PDA

View Full Version : How Germanic is the American Germanic?



TheGreatest
Saturday, May 16th, 2009, 11:33 PM
Taking my inspiration from the Amerindian American thread, where some posters thought 1/16 Amerindian was fine. Fine to them but not fine to me. My Great Great Grandfather (aka 1/16) was alive up to 1957. It's perplexing to me that someone could be considered a Germanic American, when someone in that household had living memory of some man who wore feathers and slept in tepees.



So, what are your ratios for non-white and other European ancestries? In the United states? You don't necessarily have to mention the same groups.



European - How much of ''that'' can an U.S. Germanic have?
(Please note: my use of Europid is being used in lieu of ''Germanic looking'')

European

Europid Mediterranean - 1/4
Average Mediterranean - 1/8
Extreme Mediterranean - 1/32
Afro/Arab Mediterranean - N/A (NON-APPLICABLE)



West Europid Slav - 1/2 (cultural clash and dislike of Germanic peoples, which needs to be bred out)
East Europid Slav - 1/3 (I am rather concerned about the Orthodoxy)
West Typical Slav - 1/3
East Typical Slav - 1/8
Extreme Slav - 1/32 (those who show signs of well... ''partial ancestries'')
Asian Slav - N/A



Europid Finn - 3/4
Typical Finn - 1/2
Extreme Finn - 1/4
'Lappi' Finn - N/A

French, Catholic - 1/2 (Needs to be bred out a little)
French, Huguenot - 0/0

Europid Hungarian - 1/2
Typical Hungarian - 1/4
Extreme Hungarian - 1/16
'Magyar' Hungarian - N/A


Irish, Catholic - 3/4 (Catholicism Celtic Nationalism and obsession with France and Spain and other bullsh*t that needs to be bred out) :-O :P
Irish, Ulster 0/0 (Protestant Irish see themselves as British)




non-whites

Negroes - N/A (Not even a single drop!)

Amerindian - 1/64 (More out of my own sympathy for the Southrons in the South whose ancestors weren't so bright)

Jew - 1/128 (I would have a hard time trusting anyone who claimed to be Germanic-American and espoused to have a Jewish ancestor. It might as well be N/A.)

Herzbluth
Sunday, May 17th, 2009, 01:05 AM
Appearently Heinrich Himmler is re-born again! (This time in America, but there's allways a little loss…) At least you have the same euphory in making up racial theories and catalogs – the only difference is: Himmler had the power to enforce his theories, you don't.
May I ask: do you have a girlfriend? Imagine you had one, a celtic angel with skin, pure as snow, ginger hair amd a face like an elf. Appearently, but later you'll find out she has some mess in her genes, let's say: a Spanish grandfather. According to your exellent theory a "non-white", because you allow only a 1/8- or even a 1/16-mixture (depends on how Pedro Gonzales looked like)… so is that reason enough to split?
Don't say it's impossible, just study the genetic laws of Mendel.
You're more pontifically than the pope – sorry: Himmler – himself. In the Nürnberger Rassegesetze: Marriages between a pure and a half-blood required a permission (but were possibly allowed), childrend of a couple pure and a quarterblood were interpreted as "deutschblütig" – so a 1/8-mixture was interpreted as pure.
Seriously: whatfor do you need these classifications, which are only theory for you? Do you want to stamp the foreheads of all Americans with the sign "white" or "non-white" – in case nobody can see the difference?

Hierwend
Sunday, May 17th, 2009, 01:16 AM
While I see where you're comming from Herzbluth your example is quite flawed. As TheGreatest has stated 1/4 Europid Med admixture is fine with him, which I'm going to assume his celtic angel is if she has ivory skin. Even so you make the assumption that all Spaniards are swarthy, which they aren't so your example is sitll quite ambigous.

I've always liked David Lane's classification of who is white, which is(paraphrasing) that if someone look white, acts white and fights white they are white, or I suppose looks Germanic and acts Germanic would be a wise change since that's the purpose of this board.

I do think that the original post is well thought out and a pretty decent guide for someone who wants a (relatively)rigid standard.

TheGreatest
Sunday, May 17th, 2009, 01:23 AM
I don't want to make an example for anyone. It's rather my personal views. I'm hesitant against marrying someone who is fully Mediterranean or Slavic, because they belong to those respective communities and share different cultures and values than I do. I'll still consider those people white but I don't necessarily want myself mingling with them.

There has always been this discussion of an ''American Race'' for quite some time. Some figures spoke highly of Americans as being a principally Germanic race including the best individuals from non-Germanic countries in Europe. In a way, there was an American race in the 1920's, which was made up by a strong Anglo, Scottish and German backbone with some mixing from the non-Germanic countries in Central and Northern Europe.



Which is a lot different than the views that White Nationalists have. Although some people on Stormfront have the right idea, most of them see no problem in replacing Mexicans with Italian migrants, for instance.

Myself I have a hard time as seeing Italians as anything close or related to me. Especially with individuals such as Joe Ligotti who look indistinguishable from a goat herder in Mesopotamia.

It doesn't seem right that one would go to all the effort to emmigrate the non-whites out of America, a formerly Anglo-Saxon country in composition, and replace them with Balkan Slavs.

Hauke Haien
Sunday, May 17th, 2009, 01:48 AM
Such deliberations are interesting if "Americans" should ever want to become an ethnic group in their own right, or more specifically a Germanic ethnic group. Until then, the individualist state doctrine of the United States of America reigns supreme and it essentially comes down to personal standards.

The danger is, of course, that too lax standards may lead to self-exclusion and create an incentive to work against Germanic identity building.

Previous threads have guesstimated that about half of the US population might be Germanic by ethnic ancestry. How much the system outlined above would yield is another question.

TheGreatest
Sunday, May 17th, 2009, 02:05 AM
Previous threads have guesstimated that about half of the US population might be Germanic by ethnic ancestry. How much the system outlined above would yield is another question.


I'll agree with those guesses. Back in the 1920's and 1940's, the United States had about 120 million citizens and I believe 105 or so million were of Germanic stock. Even today, there are more Germanic people living in the United States than in Germany or England (and perhaps even combined).

The Germanic population is probably around 140-150 million, that's including the huge babyboom and the passing of most of the G.I. and Silent Generation. The demographic, I imagine, is a upside-down triangle, meaning most of the living whites belong to older generations (particularly the Baby Boom) and the fewest in the newer generations.

Which is the reason why I summarize that the United States is going to collapse soon. There are not enough of my generation to replace the Babyboomers. The Babyboomers will all be retiring in a decade or two and all of them will be drawing pensions from a largely colored youth. Perhaps it could be argued that our current economic crisis was the result of the Silent Generation and the first wave of Babyboomers retiring? Regardless, things are not going to look pretty and our current economic crisis will continue to worsen.

Ward
Sunday, May 17th, 2009, 02:13 AM
I've always liked David Lane's classification of who is white, which is(paraphrasing) that if someone look white, acts white and fights white they are white, or I suppose looks Germanic and acts Germanic would be a wise change since that's the purpose of this board.

Haha.. Lane's classification was the first thing that came to mind when I started reading the first post. It's probably the only realistic proposition for most Americans.


I do think that the original post is well thought out and a pretty decent guide for someone who wants a (relatively)rigid standard.

I don't agree with you there. Placing more worth on Protestants than Catholics of the same nationality doesn't make much sense. I'm not a Christian, but judging from history Catholics have tended to be far more nationalistic than Protestants. Germany is a great example. It was the ardent nationalism amongst Catholic Bavarians and Austrians that made National Socialism possible.

Also, what on earth is wrong with Celtic nationalism in Ireland?? Sinn Féin was originally a very right-wing nationalist movement. Its founder, Arthur Griffith, extolled the racial purity of the Irish and sought to keep Ireland free from Jewry. Unfortunately the Left has somehow co-opted Celtic nationalism in recent years and perverted it; nevertheless, I don't see what's wrong with an Irishman looking back to heroic Irish patriots like Michael Collins for inspiration.


Such deliberations are interesting if "Americans" should ever want to become an ethnic group in their own right, or more specifically a Germanic ethnic group. Until then, the individualist state doctrine of the United States of America reigns supreme and it essentially comes down to personal standards.

You're exactly right here. Not too long ago we had anti-miscegenation laws against black-white marriages, and it was common for Christians to have clubs that barred Jews (and vice-versa of course). Immigration from southern and eastern Europe was also curbed for a while. However, I think the cowboy "libertarian" streak that runs through America has always been too strong to make further restrictions. The best I think we can ever hope for is some loose form of "white nationalism." There's too much inter-white diversity here for anything else.


The Germanic population is probably around 140-150 million, that's including the huge babyboom and the passing of most of the G.I. and Silent Generation.


I think that figure is too high. MAYBE there are 140-150 million Americans with Germanic or partial Germanic ancestry.

TheGreatest
Sunday, May 17th, 2009, 02:54 AM
I've always liked David Lane's classification of who is white, which is(paraphrasing) that if someone look white, acts white and fights white they are white, or I suppose looks Germanic and acts Germanic would be a wise change since that's the purpose of this board.

True. Lane's words were so simple and beautiful. No one wants a White Nationalist, or even a Preservationist Society, where our DNA is constantly scrutinized to see if we are 3% Arab or 2% Mongolian due to some ancient mixing.

Perhaps this is the ''Libertarian Cowboy Streak'' which Torch_Bearer was referring to.

Chances are David Lane's words are going to be etched in stone and used by a reborn United States, or at least a future republic located on American soil.

A lot of people on Stormfront have Lane's classification on word note, along with his fourteen words. It seems all you have to do is bring up Lane's quote and Georgians, Tatars, Persians, South Asians, all of them suddenly disappear without a trace. Good riddance, because there is nothing more annoying than a ''Pan-Aryan'' type who thinks he is deserving of a Swedish bombshell.

Even if people won't agree to it. It's more or less understood that Lane's ''White'' transcribes to someone who is Europid in appearance, and Christian or secularized Christian in culture. And of course the idealized look throughout history has always been the Germanic look.
Although Stormfront has zealous moderators who are quick to delete the threads on the 'non-whiteness' of Italians, Serbs and Greeks, they just keep popping back up. ;) Just like Arthur Kemp's March of the Titans (As absurd the claims can be, particularly on the so called white civilizations of Oceania and Latin America) keeps popping up on that site.


I have no doubts that if America is ever returned to her glory, than it would probably return to the pre-1965 immigration act. Most people just cling to this idea of ''White Nationalism'', because they don't want people to think they are ''Germanic Neo-Nazis V2" and that non-Germanic can participate in the American movement.

There is a lot about presenting a good image which is attractive to the ordinary person. Perhaps I am taking Bismarck's quote out of context, but it's much like he said something along the lines: "I am not fond of the Italians or their people. But I will need to work and maintain good relations with them''. That's more or less White Nationalism in a nutshell, at least in the states, where the movement is the strongest.

Ward
Sunday, May 17th, 2009, 03:37 AM
True. Lane's words were so simple and beautiful. No one wants a White Nationalist, or even a Preservationist Society, where our DNA is constantly scrutinized to see if we are 3% Arab or 2% Mongolian due to some ancient mixing.

Perhaps this is the ''Libertarian Cowboy Streak'' which Torch_Bearer was referring to.

Yep, that's exactly what I meant. :)

The American national character is just not predisposed to accepting rigid systems of any kind. I do think, however, that smart white Americans, regardless of what part of Europe the descend from, recognize that our culture and traditions are Anglo-American or Anglo-Celtic, and I don't see why these terms couldn't gain widespread acceptance under the right conditions.

Hierwend
Sunday, May 17th, 2009, 04:54 AM
While I like Catholics just fine(if I were of the Christian persuasion I would be Catholic, or Anglican it is a toss up) it is rather typical of Americans to place a higher value on Protestants then Catholics. I will admit though that that conclusion is based on liberal PC infused college courses on American history that could be distorted, I've never looked into the matter deeper.

I don't see anything wrong with an Irishman supporting Celtic Nationalism. I think there is a lot we could learn from them.

TheGreatest
Sunday, May 17th, 2009, 05:00 AM
While I like Catholics just fine(if I were of the Christian persuasion I would be Catholic, or Anglican it is a toss up) it is rather typical of Americans to place a higher value on Protestants then Catholics. I will admit though that that conclusion is based on liberal PC infused college courses on American history that could be distorted, I've never looked into the matter deeper.

I don't see anything wrong with an Irishman supporting Celtic Nationalism. I think there is a lot we could learn feven Irish nationalism has gone multiculturalism and you see srom them.

Nothing wrong with the Irish being a little proud but ome of them searching for non-existent roots from the Iberian peninsula. Is it too hard to admit for the Irish that they probably (and definitely) are related the most to the English and Scots, and the remainder of the Germanic world?

There's no other way to explain this other than Catholicism and that respective connection with France and Spain. The Protestant Irish on the other hand, see themselves as loyal subjects of the Crown and not a single one would make up the claim that he descended from ''Ibero-Celts''.

jamini
Sunday, May 17th, 2009, 05:02 AM
How are you supposed to date with purity standards like that? If the girl looks fully white and germanic and the their parents do too then that's white enough for me.

Ward
Sunday, May 17th, 2009, 08:28 AM
Nothing wrong with the Irish being a little proud but ome of them searching for non-existent roots from the Iberian peninsula. Is it too hard to admit for the Irish that they probably (and definitely) are related the most to the English and Scots, and the remainder of the Germanic world?


Well, I think the "nationalist" Left in Ireland are desperately trying to find a way to convince the Irish people that they are somehow racially not even part of the white European family. These traitors clearly have a multicultural agenda.


On the other hand, I think the whole "Celto-Iberian" thing also has a lot to do with Portuguese and Spanish right-wing nationalists desperately trying to establish white credentials.


Whatever the relationship is between the Irish and Spanish, there is at least one difference between them in that one of them has had an infusion of Norse blood whereas the other took in some North African blood. For some reason some Spaniards and Portuguese do not want celebrate their true Latin heritage.

TheGreatest
Tuesday, May 19th, 2009, 10:49 AM
Well, I think the "nationalist" Left in Ireland are desperately trying to find a way to convince the Irish people that they are somehow racially not even part of the white European family. These traitors clearly have a multicultural agenda.


I would not be so iffy if the Irish were claiming a relation to the Breton. But it is another thing when an Irishman claims he is more related to the average Portuguese and Spaniard, as opposed to his counterpart in England and Scotland.

The Iberian Peninsula is home to the phrase ''blue blood''. Blue Blood was not a inbreeding condition (as it is referred to now, all of the sudden) but rather the Spaniards who were of unmixed descent and did not possess Moorish blood.

One can see the problem with the Irish claiming a close relation to the average Spaniard and Portuguese, who are significantly non-white.


On the other hand, I think the whole "Celto-Iberian" thing also has a lot to do with Portuguese and Spanish right-wing nationalists desperately trying to establish white credentials.

Except those nationalists are by no means Celtic. It's much like the man who leads the Padania (Northern Italian Separatist) movement in Italy, Umberto Bossi, who is a former Communist and non-white (defiantly not Quasi-Germanic as the Northern Italians sometimes claim themselves to be!).



Whatever the relationship is between the Irish and Spanish, there is at least one difference between them in that one of them has had an infusion of Norse blood whereas the other took in some North African blood. For some reason some Spaniards and Portuguese do not want celebrate their true Latin heritage.

Precisely. I've never heard of this Ibero-Celtic thing until the past 3-5 years. It seems like a rather new concept to me. Not only that, it shows that the Spaniards have an identity problem.


1. Spaniards still haven't gotten over their own incompetence and failure in the New World.

2. Spaniards want to be a part of the Germanic / Celtic Race, and lay claim to Britain and Ireland's accomplishments. And of course want access to our women (I shudder at the thought).

It's the classical self-hate syndrome that has existed since the beginning of time.


When the Parthians took over the Seleucid (Greek) Empire, the Parthians rewrote history and laid claim on the Seleucid successes, they even went going as far as claiming they were 100% biologically descended from the same Seleucids!.

Or a more modern example would be the contemporary population in Greece:


"The whole of Greece seemed to me a cut-price theme park of broken marble, a place where you were harangued in a high-minded way about Ancient Greek culture while some swarthy little person picked your pocket . . . The Greeks were not Greek, but rather the illiterate descendants of Slavs and Albanian fishermen, who spoke a debased Greek dialect and had little interest in the broken columns and temples except as places to graze their sheep . . . the Greeks struck me as being more xenophobic than the French, and more ill-tempered and irrational, in a country more backward than Croatia . . . Greece is the degraded fringe of Europe, basically a peasant society, fortunate in its ruins and its selective memory . . . More than any other place I had seen so far on the Mediterranean, Greece was purely a tourist destination, a theme park of shattered marble and broken statues, and garbled history."
-- The Pillars of Hercules, A Grand Tour of The Mediterranean, by Paul Theroux, pp. 314-316, 322, G. P. Putnam's Sons (1995)


It amuses me, each and every single time, when the Greeks claim they descend from the Macedonians and the Greek city-states. Hell a Bavarian tavern drinker looks more like Socrates than your average ''Grecomen''.

Bradford
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 05:39 AM
I guess because I'm distantly related to an Irishman (Before my ancestors even came here in the 17th Century), and some French Canadian I'm not Germanic or white.

rainman
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 06:12 PM
This brings up someething very interesting that I've noticed. Most "white" Americans even ones with Amerind ancestory and such look very Nordic. They fit rather close the "idealized" Aryan concept of Nazis. With the exeption of maybe New Yorkers or certain regions known to be non-white. Even the Jews here look strongly Germanic. Yet I see pictures of Europeans, even Germans and such and many of them have an Arab/Jewish look or a very non-Nordic type look. I'd say the only exeption would be places like Sweden that seem to be relatively pure.

I have been thinking about this for a while and it perplexes me. I can only guess that Nordics are more likely to adventure out and move to America back in the day. An American of German descent looks Nordic. Go to Germany and only about half of them look Nordic.

I wish I could just copy paste pictures here.

Bavarian farmer girls. Look at the girl on the far left. She looks Greek or something. You see some of these traits in America but its not really very common.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/lifestyle/2007-06/21/content_899382.htm

Even the one on the right, even all of them none of them look strongly Germanic.
More German girls from Germany. Several of these girls in the U.S. wouldn't be considered Germanic:
http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00426/germanymain_426245a.jpg

I counted at least 8 out of 22 that would definatley not pass for Germanic in the United States. I have Native American ancestory, French ancestory, Irish etc. and look far more Germanic than these actual Germans.

A statue of idealized Germanic features:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,grossbild-446738-419029,00.html

Here's one from Germany that looks pretty German which is about what American Germanics look like:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1155/1376712272_0af5f474c1.jpg

as far as why all these girl pictures is the only thing that shows up in the search other than pictures of German flags and German maps.

This is what we consider a native american in the U.S. This guy is mixed, but looks more Germanic than these Greeko Arab French looking people from Germany:
http://www.wells.edu/images4/kevin_white1a.jpg

I've also noticed some posters on this board in their pics they look like they come from a more primitive pre-Germanic stock.

Now here's a clearly unwhite native american:
http://a869.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/61/l_f27cf2e15d6e5bb65bbb03bb4fc21ddc.jpg

An even less white looking German model "Vanillia Eischeid"

http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/8266/vanilliaeischeid234gerth4.jpg

Maybe I have some bias but even the pure blooded native while looking like an Asian still looks closer to a German than these Arab types walking around Europe. As said I think even a good number of people on this board from Europe don't even look Germanic in the slightest. Others look like some cross.

At any rate it doesn't matter to me much. I would think that people would have to form into communities and the community would have to set its own standards for who can join and who can't. Two different groups of people with Germanic heritage can be different genetically and both consider themselves Germanic. As far as if you really want to preserve the Germanic ideal (as in Nazi) you would need some kind of breeding program, because as you can see communities are mixed now and continuing to get more mixed.

It seems like most of these mixed Germans are mixed with the Italian Semetic/Etruscan mix which is common among ethnic French and Jews. It dates back pretty far. You could be pure German 500 years back in your family and have a lot of this blood in you. I do see it in America but it just isn't as common, especially in more isolated small towns and such. And for some reasson Americans tend to think Germans all look like the Nazi ideal so anyone that looked like that would be considered white but not Germanic even if they were half German half English. Many people here would say I don't look Germanic because I'm not blond and blue eyed lol

Like is this girl ethnically German? She looks like a native American but somehow is German??

http://www.globaldatingrevolution.com/images/articles/euro-girls/large/20-german-girl.jpg

Mohawk Indian cheif:
http://www.cmhg-phmc.gc.ca/cmh/book_images/high/v2_c2_s21_ss02_03.jpg

I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything, but I really am surprised at how non-Germanic many Europeans look. It is rather ironic that many parts of America look far more Nordic or Aryan than parts of Europe especially when we are supposed to be more mixed over here! I can only guess that maybe the native genes and such are more recessive than the arab type genes of europe. Of course as you can see by some of the pics some of the Eastern Natives (like the Mohawk picture given- yes thats a 100% native) they come from stone age European settlers and later Vikings. The western Indians are mostly pure (East) Asian and most groups fall as a mixture in between.

Bradford
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 07:59 PM
Yeah, you're absolutely right. While I have dark brown hair, however, I'm almost 100% Anglo-American with only distant Irish and French relatives.

I've been to England, and even the disgusting muslims and indians aside, the English in London especially, were far darker than myself. Then however, if I go to Hastings, I see plenty of people that look like me.

Kiel
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 08:32 AM
The content of this thread illustrates the futility of determining one's heritage by their looks. Posting photos is a waste of time because we don't know anything about those people and we cannot ask questions of the people in the photos to determine their ancestry.

What matters is the genetic content of their genome (genetic code) and that will be the yardstick used in the future—the scientific examination of a person's genome.

For now we can say that if a person claims any non-white ancestry, or that if there is any evidence of non-white ancestry in his medical records or family linage, or if he qualifies for Israeli citizenship, then he is non-white.

That means that David Lane was wrong about who is White because a person could "look white", "act white", and "fight white", and still have a genome that reveals that he is non-white!

rainman
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 05:44 PM
Well my whole concept of race has shifted and I believe there needs to be a folkscommunity that you must actively be a member of to actually be a race, and that community sets its standards. Otherwise we are just dealing with ancestory or genetics. Of course we need to know who is genetically or ancesterally fit for our communities when we form them. But I guess different people have different opinions.

I mean a lot of these Europeans are natives, but they come different stock which is exeedingly rare in the United States. Your Brunns, your etruscans, khazars etc. I don't know if maybe it had to do with racist immigration policies the U.S. used to have or if Nordics were just more likely to come here.

I'd say as well as far as race and folks community there is good reason that with the exeption of right now when we have to rebuild and take in outsiders, most people should be born into these groups. Otherwise you can't really know them. You get full of moles, traitors, imposters, even genuine people with bad family lineage. Even then you would have to set standards. Someone born mentally retarded could not be a "citizen" of the folk community, or anyone born who has the ancestory but doesn't meet minimal criteria. But yeah you definately need to weigh in instincts (like criminality etc.), and other mental traits along with the physical.

The other thing I noticed like here in the U.S. if you go to a rural area then you are also dealing with basically 100% Nordics. The more populated areas the white people become less Nordic. The only one exeption are kentucky hillbillys who have a lot of black irish and native american in them. Some of them have black eyes and hair and a brunn or mixed look.

Kiel
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 06:26 PM
Well my whole concept of race has shifted and I believe there needs to be a folkscommunity that you must actively be a member of to actually be a race, and that community sets its standards. Otherwise we are just dealing with ancestory or genetics. Of course we need to know who is genetically or ancesterally fit for our communities when we form them. But I guess different people have different opinions.

The genetics and ancestry comes first, the folkish community stems from that—not the other way around. In other words, the scientific establishment sets the conservative standard by evaluating genomes; those who meet that standard are permitted entry and citizenship. They will then form the folkish community.




I'd say as well as far as race and folks community there is good reason that with the exeption of right now when we have to rebuild and take in outsiders, most people should be born into these groups. Otherwise you can't really know them. You get full of moles, traitors, imposters, even genuine people with bad family lineage.


Don't forget people with non-white ancestry who try to sneak in.




The other thing I noticed like here in the U.S. if you go to a rural area then you are also dealing with basically 100% Nordics. The more populated areas the white people become less Nordic. The only one exeption are kentucky hillbillys who have a lot of black irish and native american in them. Some of them have black eyes and hair and a brunn or mixed look.

How did you notice it? Was it by your subjective evaluation or were there any scientific methods used? How could you possibly know that the "kentucky hillbillys have a lot of "black irish" "native american" in them?

rainman
Saturday, August 1st, 2009, 01:40 PM
Because I live around a lot of these people. Most people know their ancestory and you can also look up the history and you can visibly look at people and see what they look like. That's also where a lot of my family comes from. I'm not saying all of them are like this, but you see a lot of dark complected, non-Nordic looking hillybillys. Not all but some. Whereas you go out to Kansas or North Dakota, even the American south in the rural areas you see nearly pure Nordic populations (at least in apearance).

No the thing is in any healthy race or soceity you are born into it with only a few rare exeptions (normally you may have about 1% of the population or some small amount convert in or be married in or whatever) but generally people are born into a racial community. Now is a strange time in history where people have been stripped of their race, their roots, their heritage and we have given up our old roots to become interchangeable cogs in a globalist machine. The thing is culture and genetics are equal. Culture influences genetics (as was even said by prof. Carl Jung). A good example would be the Christianization of Europe. You went from a culture that encourages bravery to one the encourages servitude. It didn't die out all at once but over generations people who were rebellious were often killed. The population as a whole became more docile from selective pressures. Or take the modern age and the communist culture. We have degenerate people born today whose ancestors were strong and healthy. It all comes from the culture changing the genes. If you took a race of warriors genetically and forced a culture of merchants on them, in enough generations they will be bred to be merchants. If you culture has an "ideal" that short is better than tall the people will grow shorter, if it has an "ideal" that tall is better people will grow taller over generations.

Yet at the same time (unless under oppressive conditions where one group is ruling over another with great force) the genes affect the culture. People with agressive tendencies will create a warrior culture. People with merchant tendencies will create a merchant culture etc. They both interact with each other dynamically. Without the culture to shield and protect the blood, the blood is threatened. And we see that today in the number of degenerates and number of people that would not conform to the ideal of their ancestor cultures. Some change is good- we need to evolve, but right now we aren't evolving towards any ideal other than being international slaves. The community and culture is of paramount importance. Genetics is as well but its over emphasized.

Kiel
Saturday, August 1st, 2009, 09:01 PM
Because I live around a lot of these people. Most people know their ancestory and you can also look up the history and you can visibly look at people and see what they look like. That's also where a lot of my family comes from. I'm not saying all of them are like this, but you see a lot of dark complected, non-Nordic looking hillybillys.

Without any scientific input, you don't know what you are looking at—you are just guessing, and that's not good enough.



Now is a strange time in history where people have been stripped of their race, their roots, their heritage and we have given up our old roots to become interchangeable cogs in a globalist machine.

It's mainly Whites who are affected by this.




The thing is culture and genetics are equal.

That sounds kind of neo-Marxism. Culture and genetics are not equal. See the links below. Genetics creates the culture.




You went from a culture that encourages bravery to one the encourages servitude. It didn't die out all at once but over generations people who were rebellious were often killed. The population as a whole became more docile from selective pressures.

But that didn't change them genetically.



It all comes from the culture changing the genes.

More Marxist nonsense.The culture doesn't change the genes.


For real scientific information on the importance of genetics over culture in humans, see the following links:
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

Gene may help explain kidney failure in African-Americans
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/09/kidney.failure.gene/index.html

More Evidence that Intelligence is hereditary
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/more-proof-that-intelligence-is-85134.aspx

http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org

Downtown LA JACL seeks Bone Marrow Donor
http://www.jauhari.net/downtown-la-jacl-seeks-bone-marrow-donor.jsp
The fact that she was raised in American culture doesn't matter. Only genetics matters.

Gestr
Thursday, September 17th, 2009, 12:07 AM
I think TheGreatest makes a lot of good points. When I read some other forums I'm filled with a mixture of laughter and disgust. It's just hilarious how they espouse views of 'White nationalism' when half of these people aren't even White--much less germanic. Maybe they should spend less time buying tattoos and more time investing in skin whitening cream. If the British and German descended Americans are gone, then Americans are gone. Because, as anyone that lives around ethnics can tell you, they aren't the same as us.

I'll describe the most mixed sort of person I would accept as an American citizen.
This would be my standard for citizenship:

Ethnics:
I would only accept someone if their ancestry is no more than 1/4 ethnic (Italian, Russian, Jew).
I have seen genetic charts showing southern Italians (the majority of Italian immigrants to America) and Greeks clustering closely to Jews genetically--hence my grouping them together.

If we're talking about a person with mongoloid (Asian or Amerindian) ancestry, it may constitute no more than 1/16 of their background. 1/24 if that non-white ancestry is African. Obviously a person free of any non-white ancestry would be preferable; but if the mental illness called love takes hold, you might find yourself compromising your values.

We would also have to limit the number of such people that would be accepted. Too many would ruin the integrity of our race. However, if there are some exceptions, this is the guideline I would follow.
Fortunately, geneticist will make it possible to purge ourselves of any undesirable debris in the future. And remember, you always have final say when choosing your mate.

strongmagic
Friday, October 16th, 2009, 09:07 AM
with such strict a definition you would be able to fit all the "pure germanics" of America in a small basement room and hold meetings.

Rlpz
Monday, November 9th, 2009, 06:12 AM
I think Whiteness is a matter of belief and opinion, because we can't know who all of our past ancestors were. Take me for example. I have a German last name, yet I also have a card saying I'm 1/256 Cherokee.

Here's a picture:

http://c1.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/10/l_9d17b523535f462180ebad88dbf01214.jpg

I think, you'd have to be ridiculous to say I'm not White.

kingdans
Monday, January 11th, 2010, 10:15 PM
Haha, my girlfriend's great great etc. grandmother was supposedly Cherokee, and she's even whiter than you are! :) I think the question this raises is, how long does it take after some kind of racial admixture to become one or the other again?

nordfrisk
Sunday, July 25th, 2010, 11:50 PM
Germanic is only to do with linguistics nother about race ethnos or how you look. being Germanic means to speak one or more of the Germanic languages as a mothertongue.