PDA

View Full Version : Why is There No Medicism, Slavicism, Celticism and the Like?



Bärin
Thursday, September 17th, 2009, 07:43 AM
I support Medicism, Slavicism, Celticism and other forms of ethnocentric segregation. If Slavs and Meds want to think they are superior and we Germanics are the inferiors, then let them. It's not objective, but it's fine enough with me, because it would mean they would stick to their own ethnic and racial preservation, and us to ours.
But that doesn't happen. Most internet Slavs and Meds are pan-Europeans, who always complain why Germanics want to segregate, why they're not liked in our ranks, why we don't consider mixing fine, and the sort.
Why isn't the feeling of ethnocentrism so strong in other Europeans as in Germanics, could someone explain?

Méldmir
Thursday, September 17th, 2009, 10:38 AM
I thought Slavs often openly identified as being Slavs, at least more than Mediterranean (or Latin preferably) and Germanic people. For example you see many football teams with the name "Slavia" or "Slavija". Does anyone know how the Soviet Union viewed Slavicism? Did they think it was good in order to keep the eastern European countries together (since they were mostly Slavic)?

Anyways, I agree that Medicism/Latinism and Slavicism, and I neither have a problem if they see themselves as being superior over other groups, since that will just be better for each people's preservation.

Siebenbürgerin
Thursday, September 17th, 2009, 11:01 AM
Slavicism exists a little bit, but we call it pan-Slavism here. However many Slavic peoples oppose it, because there are quarrels between them. They don't want a new Yugoslavia to exist. Peoples like Serbs and Croats have intense hatred for each other's people.

Medicism, hmm, I'm not sure what you mean, something as a Mediterranean Union? Because not all Latin countries are Mediterranean. Between the Latin countries there is even less cohesion than between the Germanic and Slavic ones.

Grimsteinr
Thursday, September 17th, 2009, 12:57 PM
Well, I know there are Celtic Heathen Reconstructist and Slavic Heathen Reconstructionist Groups. And, IIRC there are Roman & Hellenic Pagan Reconstructionist groups also.
And they have the same or nearly the same emphasis on Heritage & Blood.
I know a few Folks who are involved, or at least in contact with these groups.
And, I applaud them.

Thusnelda
Thursday, September 17th, 2009, 01:06 PM
I think one problem of Meds, Slavs and Celts is that their dominant time lies far back in the past. The Roman Empire, the Greece and Latin culture, the large Slavic kingdoms...all of them are long vanished. The dominating factor in Europe during the Middle Ages and the modern era were the Germanic tribes. The pacemakers of technology, enlightenment and development were (mainly) people of Germanic heritage.

So I guess many Meds and Slavs have some kind of an inferiority complex regarding us Germanics. Our Germanic pride can nourish both from the past and from our achievements in modern time (minus the ideological degeneration of large parts of our societies in the second half of the 20th century :( , but that´s only a very recent development ) while the Meds and Slavs can only find pride in their particularly glorious past.

Anyway, some bits of Medish and Slavic pride exists. The old board Stirpes was a hideout for some people with pro-Med and pro-Slavic orientation. And we shouldn´t forget that Skadi had also some people with such orientations before we´ve switched our board orientation to Germanic preservationism only. ;)

oakenbough
Thursday, September 17th, 2009, 02:16 PM
Celts do have their own preservation aims but they tend to be more area specific and less all encompassing than Germanics, I agree with the statement that Germanics are the present and recent past dominators, therefore there are more of us and you will see more groups dedicated to their preservation and/or advancement.

Kogen
Thursday, September 17th, 2009, 02:53 PM
I tend to notice this attitude in some Slavs, as well. They tend to get angry if you make statements about not including their countries in a Germanic Europe, not breeding with their women, and so on. Many try to say that they are just a cultural/language group - and while true in many regards, genetic studies show a clear line between Germanic Europe and Slavic Europe.

There is also the issue they bring up concerning past wars. Obviously any Germanic person is going to take the side of their countries, yet Slavs get upset and expect us to take their side or take a neutral view. To me, it is impossible to take any form of neutral/positive views on Slavic agression in regions like Poland and Czech land; and certainly not Lenin/Stalinist Russia.

I cannot really figure out how to deal with it, as nothing I have tried ever works. Whenever the discussion starts, everyone argues, hates eachother, then some Jesus-person comes in and says we should all love one another - followed by a locked topic or everyone simply being tired of the arguement.

As for their own splits, I really cannot understand this either. Why do Croats and Serbs hate eachother because of a different dialect? You would rarely see someone Dutch and someone German acting like that in comparison. I see more unity in Germanic people than I do with them, even if we have less nationalists.

For a final point, however, I do like them. Slavs are Europeans and not Mogoloids like some people like to say (are we Negroids because of America and so on?). It bothers me just as much to see a Slavic country losing its people and being swarmed with Muslims as it does seeing it happen in a Germanic country. I just feel that they need to accept we are different and that we can both co-exist on the same continent as we have done many times in the past.

NAjj
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 12:00 AM
I think one problem of Meds, Slavs and Celts is that their dominant time lies far back in the past. The Roman Empire, the Greece and Latin culture, the large Slavic kingdoms...all of them are long vanished. The dominating factor in Europe during the Middle Ages and the modern era were the Germanic tribes. The pacemakers of technology, enlightenment and development were (mainly) people of Germanic heritage.

So I guess many Meds and Slavs have some kind of an inferiority complex regarding us Germanics. Our Germanic pride can nourish both from the past and from our achievements in modern time (minus the ideological degeneration of large parts of our societies in the second half of the 20th century :( , but that´s only a very recent development ) while the Meds and Slavs can only find pride in their particularly glorious past.

You keep out a not so tiny part of history, what about Italy and the Renaissance, which is throughout Latin in its core and the basis of most of Europe's later achievements in areas like philosophy, art and technology, Spain and its Empire and its European and world dominance, France and its Empire and the Napoleonic Wars and much more?

I don't see why we or other European groups should have feelings of inferiority or superiority based on political or material achievements. Pride results out of the spiritual feeling for the kin you belong to. Unconfident ethnicity's and races always show the need of making bombastic statements on this or that achievement, as do the Negroes with their Afrocentristic History month in the United States.

Spiritually we Germanics shouldn't be too happy about our situation, more so in regards of Latin and Slavic peoples, they have kept much, much more of their homogeneous social structure, be it in regards of their faith or moral convictions. Today the Germanic nations are the most liberal, individualistic decadent and socially lost, as you already spoke of, and then we can have all the technology we want, we as a people will end. I honestly doubt Slavic or Latin people for one care about Germanic ideas of our own superiority or envy us for our social situation at the moment, if they envy us for our wealth, then they are as lost as we are.


our achievements in modern time

I'm afraid our modern achievements go analogue with our moral destruction. I have heard of Italian crowds standing up against Gypsies, as did the Irish in Dublin, that is something to envy for us Germanics imo.

Bärin
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 12:16 AM
You keep out a not so tiny part of history, what about Italy and the Renaissance, which is throughout Latin in its core and the basis of most of Europe's later achievements in areas like philosophy, art and technology, Spain and its Empire and its European and world dominance, France and its Empire and the Napoleonic Wars and much more?

I don't see why we or other European groups should have feelings of inferiority or superiority based on political or material achievements. Pride results out of the spiritual feeling for the kin you belong to. Unconfident ethnicity's and races always show the need of making bombastic statements on this or that achievement, as do the Negroes with their Afrocentristic History month in the United States.

Spiritually we Germanics shouldn't be too happy about our situation, more so in regards of Latin and Slavic peoples, they have kept much, much more of their homogeneous social structure, be it in regards of their faith or moral convictions. Today the Germanic nations are the most liberal, individualistic decadent and socially lost, as you already spoke of, and then we can have all the technology we want, we as a people will end. I honestly doubt Slavic or Latin people for one care about Germanic ideas of our own superiority or envy us for our social situation at the moment, if they envy us for our wealth, then they are as lost as we are.



I'm afraid our modern achievements go analogue with our moral destruction. I have heard of Italian crowds standing up against Gypsies, as did the Irish in Dublin, that is something to envy for us Germanics imo.
She's right at least about the internet Slavs and Meds though, who are pan-Europeans and have an inferiority complex about Germanics. It seems like they're not proud enough of themselves, because it offends them that on a forum like Skadi there is some segregation and no more non-Germanics.

Ward
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 12:33 AM
Well, there aren't many purely Celtic areas left in Europe, but where they exist they have been, at least until recently, a proud people with lots of fighting spirit. The Highlanders and the Irish fanatically resisted British multiculturalism for centuries.

I don't know to much about Slavic or Latin nationalism, but from what I can see, they're in the predicament of wanting to be considered fully "white" Europeans, which hinders them from coming to terms with the fact that they each tend to have some extra-European blood in their veins, leading to an identity crisis of sorts.

Whether one likes Celts or not, they are, like Germanics, true sons and daughters of Europe. I think this has traditionally served to foster a healthy sense of identity in both groups, even though Germanics have been the dominant of the two.

The Celts are the underdogs in modern times, but I wouldn't at all be surprised if they're the first to begin physically resisting the status quo in Europe. If a group like the IRA ever returns to its right wing roots, traitors better watch out.

SpearBrave
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 12:59 AM
You keep out a not so tiny part of history, what about Italy and the Renaissance, which is throughout Latin in its core and the basis of most of Europe's later achievements in areas like philosophy, art

The Renaissance happened all over Europe and England at pretty much the same time, it is that Italy is famous for its art of that short period.

NAjj
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 12:33 PM
The Renaissance happened all over Europe and England at pretty much the same time, it is that Italy is famous for its art of that short period.

That is not true. Regardless of it, I didn't write that the event was limited to Italy, I wrote that it was Latin in its core, the Classical knowledge it took to revival was Hellenic in its foundation, but above all Latin in practice, its place of origin was Florence, Italy, most of the writers, artists, scholars and intellectuals, certainly at the dawn of it were Italian.

The renaissance was a time in which Italy and Italian culture were the dominating force.

rainman
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 05:39 PM
All cultures aren't worthy of life simply because they exist. They must have some value of their own to stand on their own two feet and folk do evolve. So no I don't support other groups preserving their group nor am I against it. If I particularly like a group and think they contribute something unique I might support their preservation.

At any rate there are probably more slaic nationalists than any other group. Yet Slavs themselves mostly come from Germanic roots. Vikings founded the first Slavic civilization which is documented in the oldest Slavic writings (the Slavic Chronicles) housed in Kiev today. King Rurik founded the Kievan-Rus empire. Before that Russia and East Europe was much like America prior to European colonization. It was mostly wilderness with some very sparse nomadic and primitive tribes. These tribes did have any Aryan root and spoke a primitive Aryan language (later it became more refined by the aristocracy- modern Russian is a more recent language). So very little blood of the original slavs exists in East Europe. At the same time the group heavily mixed with semites, turks, asians and other groups which means your average slav is polluted a bit and slightly less civilized than western europe. Eugenics could cure this though.

In the end I think slavs have a legitimate claim to their Germanic heritage. Though other slavs may want to preserve their unique race which is a mixture of Germanic and other elementst. Similar with Celts. Most Irish and Scotsmen have strong Viking heritage. The original Celts are pretty much gone though French is basically a mixture of Celtic and Latin culture, which were related to be gin with. Meds again they are a mixed race. The original Greek upper class were very similar to what we would consider Germanics today. This is why Sicily has more blondes than the rest of Italy despite being in the south (the area was settled mainly by Greek upper class).

There never was really a Slavic civilization in its strict sense. Just a Germanic civilization which took on the Slavic language and some of the local customs. There was a Celtic group but they are pretty much gone and just remnants of them survive today mixed in with other subgroups. There was a med group but again they got race mixed away. I guess you have to differentiate between the historic race and the modern race. I guess some people may want to preserve the modern mixed race group that are Italians. But I think most of those people are just multiculturalists.

I do think there is some room for regionalism and tribalism but more or less it does make sense that European civilization is one entity. Theres one underlying basic culture and people although many people may need to purify themselves through eugenics.

SpearBrave
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 12:14 AM
The renaissance was a time in which Italy and Italian culture were the dominating force.


"A printing press is a mechanical device for applying pressure to an inked surface resting upon a medium (such as paper or cloth), thereby transferring an image. The mechanical systems involved were first assembled in Germany by the goldsmith Johannes Gutenberg around 1440, based on existing screw-presses used to press cloth, grapes, etc. and possibly prints.[1] Gutenberg was the first in Western Europe to develop a printing press."

During the Renaissance era, printing methods based on Gutenberg's printing press spread rapidly throughout first Europe and then the rest of the world. It eventually replaced most versions of block printing, making it the most used format of modern movable type, until being superseded by the advent of offset printing.

source :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press


Most people put the start of the Renaissance around 1430 and the last time I checked Gutenberg was not Italian. The Renaissance spread because information and knowledge spread with the printing press.:|

Rassenhygieniker
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 12:38 AM
Everything about Slavecism and Mudicism is a thievery of Germanic symbols/runes and a copy-cat ethnocentrism inspired by germanic nationalism/ethnocentrism.

So I don't see how Mudicism and Slavecism could or even should work when they are nothing but a copy-cat ethnocentrism based on Germanicism and are actively catering toward Germanics like some fetish-freak show in hope of demonstrating how “Aryan” they are. All this especially could not work when their ethnocentrism is not based on segregation but on assimilation (especially in the case of the Slavs) where Germanization is actually not only accepted but wanted, remember the rapes of Germanic females at the hands of the “Pan-Slavicists” mongols? This goes against the segregational principles of ethnocentrism, at least against the segregational principles of Germanicism.

Out of those three, the only ethnocentrism that could work would be Celticism, because at least with Celticists their ethnocentrism is mostly based on their own culture and they actually want segregation from other ethnos.

NAjj
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 01:06 PM
Most people put the start of the Renaissance around 1430 and the last time I checked Gutenberg was not Italian. The Renaissance spread because information and knowledge spread with the printing press.

How does that discredit the Latin origin and basis of the Renaissance?

The Italian Renaissance occurred at the end 13th century, the spread of the revival happened within the 15th century. That Gutenberg is a German and not Italian has no correlation with all aspects of the Renaissance being Latin. What do you presume they rediscovered besides Latin and Hellenic knowledge?


Everything about Slavecism and Mudicism is a thievery of Germanic symbols/runes and a copy-cat ethnocentrism inspired by germanic nationalism/ethnocentrism.


And National Socialism (Germanicism in much of theory and in almost all of practice) was in near all aspects, besides its socialist character a thievery of Italian and Roman Fascism.

SpearBrave
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 02:04 PM
"The Italian Renaissance occurred at the end 13Th century, the spread of the revival happened within the 15th century. That Gutenberg is a German and not Italian has no correlation with all aspects of the Renaissance being Latin."

With out the printing press books and manuscripts and the information they contain would not have spread to the rest of Europe. It all depends if you look at the Renaissance as a time period or revival of the arts.

As a Artist I will not argue the impact Italy had on the arts.

" The Renaissance was a cultural movement that profoundly affected European intellectual life in the early modern period. Beginning in Italy, and spreading to the rest of Europe by the 16th century, its influence affected literature, philosophy, art, politics, science, religion, and other aspects of intellectual inquiry. Renaissance scholars employed the humanist method in study, and searched for realism and human emotion in art."

And how did that information spread? Even the liberal media stated that Gutenberg's printing press was the most important invention of the last Milena.

rainman
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 04:14 PM
Culture spreads. If a man in China invents a new microchip am I suppose to never use any computer with that microchip in it? As a reasonable human being I learn from nature, my own culture and other cultures around me, not just isolate myself into one group and cloak myself in ignorance of everything outside that. So if the Nazis or whoever invents successful ideologies then it makes sense that other groups would use those ideologies as an evolution of their own philosophy and culture. Likewise the Nazis themselves were largely rooted in Greco-Roman culture. The seig heil Nazi arm salute comes from traditional Roman culture for example. If we refused to learn and progress regardless of the source we'd all be living in caves.

I don't really know of any slavic or med groups that are forcefully trying to disrupt any Germanic group or rape Germanic women. They are open to accepting Germanics into their groups because they define their group in a different way. The folk decide on who the folk are.

Peoples Observer
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 04:45 PM
Of the 3 Europid sub-groups the Celts are the purest.

Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Brittany are untouched by extra-Europid blood for the most part.

The Slavs have a Mongolid and Turkic influence in some cases.

The Latins have a Moorish influence in some cases.

The Germanics for the most part are still free of extra-Europid blood, but they have some minor Latin and Slavic influences.

In all of these groups you still do have pure untouched Europids.

I believe that the best elements of the Germanics, Celts, Latins, Hellenics and Slavs should practice self-segregation to preserve their unique qualities.

And I also believe in defensive cooperation between these groups of Europids against the Black, Brown, Yellow and Red Races who threaten all of us.

Rassenhygieniker
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 07:50 PM
I don't really know of any slavic or med groups that are forcefully trying to disrupt any Germanic group or rape Germanic women.


Millions of women victims raped by Russian soldiers during the last months of World War II. Anthony Beevor's book "Berlin -- The Downfall 1945" documents rape by Russian soldiers. "Beevor's conclusions are that in response to the vast scale of casualties inflicted on them by the Germans the Soviets responded in kind, and that included rape on a vast scale. It started as soon as the Red Army entered East Prussia and Silesia in 1944, and in many towns and villages every female aged from 10 to 80 was raped." The author "was 'shaken to the core' to discover that even their own Russian and Polish women and girls liberated from German concentration camps were also violated." He estimates that "a 'high proportion' of at least 15 million women who lived in the Soviet zone or were expelled from Germany's eastern provinces were raped." Until recent years, East German women from the World War II era referred to the Red Army war memorial in Berlin as "the Tomb of the Unknown Rapist."




They are open to accepting Germanics into their groups because they define their group in a different way.

No it is because they are trying to Germanize their mongolized (Slavs) and arabized (Meds) race by having germanic people mate with them as a mean to cleanse their people's tainted bloodlines.

Here is two pictures, one of a middleeastern and one of a latinic european

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/8394/r13r13.jpg

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/4884/r12r12.jpg

Which one is the middleeastern and which one is the latinic european?

Bärin
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 08:59 PM
And I also believe in defensive cooperation between these groups of Europids against the Black, Brown, Yellow and Red Races who threaten all of us.
Their idea of cooperation is to mix with Germanic women or use them as sex toys, while men sit aside and let it happen in the name of "European unity". :oanieyes

I'd support cooperation through segregation, but we're the only ones who want segregation from them. :thumbdown

Peoples Observer
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 09:56 PM
Their idea of cooperation is to mix with Germanic women or use them as sex toys, while men sit aside and let it happen in the name of "European unity". :oanieyes

I'd support cooperation through segregation, but we're the only ones who want segregation from them. :thumbdown

What I meant was MILITARY cooperation against nations like Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, China, Venezuela, Cuba, N.Korea, Angola, Somalia, ect....

To defend against the world of Black, Brown, Yellow, Red and mixed mutts.

Of course not cooperate sexually.

NAjj
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 10:51 PM
With out the printing press books and manuscripts and the information they contain would not have spread to the rest of Europe. It all depends if you look at the Renaissance as a time period or revival of the arts.



And how did that information spread? Even the liberal media stated that Gutenberg's printing press was the most important invention of the last Milena.

And?

'How does that discredit the Latin origin and basis of the Renaissance?

That Gutenberg is a German and not Italian has no correlation with all aspects of the Renaissance being Latin. What do you presume they rediscovered besides Latin and Hellenic knowledge?'

The Renaissance was about rediscovering the knowledge of the Classics, and those were Mediterranean, Hellenic and above all Latin.

The Renaissance was a European event, but the intellectual material they worked with was Latin.

Does the printing of the Bible by Gutenberg make Christianity Germanic, or is it regardless of who materializes it Semitic in its philosophy?


Their idea of cooperation is to mix with Germanic women or use them as sex toys, while men sit aside and let it happen in the name of "European unity".


You must be joking.

European nationalist and Fascist groups alike are cooperative since the last WW, therefore I doubt, honestly very much doubt much sexual intermixing has occurred from it.

It never hurts to prioritise problematic events regarding preservation, but the suggestion that non Germanic nationalists are only called in to life to serve evil sexual desires is too far fatched, and just false.

Its rather more interesting and effective to reverse the attitude of Germanic women going voluntary for sexual and moral decadent vacation trips to the lands of the Mediterranean.


but we're the only ones who want segregation from them.

Interesting you believe this, the most radical groups, Skinheads as Blood and Honor and todays Autonome Nationalisten in Germany are both Germanic in origin and both have a European outset. As is White Nationalism and even National Socialism. :

from "Latvian Legion" (James Bender Publishing, 1986, pages 348-349.) :

"He (Himmler) then singled out those nations which he regarded as belonging to the German family of nations and they were: the Germans, the Dutch, the Flemish, the Anglo-Saxons, the Scandinavians and the Baltic people. 'To combine all of these nations into one big family is the most important task at the present time' (Himmler said). 'This unification has to take place on the principle of equality and at that same time has to secure the identity of each nation and its economical independence, of course, adjusting the latter to the interests of the whole German living space. . . After the unification of all the German nations into one family, this family. . . has to take over the mission to include, in the family, all the Roman nations whose living space is favored by nature with a milder climate...I am convinced that after the unification, the Roman nations will be able to persevere as the Germans...This enlarged family of the White race will then have the mission to include the Slavic nations into the family also because they too are of the White race . . . it is only with such a unification of the White race that the Western culture could be saved from the Yellow race . . . "


Which one is the middleeastern and which one is the latinic european?

What region of the ME would you suggest the last guy could possibly come from? Neither look Middle Eastern to me.

Rassenhygieniker
Sunday, September 20th, 2009, 09:32 AM
What region of the ME would you suggest the last guy could possibly come from? Neither look Middle Eastern to me.

One of them is, try to guess which one of these two come from the middle east.

Or maybe it is too hard of a thing to do, considering that the mediterranean ethno is arabized beyond recognition?

NAjj
Sunday, September 20th, 2009, 01:52 PM
One of them is, try to guess which one of these two come from the middle east.

I already implied it was the last guy you considered Middle Eastern influenced European and the first one to be the actual Middle Eastern.


Or maybe it is too hard of a thing to do, considering that the mediterranean ethno is arabized beyond recognition?

There is a difference between Middle Eastern looking and Arab looking. You live in Scotland, so I don't know your experiences with Arab immigrants and their physical appearances, but non of the individuals you posted looks Arab.

I live in the Netherlands, this is what Arabs look like :

http://users.telenet.be/hansalprojects/boussoufa.jpeg
http://www.lrdf.be/images/Voetballers/BoussoufaMarroko.jpg

Nachtengel
Sunday, September 20th, 2009, 03:36 PM
I already implied it was the last guy you considered Middle Eastern influenced European and the first one to be the actual Middle Eastern.
You probably caught onto the trick.
The first one is Europid and the second one doesn't look out of place in Middle Eastern countries. The second one might be 'European', but he is mixed with Armenoid/Orientalid.

NAjj
Sunday, September 20th, 2009, 04:58 PM
You probably caught onto the trick.
The first one is Europid and the second one doesn't look out of place in Middle Eastern countries. The second one might be 'European', but he is mixed with Armenoid/Orientalid.

Based on what? I have seen Frenchmen resembling him. He doesn't look non European to me, his tan is too clearly not his natural skin tone. A real brown individual has a pigmentation as the Moroccan I posted above.

It would be nice if Rassenhygieniker would give the identity of the guy, so more information could be found on him.

But I doubt the effectiveness of pictures to provide support for a certain opinion.

This method can also be turned around against our own ethnicity from what I have seen.

Marcus Berg (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=Marcus%20Berg&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi), a Swede. He can be Germanic all he wants, he looks out of place in the Netherlands.

http://centerholdsit.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/4112.jpg
http://www.uefa.com/ml/images/players/under21/324x324/97688.jpg

A Norwegian guy.

http://i34.tinypic.com/34hf6rl.jpg

Norwegian girl.

http://i33.tinypic.com/2yuf784.jpg

Those pictures don't prove anything regarding Germanic Scandinavians, as for me neither does that picture of what I can only guess is a Sicilian provide any real information on the populations of the south of Europe.

You can prove anything with a picture.

Freja_se
Thursday, November 12th, 2009, 06:59 AM
It is true that the some mediterraneans look rather arabic. There is no denying that. There is middle eastern admixture present in some, especially in those in the very South of Italy, Spain etc.

Rhobot
Thursday, November 12th, 2009, 08:25 AM
It is true that the some mediterraneans look rather arabic. There is no denying that. There is middle eastern admixture present in some, especially in those in the very South of Italy, Spain etc.

There is a little bit of admixture (e.g. 7.5% of Sicilian male lineages originated in the Maghreb) but it gets blown way out of proportion.

As for physical appearance, there is overlap between some Arabs, Berbers, Turks etc. and some southern Europeans. There are 2 reasons for this:

1) Hair/eye blondism and pronounced skin depigmentation are not original Caucasoid traits. They are fairly recent/derived traits that originated in northern Europe and are not adaptive in sunny southern Europe.

2) Southern Europeans (particularly Greeks and South Italians) are more directly descended from populations that migrated out of the Near East during the Neolithic, with minor admixture from later invading groups (both northern Europeans and north Africans).

Einsiedler
Thursday, November 12th, 2009, 09:14 AM
Sorry, but I cannot help but feel that almost every statement made here is wrong.

1. Slavs do only want to be seen as equal to Germanic people while residing in predominantly Germanic countries.

And it's not so hard to understand why, or is it?

2. Last time I checked, recent history was a strengthening of Slavs vs. Germanic peoples. The middle ages are by now already the somewhat more distant past. And Panslavism was alive and kicking as recently back as WW I. Today's hatred stems from the events of WW II, in which the Croats sided with Germany.

3. It is becoming increasingly clear that haplogroup I is the main agent in evolving the Nordic type, and that haplogroup I and J split only recently. Given that it is a somehow puzzling statement to speak of preserving the purity of your blood by not mixing with Mediterraneans. I'm the best example, I'm getting repeatedly classified as Atlanto-Med, though my parents are Brünnid and any influence of Latin blood is, being a farmer's son from north of the Elbe, definitely excluded.

4. And I also cannot feel that Germanic people would value their relatedness in a particularly strong way. Sure, around here that's so, per definition. But listening to Nick Griffin's dinner speech brought up elsewhere here on Skadi, I couldn't help but notice that when he spoke of the European (explicitly Saxon) effort to defend Vienna against the Turks the audience reacted with total silence.

5. There is a strong feeling of community amongst Italy, France, Spain and Portugal. The bond between Spain and France is particularly close, despite some issues over agricultural competition. I don't think that Spain has ever NOT supported a political suggestion made by France within the EU.

6. To spell out the other half of my first point: Within Poland and the Czech Republic there is a very strong sense of nationalism and identification with "Slavicness". In Russia it's simply not there, because too many Russians are not exactly Slavs (you could say the same about the Czech Republic, but that only demonstrates just how little the Czechs prefer to be seen as Germanic people.)

Freja_se
Thursday, November 12th, 2009, 06:21 PM
There is a little bit of admixture (e.g. 7.5% of Sicilian male lineages originated in the Maghreb) but it gets blown way out of proportion.



NO, it's not blown way out of proportion. In the South there are actually many people who look very much like middle easterners. A semitic/arabic look is common there and the admixture is very visible in the South of Italy, for example, and in Spain.

rainman
Thursday, November 12th, 2009, 06:39 PM
It could come from a common shared ancestor and not recent mixture. We all evolved out of common ancestral groups and diverged.

Méldmir
Thursday, November 12th, 2009, 06:50 PM
It doesn't matter, south Europeans tend to both look and act as their southern neighbours. Maybe northern Italians are different, I'm not sure how different they are to southern Italians.

Rhobot
Friday, November 13th, 2009, 12:58 AM
It doesn't matter, south Europeans tend to both look and act as their southern neighbours. Maybe northern Italians are different, I'm not sure how different they are to southern Italians.

N and S Italians are somewhat different- not night and day, but there are big differences in economy, food, general way of life, and slight differences in average looks.
I would say S Euros (Greeks, southern Italians and southern Spaniards) are intermediate in appearance, culture/behavior etc. between northern/central Europeans and Near Easterners.

Rassenhygieniker
Sunday, November 22nd, 2009, 05:43 AM
NO, it's not blown way out of proportion. In the South there are actually many people who look very much like middle easterners. A semitic/arabic look is common there and the admixture is very visible in the South of Italy, for example, and in Spain.

Correct, as I have tried to demonstrate before, this guy is actually an Italian:

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/5554/r18r18.jpg
http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/4884/r12r12.jpg

Doesn't look anything close to your stereotypical European, now does he?

But yet could pass up for a local in the middle east like a charm.

Freja_se
Sunday, November 22nd, 2009, 05:55 AM
Yes, there are Italians who look surprisingly Semitic. It is not at all uncommon. I'm not saying they are Semitic, since I'm not an expert on this at all, but their facial traits sometimes remind me of Middle Easterners.

There are many who don't look like that, though. Generally speaking it becomes more common as you go down South, and the skin tone also deepens and lighter hair and lighter eyes become more rare. This is only natural since the strong sun demands that the skin creates more pigment as protection.

Witta
Sunday, November 22nd, 2009, 12:20 PM
But that doesn't happen. Most internet Slavs and Meds are pan-Europeans, who always complain why Germanics want to segregate, why they're not liked in our ranks, why we don't consider mixing fine, and the sort.
Why isn't the feeling of ethnocentrism so strong in other Europeans as in Germanics, could someone explain?

All creatures want their genes, their culture and their lives to have the best chances. For Germanics, (although the feeling may not be echoed) the Slavic or Mediterranean worlds are not on that horizon.