection to Iceland, Frisia, Brittany(including the north of France), Kjolen, the North/Norwegian Sea and Biscay Bay, but the Alps and Baltic Sea I have little feeling for, it seems alien to my blood, even if it seems historically familiar by associations and alliances of my peoples with them."

No doubt. However, Celts did invade Britain and to a lesser extent Ireland. However, the old attempt to connect Celtic to 'Alpine' has long been disproven. Whom we can safely call 'Celts' included a wide variety of folks, but none that we could call Alpine in any way that Alpine has been used so far. Ireland, of course, is its own place: though it has a distinct mark of Norse, Dane, Anglo-Saxon, and Celtic ... just not enough to ever wipe out the folk who have lived there since man first followed the animals north after the retreating glaciers. Britain has far more 'Celtic' blood (less so in Wales, I maintain... far more in Southern and Northern England, and Southern Scotland ). But, again the modern 'British' population still owes so much to the folk of the Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic areas.

"(Basques are Caucasians who migrated like Phoenicians),"

! I'd like a clarification on that. Do you mean Caucasian as in the mountain range? As for the Phoenicians, I think their migration was more widespread (and spread thin) than the Basques (or the Atlantic Modal Haplotype associated with them) is. All the evidence I've seen is that us Western Europeans, and to a lesser extent Central Europeans, are in the main the descendants of the first folk in that region: and had migrated from Central Asia where we had already become differentiated from the other peoples who would come to populate Europe (I lineage).

"and when little happiness was found by encroaching Southeastern peoples, they were crammed up in their place and stomped on, which is why the initial colonisation overseas was begun by the British/Irish and Norse, which represent the largest ex-European collective in recorded history."

I think that the colonies of England, Scotland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and France were never as extensive as those of Spain and Portugal. Spain and Portugal, in fact, were the initial colonizers. The other Western Europeans, and the Northern Europeans, simply took advantage of new religious differences and Spain and Portugal's focus on the warm areas (gold areas) to sneak in further north (for furs, timber, fish, and potash). I think the collective 'Latin America' is a contender for out-stripping our 'Anglophone' collective... maybe not if we combine with the Francophone collective (and considering, that much of the latter is not French blood, but only French speaking.) Remember, during the Age of Exploration: use Celts/Anglos/Scandinavians werent doing *any* stomping. The world belonged to the French, the Spanish, the Portuguese in those days. We would have belonged to them as well, if not for amazing events like the destruction of the Spanish Armada, Drake's fantastic record of piracy, and the stabilizing influence of Anglicanism and Lutheranism. So much more that could be said on this subject.

ogenoct
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 09:16 AM
I am really critical of the whole classifying thing. It's very carried away with itself, much like that non-white elitist astrological rubbish(like Aryanism) from Asia. When will it end? I generally agree with ethnicity based upon genealogy, but also birthplace. This whole limited view of subracial types is inapplicable. I don't care for it. I judge people by their ethnicity of region, culture and lifestyle, not some percieved ideas about some archaeological effects onward to today. For instance, I think Mediterraneans aren't really white, but they are blowhards when it comes to White Nationalism as though they are afraid of criticism from Nordics about the issue. I think Nordics rely of fantasy connections between themselves and Mediterranean culture, as if they believe that "barbarian" rhetoric of no culture in the North and everything best comes from the south, unless they each are poseurs playing some sick and twisted game. You know what, Mediterraneans? I am happy that the Goths tore your asses to pieces, your kind deserved it at the time. Guess what, Nordics? I think you are a bunch of ignorant wusses who suck up too much to the Meds to avoid being strong and acknowledging our achievements, preferring to let their insults bind you. Come, challenge it! Let's see what you've got!
I agree completely! MAGNA EVROPA EST PATRIA NOSTRA!

Constantin

Turificator
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 09:38 AM
For instance, I think Mediterraneans aren't really white, but they are blowhards when it comes to White Nationalism as though they are afraid of criticism from Nordics about the issue. I think Nordics rely of fantasy connections between themselves and Mediterranean culture, as if they believe that "barbarian" rhetoric of no culture in the North and everything best comes from the south, unless they each are poseurs playing some sick and twisted game. You know what, Mediterraneans? I am happy that the Goths tore your asses to pieces, your kind deserved it at the time. Guess what, Nordics? I think you are a bunch of ignorant wusses who suck up too much to the Meds to avoid being strong and acknowledging our achievements, preferring to let their insults bind you. Come, challenge it! Let's see what you've got!

Frankly, I couldn't care less who's 'white', since I happen to live in the heart of Europe and not in some far-off tropical colony, and am interested in European ethno-cultural preservation.

This stark contrapposition you seem to assume between so-called 'Nordics' and so-called 'Mediterraneans' is fanciful. Would you care to define a 'Nordic'? Is it someone of purely Germanic ancestry? Is it a Sami? And what is a Meditterranean then? Do you really believe all people dwelling in countries boardering on the Med. sea share the same culture or ethnicity??

There simply is no clear-cut division between the 'Nordic' and 'Mediterranean' lands, just ethno-cultural differences which can be found as we move along the N-S or W-E axis of Europe. Genetically speaking a Castilian or Sicilian is far closer to a Swede or a Scott than he is to either a Basque or a Sardinian. All Europeans are somewhat related, and beyond Europe, we are related to our cousins of Indo-European descent in Asia (whether you like that or not).

As for the reliability or usefulness of subracial classification, I agree, but wouldn't make an issue of it. After all, the only place where I've ever heard of this is... internet!

White Preservationist
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 02:37 PM
The only valid method to determine a subracial type is by measurement.I obviously disagree with this as anyone can tell from the signature I have. Linnaeus is the father of modern biological systematics.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 09:38 AM
"Frontiersman, I see you are paralysed by the labels. They don't apply half the time, I understand. People like McCulloch try to link up people in those ways though. "

I wouldnt say paralyzed, rather it is that so many have little training in anthropology that they mislabel or have unclear understandings of the categorizations done by various anthropologists. As for McCulloch, I think he gets a bad rap here. I say this as one who opposed him for some time (directly to his face as well), but came to terms with his stance. What he says is much common sense, at least for the situation in North America.

Some of what he purported makes sense, but I don't agree on the whole.

"I have one infusion of Cherokee blood, supposedly. I don't know those people personally(have read they are related to the Iroquois Long House dwellers, like vikings),"

I do know them personally, as I live amongst them atm, and am related to many by marriage. They are linguistically part of the Iroquoian group along with the five Iroquoian tribes, the Tuscarora, and a few minor tribes. Cherokee, however, are racially a mixture. Their 'nation' is a conglomeration of three distinct peoples (Underhills, Overhills, and Middle People) who likely had various genetic origins. There is enough cultural and genetic data to suggest Cherokees to have blood from the south (Florida-Caribbean), the west (Mississippi and Ohio Moundbuilders) and the north.

Yeah, I've already discredited my Saxon side of my mother's landhungry grabbing at Appalachia pretending to be Cherokee that didn't go on the Trail but fled to the mountains. Bull fucking shite, heh, my mum shat her brains out long ago, LOL.

" but the Welsh look in me is stronger in my complexion than I thought it would be, when I have one recorded name from North Wales. "

Well, which Welsh :) I spend much time in Wales, and the sheer diversity (and not from immigration, I'm talking ancient stock) from valley to valley is staggering. Everything from tall skinny long-headed redheads, to short stocky round-headed swarthy folk, and even near stereotypical 'Nordics' in some places.

I have Catherine Zeta-Jones complexion of Cymric in me. That Atlantid look is a feature of my mother's side and my father's mother's Irish side. Heh, fuck my lying bitch mom, Cherokee my ass, that's our Welsh. She's fixated on Camelot stuff, soooooo I know she's lyyyyyying!!! Don't forget the Derby, she even had a horse or pony for a pet, like the Saxons. lol!

"I am not saying that Cherokee and Welsh are related closely at all, but their features seem to be, and my Irish side seems to enjoy that to show itself."

No relation, and I dont think Cherokee or Welsh have any similarity in looks. I'll change my mind if you can find a native Welshman of pure Welsh stock for the past 1000 years, who looks like Wes Studi. :)

Yup, see my last statement for a reference, lol.

"I believe British/Irish are different than Celtic, however, so many people want them the same, but like the last sentence, they share some things. Celtic and Germanic seem more Iberian and Italian, that those four share an Alpine background(Balto-Slavic-Balkan and Uralic/Caucasian peoples seem to be Eastern Europeans), while I feel connection to Iceland, Frisia, Brittany(including the north of France), Kjolen, the North/Norwegian Sea and Biscay Bay, but the Alps and Baltic Sea I have little feeling for, it seems alien to my blood, even if it seems historically familiar by associations and alliances of my peoples with them."

No doubt. However, Celts did invade Britain and to a lesser extent Ireland. However, the old attempt to connect Celtic to 'Alpine' has long been disproven. Whom we can safely call 'Celts' included a wide variety of folks, but none that we could call Alpine in any way that Alpine has been used so far. Ireland, of course, is its own place: though it has a distinct mark of Norse, Dane, Anglo-Saxon, and Celtic ... just not enough to ever wipe out the folk who have lived there since man first followed the animals north after the retreating glaciers. Britain has far more 'Celtic' blood (less so in Wales, I maintain... far more in Southern and Northern England, and Southern Scotland ). But, again the modern 'British' population still owes so much to the folk of the Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic areas.

OK.

"(Basques are Caucasians who migrated like Phoenicians),"

! I'd like a clarification on that. Do you mean Caucasian as in the mountain range? As for the Phoenicians, I think their migration was more widespread (and spread thin) than the Basques (or the Atlantic Modal Haplotype associated with them) is. All the evidence I've seen is that us Western Europeans, and to a lesser extent Central Europeans, are in the main the descendants of the first folk in that region: and had migrated from Central Asia where we had already become differentiated from the other peoples who would come to populate Europe (I lineage).

Yeah, I read that the Basques(Euskara) were Caucasus people. They spread around the time or before the Phoeicians. I don't believe the Indo-European construct. It's a relict of upper class elitism from the caste societies in China and later, India. The educators taught their policies as the standards on which to go, so figure out why the religion shifts occidentally too. They think anything that touches the Rising Sun has the first look at things, more enlightened, such a derelict concept. The Welsh dragon is even a transplant from China. Fools(not you).

"and when little happiness was found by encroaching Southeastern peoples, they were crammed up in their place and stomped on, which is why the initial colonisation overseas was begun by the British/Irish and Norse, which represent the largest ex-European collective in recorded history."

I think that the colonies of England, Scotland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and France were never as extensive as those of Spain and Portugal. Spain and Portugal, in fact, were the initial colonizers. The other Western Europeans, and the Northern Europeans, simply took advantage of new religious differences and Spain and Portugal's focus on the warm areas (gold areas) to sneak in further north (for furs, timber, fish, and potash). I think the collective 'Latin America' is a contender for out-stripping our 'Anglophone' collective... maybe not if we combine with the Francophone collective (and considering, that much of the latter is not French blood, but only French speaking.) Remember, during the Age of Exploration: use Celts/Anglos/Scandinavians werent doing *any* stomping. The world belonged to the French, the Spanish, the Portuguese in those days. We would have belonged to them as well, if not for amazing events like the destruction of the Spanish Armada, Drake's fantastic record of piracy, and the stabilizing influence of Anglicanism and Lutheranism. So much more that could be said on this subject.

I was referring to how the northwest of Europe was squeezed into its corner and barely made a living. They got the tablescraps of Europe because the institutions and political agendas of the southeast in Europe where callous to the more native ones, in favour of new agriculture and government.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 09:43 AM
Frankly, I couldn't care less who's 'white', since I happen to live in the heart of Europe and not in some far-off tropical colony, and am interested in European ethno-cultural preservation.

This stark contrapposition you seem to assume between so-called 'Nordics' and so-called 'Mediterraneans' is fanciful. Would you care to define a 'Nordic'? Is it someone of purely Germanic ancestry? Is it a Sami? And what is a Meditterranean then? Do you really believe all people dwelling in countries boardering on the Med. sea share the same culture or ethnicity??

There simply is no clear-cut division between the 'Nordic' and 'Mediterranean' lands, just ethno-cultural differences which can be found as we move along the N-S or W-E axis of Europe. Genetically speaking a Castilian or Sicilian is far closer to a Swede or a Scott than he is to either a Basque or a Sardinian. All Europeans are somewhat related, and beyond Europe, we are related to our cousins of Indo-European descent in Asia (whether you like that or not).

As for the reliability or usefulness of subracial classification, I agree, but wouldn't make an issue of it. After all, the only place where I've ever heard of this is... internet!
Yeah, my understanding is the axis on Central Europe also.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Tuesday, May 25th, 2004, 08:00 AM
I am really critical of the whole classifying thing. It's very carried away with itself, much like that non-white elitist astrological rubbish(like Aryanism) from Asia. When will it end? I generally agree with ethnicity based upon genealogy, but also birthplace. This whole limited view of subracial types is inapplicable. I don't care for it. I judge people by their ethnicity of region, culture and lifestyle, not some percieved ideas about some archaeological effects onward to today. For instance, I think Mediterraneans aren't really white, but they are blowhards when it comes to White Nationalism as though they are afraid of criticism from Nordics about the issue. I think Nordics rely of fantasy connections between themselves and Mediterranean culture, as if they believe that "barbarian" rhetoric of no culture in the North and everything best comes from the south, unless they each are poseurs playing some sick and twisted game. You know what, Mediterraneans? I am happy that the Goths tore your asses to pieces, your kind deserved it at the time. Guess what, Nordics? I think you are a bunch of ignorant wusses who suck up too much to the Meds to avoid being strong and acknowledging our achievements, preferring to let their insults bind you. Come, challenge it! Let's see what you've got!

Whaaaat? Is asking for clarity of thought too much here? You have lost me.

Graeme
Tuesday, May 25th, 2004, 12:02 PM
I don't see anything wrong with racial or sub racial classification systems, but I think some people take it to an extreme. Mediterranean, Nordic, Dinaric and so on are types of caucasians which in real life compose but a fraction of the European caucasian population. Most people in Mediterranean countries are considered to be Mediterranean/Alpinid/Dinaric/Nordic in varying proportions with a minority actually being Mediterranean. It is the same with the Northwest European countries, if not, why all the stuff about Brunn, Borreby, Falish, Troender and so on? A tall heavily built, broad faced, roundish headed, light hair and eyed person is not Nordic. Nordic is a specific look rarely found in Northwest Europe. And I am not referring to staged and photoshopped pictures of specially handpicked individuals. The Alpinid group impinges on all the others. It is basically finding the most common and prevalent traits held by an individual.

What I have said does not mean that phenotypic differences between the North, South, East and West of Europe do no exist, it is just that the differences are not absolute, but in degrees and more gradual. As far as the ancients, they no longer exist and probably were composed of many sub racial types whether they were Romans, Greeks, Goths, the Folkwandering Germanic speakers, Indo-Europeans, Neolithic settlers and the old Basques.

I am hoping to return to Europe and I want to be living in a caucasian Europe composed of people descended wholly from caucasian Europeans not Middle Easterners or African or Asians. I don't care whether the Europeans are dark haired or red haired just that they are native Europeans of native Europeans.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Tuesday, May 25th, 2004, 04:51 PM
Okay...Nordic/Nordish means Norse or Norwegian. Don't give me this f*cking crap about how it's some irrespective subrace type. I am Nordic because I have Norwegian blood. Take it as f*cking simple as that, ok? All of you usurpers with the addlebrained ideologies.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Monday, June 4th, 2018, 02:12 PM
LOL at my gibberish ranting.

I emphasized Xanthochroi Indo-Europeans and Melanochroi Afro-Asiatic differences. Historically-speaking, Mediterranean Indo-Europeans have exotic fetishes for non-IE Melanochroi, to the prejudice against Nordics, whereas Alpines betwixt them have zero independent identity.

My only problems with phenotype classification, have to do with the instability and variation, the mutability of categories put forth by the "professionals". If it's just the Nordish grouping, it's obvious that Germanics and Celtics are being focused on, but the agenda isn't honestly stated. Those details would help bring context.

Uwe Jens Lornsen
Monday, June 4th, 2018, 02:45 PM
Probably it is because a black hair depicts a black monstrous mind ?

In a "Good and Evil" society , this might lead to black-haired people
supressing their mouth ?

But it might be , that the black haired people are the moon-people,
since the night is black, and the red-blondes being the sun-people;
as it is written in the story of Esau and Jacob :


He begged his twin brother to give him some "red pottage" (paralleling his nickname, Hebrew: אדום‎ (adom, meaning "red").
Jacob offered to give Esau a bowl of stew in exchange for his birthright (the right to be recognized as firstborn)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_and_Esau

In our times it would be the blonde native giving away
his land to the black haired immigrant.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Tuesday, June 5th, 2018, 04:38 AM
I wonder how many people use haplogroup and phenotype as the basis of some fantasy RPG, like astrology and numerology. Let's all cast lots and read entrails. Those are Germanic traditions, after all. :P

Sigebrond
Tuesday, June 5th, 2018, 11:08 PM
I wonder how many people use haplogroup and phenotype as the basis of some fantasy RPG, like astrology and numerology. Let's all cast lots and read entrails. Those are Germanic traditions, after all. :P

It's baseless pseudoscience, completely contradicted by biology, genetics, what we know about migration movements and anthropologists who are far more competent in their field than the likes of Conrad Coon. I feel embarrassed on behalf of anyone dumb enough to take phenotypes seriously. Slavic peoples have pretty distinct traits as do Finnic peoples but that is pretty much it.

Sigebrond
Tuesday, June 5th, 2018, 11:09 PM
Okay...Nordic/Nordish means Norse or Norwegian. Don't give me this f*cking crap about how it's some irrespective subrace type. I am Nordic because I have Norwegian blood. Take it as f*cking simple as that, ok? All of you usurpers with the addlebrained ideologies.

Nordic means something. Unlike Germanic, which just refers to our language, Nordic refers to our tribe. The word "Nordid" however means absolutely nothing. it's all nonsense on both a scientific and linguistic level.

Uwe Jens Lornsen
Wednesday, June 6th, 2018, 12:59 AM
I wonder how many people use haplogroup and phenotype as the basis of some fantasy RPG, like astrology and numerology. Let's all cast lots and read entrails. Those are Germanic traditions, after all. :P

A source that claims that some Germanic ancestors had cast lots
is Gaius Julius Caesar "De bello Gallico" Paragraph 50

Translated :
that at the Germanics the habit rules,
that their Familymothers through Lotterysticks and Directionalsages uttering do,
if it of advance be, a Slaughter(battle) to deliver or not;
these speeking following;
it is not godly Right ( will of gods ),
that the Germans win, when they self before the Newmoon in a Fight incorporate.


daß bei den Germanen der Brauch herrsche,
daß ihre Familienmütter durch Losstäbchen und Weissagungen kund täten,
ob es von Vorteil sei, eine Schlacht zu liefern oder nicht;
diese sprächen folgendermaßen;
es sei nicht göttliches Recht (der Wille der Götter),
daß die Germanen siegten, wenn sie sich vor dem Neumonds in einen Kampf einließen.

https://asatru-forum.de/index.php?thread/21385-gaius-julius-cäsar-de-bello-gallico

Meaning war had been forbidden each second half of a month.

Otherwise I would not have any source of Germanics being incolved in
witchcraft .. :p

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Wednesday, June 6th, 2018, 03:05 AM
It's baseless pseudoscience, completely contradicted by biology, genetics, what we know about migration movements and anthropologists who are far more competent in their field than the likes of Conrad Coon. I feel embarrassed on behalf of anyone dumb enough to take phenotypes seriously. Slavic peoples have pretty distinct traits as do Finnic peoples but that is pretty much it.

It's more sensible to guess ethnic background, like accent and dialect, directly from living populations.


Nordic means something. Unlike Germanic, which just refers to our language, Nordic refers to our tribe. The word "Nordid" however means absolutely nothing. it's all nonsense on both a scientific and linguistic level.

On the contrary, language families are consistently reliable. I think writing scripts, however, are seriously undervalued.

Sigebrond
Wednesday, June 6th, 2018, 10:47 PM
It's more sensible to guess ethnic background, like accent and dialect, directly from living populations.



On the contrary, language families are consistently reliable. I think writing scripts, however, are seriously undervalued.

Language families mean very little, Celtic peoples are far more different linguistically from Germanic speakers than they are ethnically, many Germanic people are part-Celtic anyway, and vice versa. The same applies to Germanic people of part-Slavic descent, and Slavic people (e.g. Ukrainians) with some Germanic ancestry. There also populations in Southern Europe that are more complicated, such as Northern Italy, Romania and Macedonia (Romanian being a romance language doesn't reveal anything much about Romania's population, which is still primarily Dacian in ancestry). On top of this, Scythians, Sarmatians, Thracians etc contributed a lot to the Eastern European gene pool (and languages to some degree), something also not taken into account when relating them to their Slavic languages.

Scripts are fairly meaningless as well unless you're going for the pan-European narrative (not a bad idea), some alphabets are relatively "new", such as early Slavic alphebets, and they are generally based on Greek anyway. The older ones such as futhark are based on a mixture of Greek, Latin and Etruscan. Ultimately all European writing stems back to Ancient Egypt (almost certainly European culturally and in its nobility at least) via Phoenician.

You can just use common sense and look at Europeans. We all share the same origins more or less, in Northern and Eastern Europe. What matters if whether their features, complexion etc are European. You can expect Europeans to differ from person to person in equally European facial features - it says absolutely nothing about their ancestry. There has been so much migration back and forth across Europe since prehistoric times that we all inherit a mixture of different phenotypes. Like I said, the ridiculous pseudoscience is contradicted by actual science, archaeology and anthropology, and basic common sense.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Friday, June 8th, 2018, 05:02 AM
Steeped in post-modern cultural deconstructionism, in which Germanic means nothing to you, what's your point registering here? Like Aelfgar, it seems you have trouble squaring the circle when it comes to Celtic ancestry as an Englishman. If only the Nazi apologists would not goose-step with hypocritical rhetoric aimed at revising the reality of Germanic English heritage, considering the fact that Bavaria is as Celtic as Scotland. In their minds, only the Axis Powers are legitimate representatives of any and all things Germanic, even though the Nazis invaded and/or occupied Germanic countries more than any other and tried to rule in the names of the weak under the guise of Social Darwinism. God forbid Irish and "Asiatic" Finns be included in the same Germanic group as Mediterranean Belgians and Swiss. But hey, who are we to challenge associates of Mussolini and Hirohito?

They proudly strut around as puppets of Italy and call themselves the only uncompromised Germanics, that everyone else is tainted by the eternal Jew. The truth is, that's bluster for misdirection, so nobody calls them out for it--Simon Peter was chief Apostle to Jewish Christians, unlike Saul Paul, who taught the Celts to disavow and repudiate Moses and all his laws. More Continental cities are known for their Jewry than elsewhere. Apart from Disraeli or the Marx and Rothschild transplants from Germany to London, all the famous Jews also hail from there. Vienna is pretty kosher. I wouldn't get worked up over their Anglophobia to self-loathing, because it predates the 20th century, through severe Jesuitical brainwashing. It remains omnipresent even through the fake Voelkische movement pulled out of List's arse.

Just think of how Prussia was a Baltic country, which means that half of Germany was an assimilated Baltic society, by extension, whilst this establishment supposedly stands for the ultimate Germanic culture. It's unclear how propagandists could hold their world in higher esteem than England and try to write us off as inconsequential, except for being sore losers in the 20th century and never living it down, conjuring conspiracies to defraud everyone regarding the English relationship with Europe. The Saxon heritage in Europe is endangered by Alpine supremacists, just like how Frisians are fading from memory because of Rhenish depredations. We're too Protestant for the Austrians and too Catholic for the Prussians, so we must be Jewish? Can't please schizophrenic people...A capitalist nation of shopkeepers becomes a nation of evil Jews in the way of East Berlin subversives.