PDA

View Full Version : Race and Ethnos: Understanding the Racial Question



Siegfried
Saturday, September 27th, 2003, 02:39 PM
Race and Ethnos

Understanding the Racial Question
There is so much evidence for racial differences available, that I will not bother to argue about it here. The races are not equal, just like individuals are not equal.
Unfortunately, the fact that the White European race is one of the most intelligent – and the most creative – of all races, has led some to believe that every person with European origins is worth saving. Take, for example, the ‘Aryan Nations’-project. It was supposed to become a strong community of ‘racially conscious’, Christian Whites, who had enough of the modern world and its interracial chaos.
It was a flop.
All kinds of idiots were accepted, as long as they had light skin. It gained a reputation as a sort of shelter for White dropouts, homeless people, and general losers. I suppose none of you is surprised to hear the project imploded as a result of that.
We need to understand that the ‘White European race’ is nothing more than a biological, taxonomic construct. The members of our race are diverse, both physically and mentally. Not every White guy is superior to the Negro; we too have losers among us, and we need to cut them loose. Paradoxically enough, in order to secure the existence of our people and a future for White children, we must stop caring about the entire race, and focus on the Whites who are actually worth saving. This is where the ‘ethnos’ comes in.

The Ethnos
While the race is a biological, taxonomic construct, the ‘ethnos’ is a biological-spiritual community. It is a group of people, connected not only by blood, but also by world-feeling. The members of an ethnos are typically of the same race, but the ethnos usually does not cover the entire race. All high cultures grew out of such an ethnos. Sometimes an ethnos placed itself as a ruling caste on top of lesser peoples, and then enforced its culture on all its subordinates, as happened in ancient India.

The Jewish Ethnos
The Jewish ethnos is probably the best known ethnos in the modern world. It was strong enough to survive even under the most hostile circumstances. For twenty centuries, the Jews lived in ‘diaspora’ among the Gentiles, the very people they despised. They simply retreated into their own circles, and only worked inside the system of their hosts when it suited their interests. This way, they not only managed to survive as a race and an ethnos, but to actually expand their power, and to reclaim the land they lost two millennia ago.

Conclusion
There is a lot we can learn from this. Instead of accepting every fair-skinned moron as a member of our movement (=our ethnos in an embryonic stage), we must only accept the most intelligent and dedicated individuals. We cannot save the entire race, but many do not deserve to be saved anyway, and would only damage our movement, and thus our rising ethnos.

---

Thoughts?

Moody
Saturday, September 27th, 2003, 05:34 PM
You say that "We need to understand that the ‘White European race’ is nothing more than a biological, taxonomic construct".
I regard this as nonsense - the White European Race is no 'construct'. The classification comes long after the fact; the White Race is a product of Nature.

You say ; "Not every White guy is superior to the Negro".
More nonsense; I believe that by dint of being White, even the lowest White is superior to the highest Negro.

And then you say "we must stop caring about the entire race, and focus on the Whites who are actually worth saving ...We cannot save the entire race, but many do not deserve to be saved anyway, and would only damage our movement, and thus our rising ethnos".

You have to achieve power first, then you can start working on breeding-up the Race; this can only be done once the racial group is brought within the embrace of a White Nationalist government.
Look at the measures carried out by the Third Reich to breed up the Germans;

1933 - Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Progeny
1935 - Nuremburg Laws
1935 - Reich Citizenship Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honour [forbids sex between Germans and Jews/Blacks/Gypsies]
1936 - Reich Office for the Combatting of Homosexuality and Abortion
1936 - Reich Committee for Hereditary Health Questions
1939 - Euthanasia programme for physically and mentally handicapped/ prostitutes/abortionists and homosexuals for crimes against race.

These are the sort of measures that need to be brought in; of course they are not effective within small enclaves such as the Aryan Nations project. State power is needed to make the sort of progress that leads to a refined hierarchy WITHIN a Race.

Stríbog
Saturday, September 27th, 2003, 05:57 PM
You say that "We need to understand that the ‘White European race’ is nothing more than a biological, taxonomic construct".
I regard this as nonsense - the White European Race is no 'construct'. The classification comes long after the fact; the White Race is a product of Nature.


Actually, the separate subraces are products of Nature. The artificial umbrella 'White' mentality is a construct. :)



You say ; "Not every White guy is superior to the Negro".
More nonsense; I believe that by dint of being White, even the lowest White is superior to the highest Negro.


I know some blacks that are more intelligent and upright than a lot of Anglo-Celtic trash I have seen. To say someone is better just because of the color of their skin defeats the whole point of racial biology. It's about the statistics; which populations are better at what. Sure there are smart blacks and stupid whites. I can respect the decent blacks while recognizing the general trends. I also have no tolerance for some trailer-dwelling redneck just because they are 'white.' I'd just as soon see them deported. :)

Stríbog
Saturday, September 27th, 2003, 06:06 PM
You have to achieve power first, then you can start working on breeding-up the Race; this can only be done once the racial group is brought within the embrace of a White Nationalist government.
Look at the measures carried out by the Third Reich to breed up the Germans;

1933 - Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Progeny
1935 - Nuremburg Laws
1935 - Reich Citizenship Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honour [forbids sex between Germans and Jews/Blacks/Gypsies]
1936 - Reich Office for the Combatting of Homosexuality and Abortion
1936 - Reich Committee for Hereditary Health Questions
1939 - Euthanasia programme for physically and mentally handicapped/ prostitutes/abortionists and homosexuals for crimes against race.

These are the sort of measures that need to be brought in; of course they are not effective within small enclaves such as the Aryan Nations project. State power is needed to make the sort of progress that leads to a refined hierarchy WITHIN a Race.


Who is to be the judge of what 'crimes against race' are? You? Hitler? Himmler? :rofl Himmler himself was a 'crime against race' just by being who he was, LOL. Were the Strassers guilty of crimes against race? Was Rommel? Röhm?If homosexuality is a crime against race, what about the evidence that Hitler was gay? :hitler :hugs :whip :giggle

cosmocreator
Saturday, September 27th, 2003, 06:30 PM
what about the evidence that Hitler was gay?


What evidence?

Siegfried
Saturday, September 27th, 2003, 07:29 PM
You say that "We need to understand that the ‘White European race’ is nothing more than a biological, taxonomic construct".
I regard this as nonsense - the White European Race is no 'construct'. The classification comes long after the fact; the White Race is a product of Nature.


I did not say it was a flawed construct. I borrowed the expression from Rushton's essay 'Is Race a Valid Taxonomic Construct?'
You can read it on www.yggsoc.tk - it's in the Archives-section.



You say ; "Not every White guy is superior to the Negro".
More nonsense; I believe that by dint of being White, even the lowest White is superior to the highest Negro.


If you mean we should never accept a Negro in our White communities, I fully agree. That was, however, not what I meant. If a Negro with an IQ of 100 (that's actually high for a Negro) loves his race and is willing to fight for it, I consider him 'superior' to the White race-traitor who watches mind-numbing television shows, and scores around 90 on an IQ test. This does not mean we should then try to assimilate that black guy.



You have to achieve power first, then you can start working on breeding-up the Race; this can only be done once the racial group is brought within the embrace of a White Nationalist government.


Not so much political power, as sovereignty in our own circle. We can learn a lot from the Jews in this respect. At this point we need to form a sort of 'state within the state', just like the Jews did for centuries.



I know some blacks that are more intelligent and upright than a lot of Anglo-Celtic trash I have seen. To say someone is better just because of the color of their skin defeats the whole point of racial biology. It's about the statistics; which populations are better at what. Sure there are smart blacks and stupid whites. I can respect the decent blacks while recognizing the general trends. I also have no tolerance for some trailer-dwelling redneck just because they are 'white.' I'd just as soon see them deported.


I agree. If we do not want to sink to the level of the Negro, we will have to be harsh on the lower elements of our race.

OnionPeeler
Sunday, September 28th, 2003, 05:07 AM
One of the things often confusing about WN threads is that high level political discussion blends with talk on community or the social aspects of small group survival.


Moody says: "[Eugenics] can only be done once the racial group is brought within the embrace of a White Nationalist government."

This may be preferred, but I don't see it as a necessity. I hope that it is not the only way because the prospects for political success are looking dismal.

But I gather Siegfried is talking community or diasporic survival. I don't see that voluntary (positive) eugenics can be legally denied in any Western nation. Negative eugenics in the form of exclusion or expulsion are do-able in the US - not sure about other countries.

Surely, Jews/Israel are the most impressive example of a diasporic people taking some ground back (though small and 2000 years later).

The Amish in North America number about 144,000. Their retension rate is good and losses often go the the Mennonite community - reformed Amish? ;) Some 70% of new Amish settlements were founded after 1960. The Amish are pacifists and don't generally seek converts. From five thousand three hundred years ago, they've multiplied by 29 times AND shed population.

Remeber also that America's population and land grabs exploded after 1783. Also, the steppe area breeding ground c. 2000 BC and internal population pressures provides a better explanation of intrusive Aryans, Persian, Hittites than glorious marauding tribes. That is, the likelihood is high that the Hittites were DRIVEN by fellow Aryans into Anatolia. These tribes were not enormous, but were more martial than the urban artisan and dirt farmers they overlaid.

To put this in perspective, if a 'racial/spiritual' community could duplicate Amish success AND recruit, the growth rate would be very high. Today, as of old, control the country-side, control the country. If there was some shedding from the orthodox ruralites to PLEs, it needn't mean loss of identity in the fleeing 'Mennonite.'

There's a mirror of this thread at SF. But Skadi seems to be generating the more intelligent discussion.

At SF, JohnJoyTree, usually sharp with his social observations, says:


"We" is a weasel word. Every member of our race is valuable, and meant to be loved.

In practice such a group would have to be supportive of wider White Nationalism, would guide the wider White Nationalism, and would grow out the wider White Nationalism, and would recruit from the wider White Nationalism.

--(He seems to be talking about an interactive, reference population.)--

In short, it would be a group of dedicated servants, not an aristocracy of the privileged elite. Life as a member of such a group would be a hard duty.

There are plenty of historical analogs for this.

Secondly, you mention "the most intelligent and dedicated". I believe we should eschew anything like IQ tests: they are fake measures. Heart and spirit are truer.

But .... how to start in practice?


IQ? Heart and Spirit? If there's any degree of heritability to racial instinct, then 'heart and spirit' or loyalty, would be imperative for small groups. Of what value the couch potato with a 180 IQ if he's traitor?


State power is needed to make the sort of progress that leads to a refined hierarchy WITHIN a Race.

If I understand him, JohnJoyTree supports the idea of a creative, largely apolitical, intellectual leadership of inspirers. That's a form of hierarchy, or at least contrast. But I think the better one is an ultra-traditional referent. The one already mentioned has its own growth potential but also provides the reference against which one could say, "How white am I (behaving) compared to..."

Alternate groups, such as National Socialism or WCOTC, don't work as social referent because they are TOO political and lack a working economic, small-group model.

What seems obvious, whether talking political ambition or diasporic survival, is that there are still millions of whites that form a recruitment pool. I don't think we can write them off yet.

Still Siegfried's concern is valid for any small group. On the one hand there would be an inclination to grab anyone interested. On the other, there's no "quality control" mechanism.

For a diasporic group, control can come in three main forms.

Recruit filtering - rejecting hot heads, criminals, et al
Environmental testing - able to pull their own weight. In an Amish-like diaspora, one has to be a minimally profitable farmer.
Group censur - Until recently, the Jews employed excommunication and often much, much worse punishments. Social discipline is effective in very close-knit groups. The Amish use, to great effect, shunning or more often, the threat of shunning.

I believe there is some validity in protecting the "ethnos in an embryonic stage" if we're talking about 'a new beginning' and an exceedingly patient approach.

Siegfried
Sunday, September 28th, 2003, 08:19 AM
But I gather Siegfried is talking community or diasporic survival.

That was indeed what I was talking about. I have lost faith in 'the political way': we'll not be able to make any European country or the USA entirely White with a voting ballot. We'll need to organise somewhere, and then either secede, or make a grab for power.



What seems obvious, whether talking political ambition or diasporic survival, is that there are still millions of whites that form a recruitment pool. I don't think we can write them off yet.

I didn't mean to say we should write all of them off yet. I merely meant that certain groups in 'the movement' are so eager to recruit, that they accept the wrong people (the Aryan Nations, for example). It's really no wonder the racialist movement has such an image-problem.



Recruit filtering - rejecting hot heads, criminals, et al
Environmental testing - able to pull their own weight. In an Amish-like diaspora, one has to be a minimally profitable farmer.
Group censur - Until recently, the Jews employed excommunication and often much, much worse punishments. Social discipline is effective in very close-knit groups. The Amish use, to great effect, shunning or more often, the threat of shunning.


That is exactly what I think we should do.
Recruit filtering is very important; the Aryan Nations-project got infiltrated by government agents, which is something we'll have to prevent at any cost.

Moody
Monday, September 29th, 2003, 05:49 PM
Stríbog;"Actually, the separate subraces are products of Nature. The artificial umbrella 'White' mentality is a construct".

Moody Lawless; Illogical. If subraces exist, then they must be subs- of a race; that is what sub-race means. The subraces like Nordics, are not subraces of the Negro race, are they?
No, the Nordics are a White subrace; therefore the White race is a product of Nature if the subraces are,

Stribog; "I know some blacks that are more intelligent and upright than a lot of Anglo-Celtic trash I have seen".

ML; I am not even going to dignify that remark with the hundreds of epithets that jostle in my mind as I read it. It is enough for me to know that this remark of yours will haunt you later when you think more deeply about things.

Stribog; "To say someone is better just because of the color of their skin defeats the whole point of racial biology".

ML; Our conception of Race goes far beyond shallow skin-colour - it is the anti-Racists who try and reduce Race to skin-colour.

Stribog; "It's about the statistics; which populations are better at what. Sure there are smart blacks and stupid whites. I can respect the decent blacks while recognizing the general trends. I also have no tolerance for some trailer-dwelling redneck just because they are 'white.' I'd just as soon see them deported.

ML; There are only "lies, damn lies and statistics.
You can manipulate statistics to suit yourself; what matters here is Race-Feeling, or Race-Soul.
What you said of 'red-necks' makes me want to vomit.
Again, I will respect this board by refraining from putting my feelings into words.
Let it be known that I am seething with anger at this moment, and so must log off ...

Moody
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 06:26 PM
Siegfried Aurelius; "I did not say it was a flawed construct".

Moody Lawless; The term 'construct' is usually used by Deconstructionists to debunk Western Culture.

Siegfried; "If a Negro with an IQ of 100 ... loves his race and is willing to fight for it, I consider him 'superior' to the White race-traitor ..."

ML; That still does not make him RACIALLY SUPERIOR. Indeed, I would have even less sympathy for such a Negro as he would be dangerous to the survival of the White Race [let's face it, he would HAVE to take a White wife, wouldn't he?]

Siegfried; "At this point we need to form a sort of 'state within the state', just like the Jews did for centuries".

ML; I reject this as defeatist. I also regard the methods used by the Jews as revolting.

Siegfried; "If we do not want to sink to the level of the Negro, we will have to be harsh on the lower elements of our race".

ML; The White Race could never sink that low; I also object to adopting the enemy's vocabulary of 'White Trash' and 'Redneck' etc., I find such words as Traitorious.

Moody
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 06:42 PM
Onion Peeler; "if a 'racial/spiritual' community could duplicate Amish success AND recruit, the growth rate would be very high".

Moody Lawless; Sorry to state the obvious, but the success here is based on a religious imperative. The same imperative that makes Islam the world's fastest growing religion at present.
As this excellent board shows, religious agreement is abysmal amongst White Nationalists.

The question has to be asked - is White Nationalism [and I know that some don't even like to call it that] inherently fratricidal?
This is a seeming paradox, I know. But it appears that we are in a phase of constant schism, and zero Unity.

To work on the religious model requires UNITY. I presume that the Amish have a unified approach to thier religion which expresses itself in their community. I doubt whether they have rows over whether 'Amish' is an appropriate name for their movement, for example.
I know that religions themselves have been dogged by schisms through the ages, but a unified out-look must be arrived at at some point.

If not, then the suspicion is strong that White Nationalism has become absorbed by multiculturalism, and is therefore just another fashion.

Stríbog
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 06:45 PM
LOL "traitorious"? Have you been taking speech lessons from Don King and Mike Tyson? The word is *traitorous*

Guess what? People who cannot excel in English when it is their first language are often white trash. :)

It's not the 'enemy's terminology.' It accurately describes many whites. Most whites who defend white trash, rednecks, etc. are either entirely ignorant of those classes, having never encountered them firsthand, or fall into that category themselves, and thus are highly defensive. ;)

Moody
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 07:12 PM
Stribog; "Guess what? People who cannot excel in English when it is their first language are often white trash"

Moody Lawless; So what is your 'first language' then?
This is only a internet chat forum, not a University exam paper - and anyway, I wrote 'Traitorious' in that way [complete with capital 'T'] as an ironic reference to the way the word was said in 'Till Death Do Us Part' by the Alf Garnett character.

Stribog; "Most whites who defend white trash, rednecks, etc. are either entirely ignorant of those classes, having never encountered them firsthand, or fall into that category themselves, and thus are highly defensive".

Moody Lawless; So have you not encountered them first-hand yourself then?
Is that why you live in mythical 'Hyperborea'?
I'm afraid it is you who is shrieking out the insults, 'white trash', 'Anglo-Celtic scum', 'red-necks', 'White trailer-trash' etc.,
It is you who are rather over-wrought and emotionally unbalanced on this one.
I will not apologise for my love of the White Race, and will certainly not start elevating Negroes "who excel in English" and start to adopt the insults they use against Whites.
If this is what your rejection of 'White Nationalism' leads to, then I am right to oppose it here with a call to White Unity - as always.
Nobility always.

Siegfried
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 07:34 PM
The White Race could never sink that low


Actually, we could. Races are not static; nothing organic is. Mutations occur all the time, selection pressures may shift, etc. It would however, take a huge number of generations before we'd reach the level of the negroid race (assuming our race will be around for that long; if things don't change within the next twenty years, there's a good chance we won't).



That still does not make him RACIALLY SUPERIOR.


It would make him a member of a race that is superior to the negroid race, yes. But it wouldn't make him as a person superior to every living negro.



Indeed, I would have even less sympathy for such a Negro as he would be dangerous to the survival of the White Race [let's face it, he would HAVE to take a White wife, wouldn't he?]


I take it a Negro who really loves his race, would consider interracial marriages just as obscene as a racially conscious White would.



I reject this as defeatist. I also regard the methods used by the Jews as revolting.


Then what do you suggest we do? Start a political party? I'm sorry, but I just don't believe in that. There are too many lefties within our own race that would oppose it, and millions of non-Whites who would rally against it. Add the Jewish influence on the media to that, and you should have a pretty good idea why it won't work.
The Jews may be a revolting people and I'm not saying we should be like them, but there might be something we can learn from them.

Stríbog
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 07:34 PM
I don't think I ever said "Anglo-Celtic scum" - that's a new one. :)

I'm not elevating Negroes who use proper English to any kind of racial compatibility status; I was pointing out that I respect them more than dirt-poor illiterate whites who are too lazy to improve their status.

If you are concerned with true Nobility, then unifying all 'Whites' is incompatible with that, unless one uses circular logic whereby 'White = noble' and neither is actually defined. I am guessing this is the route you take. :giggle

I put my location as Hyperborea because I'm not particularly proud of the fact that America is my location :) You probably are, though, considering how much more 'culturally advanced' you say America is than Russia :P Have you ever even been here? It is not 70-89% white, I can tell you that. The 69-70% figure comes from mixed-race Muslims being called white on the census, not to mention the Sicilians and Greeks. ;)

Moody
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 08:11 PM
Stríbog;"I don't think I ever said 'Anglo-Celtic scum' - that's a new one".

Moody Lawless; I've just checked, - you said "Anglo-Celtic trash" [see above, this thread]- of course, 'scum' is not a word in your wide vocabulary.

Stribog; " ... I respect them [i.e., Negroes] more than dirt-poor illiterate whites ..".

ML; The Negro is welcome to your 'respect'. At least you don't generalise about the Negro in the way you do the Anglo-Celtics.

Stribog; "If you are concerned with true Nobility, then unifying all 'Whites' is incompatible with that, unless one uses circular logic whereby 'White = noble' and neither is actually defined. I am guessing this is the route you take".

ML; 'Noble' refers in the context in which I used it, to comportment. I refrain from spewing out the generalised insults and effeminately sarcastic sniggers against the White Race that make up the bulk of your posts, as such behaviour is Ignoble in the extreme.
It is also Racially Traitorious.
I have defined 'White' many times, just as the word 'White' is self-defined on this board by its constant usage.
I call for White Unity, not the 'unifying of all Whites'.
Whites recognising their common culture is important - why?
Take this example; an Asian says when asked whether the person he saw was blond or dark, - "all Whites look the same to me".
All the inferences of 'circular logic' are YOUR OWN. I have not made them.

Stribog; " ... I'm not particularly proud of the fact that America is my location..."

ML; And there we have the crux of your problem; this self-hatred and self-shame of yours is thrown out at others, those 'Anglo-Celtics' and other Whites who you detest so much.
Do not blame others - can you not do 'anything about your own situation'?
Why aren't you living amongst your 'own kind' in the Baltic region'?
My Nobility restrains me from plunging the knife in - I still presume that you are White, even if largely misguided.

Stribog;"You say America is more 'culturally advanced' than Russia".

ML; I haven't said that - I said that America is 'Western', and therefore has much in common with Western Europe - and far less in common with Russia.
If your model of Europe is 'Western', such as Aloysha's is, then America is more (Western) European than is Russia.
Of course, America and Russia have one thing in common - they are both comprised of disparate States, although I would say that I got the impression from visiting the US that the latter is more 'culturally' homogeneous than Greater Russia.

Moody
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 08:32 PM
Siegfried; "I take it a Negro who really loves his race, would consider interracial marriages just as obscene as a racially conscious White would".

Moody Lawless; No, I think you are appying White standards to Blacks - and that is a mistake.
The Negro knows that the Dark blots out the Light - creating bastards serves the Black race and the Black race only.

The political route must always be maintained, and it must be constantly worked at, as the present political system is reaching crisis point and White Nationalist political parties stand to benefit hugely in the near future.

I abhor the terroristic route of bombing civilians, as say, the Stern Gang did. Such tactics invite the kind of 'bad karma' that the State of Israel now suffers from.
Any kind of 'underground' work should not be terrorist based, but work on religious and cultural associations, which are then linked to the political movement(s).

Let's face it, White Nationalism now faces a crisis of ideas as well as of power.
It needs Ideas and the men to further those Ideas in the political arena - both must work hand in hand.
I think that great leaders only emerge when the Ideas are sufficiently powerful to inspire them. Then they create a following and are able to achieve political breakthroughs.

White Nationalism is at a low ebb now because it often no longer believes in itself. It has become infected by indiidualism, misanthropy, multiculturalism, nihilism, and even by liberalism.

Unless it accepts 'White' as its racial minimum, and pursues an EXTENDED nationalism, rather than a narrow one, then it is doomed.

OnionPeeler
Wednesday, October 1st, 2003, 12:05 AM
Religion as binder/divider: I don't think any one would dispute that religion is a sword that cuts both ways.

The question becomes: Is is possible to form a world view or 'supra-religion' that minimizes friction between itself and existing religions? Surely, some aspects of NS can be directly lifted. Between any of CI, WCOTC, NS and (racial) neo-paganism there are common elements. And there are other elements of world view that are conducive to identity but need not rile a particular religion.

These days, people tend to shy away from radicalism or fanaticism. But wouldn't such a world view need to inspire intense loyalty? If politics is ultimately charged by unshakable belief, then is it not incumbent upon the world view to build certain identity and fervent committment?

Moody mentions the danger of misanthropy, but it can also be constructive if directed out-group.

It requires no leap of faith to look out over the millions of mass humanity, shudder, and think "browsers, consumers, destroyers of nature." As Devi has shown, but few listen, misanthropic environmentalism is one possible element.

The other side of the environmental coin when looking at "our own" people, is rampant materialism. Self-criticism is a powerful tool.

Considering what might work in diaspora does not preclude immediate or eventual political expressions. But, it surely addresses in-group social cohesiveness and, if all else fails, may be the last and only mechanism of survival of both race and our culture.

Hans
Wednesday, October 1st, 2003, 03:00 AM
I agree, I want to bridge no connection with KKK, Aryan Nations, Nazis, Skin-Heads, etc. All they are is an embarrassment…

Preaching hate against another group just reinforces your own inferiority. Respect comes from ACTIONS. Of course these groups jump to the conclusion that this means violence…no. Maybe if the majority of you had half a brain cell, you’d know people rise to power through there own genius. Yes, I know many of you don’t like to hear this, but this almost always involves an education. That’s an excellent word of the day. Lets spell that out E-D-U-C-A-T-I-O-N. The local city gang protecting their turf never got to far. Unification of gangs within hundreds of miles takes genius. Of course, this will never happen and I hope that it never does.

Seriously, the membership would be awesome if a club was made up with respectable standards for people to join. Maybe require or at least working towards a Bachelor degree. Hell, that there alone would vaporize other club’s memberships alone. The physical fitness requirements to join must be of the utmost, stringent requirements. None of this “I can bench 400 lbs.!” Who gives a shit. The real fitness is in RUNNING. People don’t run because that takes endurance and thus mental strain. How one can bench over 300 and only be able to do 7 pull-ups is beyond me. One of a platoon’s greatest assets today is mobility. Something called the bullet evened things out between men a long time ago. Give me thirty minutes and I’ll be five miles away. Once there, I’ll still have the strength to pop out 36 perfect pull-ups. Kind of puts your french-fry eating, Hitler saluting, high school dropout to shame.

Moody
Thursday, October 2nd, 2003, 05:16 PM
Stríbog; "I know some blacks that are more intelligent and upright than a lot of Anglo-Celtic trash I have seen. To say someone is better just because of the color of their skin defeats the whole point of racial biology. It's about the statistics; which populations are better at what. Sure there are smart blacks and stupid whites. I can respect the decent blacks while recognizing the general trends. I also have no tolerance for some trailer-dwelling redneck just because they are 'white.' I'd just as soon see them deported".

Moody Lawless; Answer this question; who would you rather live next door to - a so-called "intelligent and upright" Negro, or a so-called "Anglo-Celtic" piece of "trash"?
And which of the two would you rather your daughter married?

Stríbog
Thursday, October 2nd, 2003, 05:50 PM
Answer this question; who would you rather live next door to - a so-called "intelligent and upright" Negro, or a so-called "Anglo-Celtic" piece of "trash"?
And which of the two would you rather your daughter married?

I'd honestly prefer to live next to an intelligent and upright Negro than some thieving white trash. I am for preserving what is noblest among Europeans, therefore I would prefer a Negro who lived like a European to a European who lived like a Negro. :P If I had my druthers, though, I'd obviously prefer a civilized European to all other options. When it comes to marriage, I'd still rather my daughter married the white trash than the Negro.

Moody
Thursday, October 2nd, 2003, 05:57 PM
Stríbog;"I'd honestly prefer to live next to an intelligent and upright Negro than some thieving white trash".

Moody Lawless; Thanks for being honest! And you no doubt won't mind when the White flight occurs, as more and more Negoes move in, and you are the only White left in the neighbourhood!

Moody
Thursday, October 2nd, 2003, 06:13 PM
OnionPeeler; "Is it possible to form a world view or 'supra-religion' that minimizes friction between itself and existing religions? Surely, some aspects of NS can be directly lifted. Between any of CI, WCOTC, NS and (racial) neo-paganism there are common elements. And there are other elements of world view that are conducive to identity but need not rile a particular religion".

Moody Lawless; Perhaps a kind of syncretism is needed as the Romans had, where all the various religions of the group are seen as variants upon each other.
Therefore the Roman writer Tacitus claimed that the German's god Wotan was a version of Mercury.
Of course it was Semitic intolerance which eventually put the kibosh on all that - "Thou shalt have no other Gods but Me"!
This is why the Romans persecuted the Jews and Christians, of course.

So, existing Christian forms must be Aryanised and it must be shown that they are derived fron paganism anyway.
This would put us at odds with Christian Fundamentalists/Jews and Muslims living within the White Realms.

I really think that only a form of Sacred Nationalism can over-ride all this, although this would still "rile" those afore-mentioned Fundamentalists.
I suppose that only paganism, pantheism, polytheism and Aryanised Christianity are compatible with White Nationalism, in truth.
The 'Loyalty' would need to be ultimately to Race and Nation - to Fundamentalists this is 'paganism' anyway.

Given the need for the majority of people to be led, a White Nationalism preached by leading political figures and a loyal Media would spread like wild-fire.
It is all the present anti-Nationalist, anti-White establishment can do to keep these feelings surpressed.

Just as Jung wrote of 1930s Germany, our true god is not Jesus, but Wotan.
All it needs is for White Nationalists to get near the font of power for things to happen.

Stríbog
Thursday, October 2nd, 2003, 06:34 PM
I was referring to an isolated hypothetical case, and you both took it out of context and changed the paradigm. I wouldn't mind living next to an intelligent, cultured Negro if we were the only two people on the block. I made clear that I would still (grudgingly) rather have my daughter marry white trash than any Negro. Obviously, both are quite far from ideal, one just more than the other. Perhaps you would smile upon your daughter's marriage to a white convict with an IQ of 85? I guess it would not represent a decline in social status or genetic stock for you? ;)

I did not say I would like to live in a majority Negro or even a significantly Negro neighborhood. First of all, 95% of Negroes are low-class, to put it quite mildly.
Secondly, I would not like to live in a neighborhood where whites and Negroes mingle casually. I know myself, and I trust myself not to miscegenate or otherwise violate the barrier separating the races etc. However, history has shown that the average white can not be trusted to observe these standards of conduct. [Surely you know that Anglo-Celtics gave the American Negro 28% European blood? ;) Or perhaps you are familiar with the English and Dutch taking South Asian wives or mistresses?] Therefore I would not want to live in a neighborhood where such interactions occurred.

As I have made clear and you choose to ignore, I aim for nothing less than a neighborhood and entire society of predominantly Northern/Eastern European elites. I've noticed that virtually ALL opposition to Northern European self-determination from other Europeans is from [West] Mediterraneans, who feel slighted, left out, etc. (I don't have a problem with Pontids and most 'East Meds,' who are an entirely different breed). I'm guessing you are a British Med from your garbage about how Kelts are Mediterranean and about how great Rome was. You people can go form your own separate societies. Here's another hint about my personal standards: I wouldn't want my daughter marrying a swarthy greaseball dago either. :P

Nordgau
Friday, October 3rd, 2003, 12:44 AM
Here's my view of that all:

If I would simplify a bit and draw some great divisions within our people - without thinking of other races etc. -, I would divide between

a) the geniuses: those who are the great creators in culture, policy and society;

b) the talented: the leading elements in culture, politics, administration, society and economy;

c) the good average of good-willing ordinary people who just do their work: of course this is quite a concentrating term for a broad range of many different sections down to the little street-cleaner;

d) the asocial, inferior scum of a society;

That what is the core of the "ethnos" or perhaps those who keep a society, a culture running and proceding are a) together with b), but of course they couldn't exist without the broader masses of c). And also of course in a racially healthy society there are no exclusive castes and there would be current interaction between higher and less higher social niveaus.

My dream society, even if it hadn't to deal with racially aliens indeed would practice an inner eugenics and try to clean up itself from inferior elements in uninterrupted succession.

The white movement - as far as one can use this term generally - has indeed a "trash problem", but one must divide here between people who are
(1) trash real biologically and in character, and I'm the first one who admits that the number of such elements is among the "white movement" higher than among all whites in the society. The cause for that is a bundle of reasons that has to do with the fact that politically, mentally, ideologically in the society "racist" and "nationalist" ideas were more and more stigmatized in the last decades and became a thing of social "outcasts". Then there are
(2) people who are economically and from their social status on the lower side of the society, but who are biologically good or at least okay and who are decent and good-willing in their character.
Also one must consider that parts of good people of lower economic status become brutalized in all aspects through the system when they lose their jobs, fall down the social ladder etc. Such people could be won again and made better in a renewal and when they have good leaders with great ideas.

But of course the movement can't run when only average and low average people are in it, even when they are good-willing and decent. The real problem is not so much the existance of these elements in the movements, but the lack of a certain percentage of higher elements who can be the leaders in action and ideology. Then also those lowest and asocial elements which are real trash and only a burden could be plucked out and thrown away.

The cruel irony is that the soak with the beer-can in his hand who stammers insults against non-Whites speaks indeed more "truth" than the left-liberal professor from the college who scribbles 500 pages of "scientific" crap on the necessity of more immigration...

The movement must keep the balance between lower and higher elements, because only the current contact with lower - but of course good lower - elements of society will prevent that it becomes an intellectual discussion club of dreamers who are far away from all social reality. Now of course there is indeed no balance, but a predominance of people of the lower parts of society, and if we want to be successful that has to change.
All those who aren't brilliant and only do their "lower" work shall have their place in the movement and Volksgemeinschaft, as long as they are not asocial and inferior elements in the true sense of the word. But only the higher skilled and talented are those who do the work of creating and leading.

OnionPeeler
Friday, October 3rd, 2003, 12:51 AM
I hope that Moody and Stribog can bury the hatchet and come back to the topic.

I think Siegfried made it clear that he was not dismissing or including people en masse, but looking at a selective approach to solidify a core. And he was talking about small group survival. Personally, I like the idea of an ultra-traditional reference population. It's a starting point at least.

Moody introduced the political consideration and so extended the discussion to the political level. I tend to agree with Siegfried that political avenues are blocked. I'm interested in the possibility of new and novel political approaches, but 'success' seems tied to extreme circumstance (collapse).

The matter is one of inspiration, IMO. The obsession with the rational is tiring to the mind. No matter how good the argument, you can win only so many by that approach. What is needed is passion and a dash of fanaticism. Both the diasporic and political ambitions could benefit from a 'supra-religion.'

Among the 'passionate' items, first and foremost are those of direct, personal self-interest. But WNism has tried this for years. "Your daughter is at risk, your job is at risk..." It's a necessary component, but only plays so far. What's higher? And binding? And relatively inoffensive to existing religions?

Moody
Friday, October 3rd, 2003, 04:57 PM
Stribog; "You people can go form your own separate societies".

Moody Lawless; We have - and YOU are living in them.
Back to the issue of 'race and ethnos';
You have taken the general position in various permutations that you have more "respect" [your word] for a high class negro than for a low class White.
I am not taking that out of context, as that is what you have said on a few occasions. Therefore you are NOT a racist, but a Class Snob.

You compound that analysis when you talk most recently of "low-class", "elites", etc.,

As for the laughable nonsense that Brits feel "slighted" by Americans with Baltic pretensions, such as yourself, - without the pioneering sea-faring of the British there would be no America for you to preach your alienated creed from.
The Anglo-Celtic British not only created the greatest maritime Empire the world has seen, but they also created the very language you use.
While the British Empire was the greatest in extent, the Imperium Romanum gave us virtually EVERYTHING. The very letters we use, the institutions and political forms, the road building, architecture, the whole spirtual and intellectual symbology - all from Rome [and that out of the womb of Greece].

Stribog; "I'm guessing you are a British Med from your garbage about how Kelts are Mediterranean and about how great Rome was".

Moody Lawless - You continually confuse linguistic/cultural groups with racial ones. Rome's greatness is testified by her military and cultural achievements in ancient times, as well as by the residue of Roman culture that still exert powerful influence to day.

If you're such a separatist, then why aren't speaking only a Slavic tongue?

You are only posing here - its so obvious.

Moody
Friday, October 3rd, 2003, 05:10 PM
Don't forget, many a White genius was thought to be a madman or an idiot - why, some may even have been called "scum".

The implication made by a few here that the lower ends of the White Race are to be replaced by "intelligent" and "upright" Blacks is infamous.

Moody
Friday, October 3rd, 2003, 05:27 PM
Onion Peeler; "What's higher? And binding? And relatively inoffensive to existing religions?"

Moody Lawless; For me, that higher and binding thing is the European Ideal.
It is sacred in itself, but above existing European religions who can exist within it as long as they share its objectives.

Based on the historic achievements of all European sub-races and sub-cultures, it seeks to make us all - whether Slav, Med, Nord etc., think ultimately as Europeans.
By this we continue the ascending purpose of creating higher forms of civilisation as begun by the Atlanto-Mediterranean megalith builders, and carried on by the Minoans, the Celts, the Hellenes, the Latins, the Germans, the Slavs, the Anglo-Saxons, and any others I may have forgoten.

Just as when the Scots, Welsh, Irish and English came together to create the higher form of Britishness, then so ought all those of European descent come together as Europeans [and like the Scots etc., none of them will lose any whit of their own individual feeling].

Only when we recognise something Higher, do we strive.
If we, on the other hand, wallow in the lower feelings of hatred for other Whites, whether based on spurious tribal differences, or else on self-perpetuated class snobbery, then we drag ourselves ever lower. The petty-mindedness of such anti-Europeans is wretched to behold.

Only when peoples looked upwards and outwards and sought to create the next stage was greatness achieved.
Europa as a vibrant White Homeland must be created on that Higher Purpose.

Stríbog
Saturday, October 4th, 2003, 01:26 AM
You have taken the general position in various permutations that you have more "respect" [your word] for a high class negro than for a low class White.
I am not taking that out of context, as that is what you have said on a few occasions. Therefore you are NOT a racist, but a Class Snob.

You compound that analysis when you talk most recently of "low-class", "elites", etc.,

If I were strictly a classist, I would rather my daughter marry a rich Negro than a poor white. I explicitly stated to the contrary. I am in fact both a classist and a racist, as I acknowledge interracial differences in ability as well as intraracial differences.



As for the laughable nonsense that Brits feel "slighted" by Americans with Baltic pretensions, such as yourself, - without the pioneering sea-faring of the British there would be no America for you to preach your alienated creed from.
The Anglo-Celtic British not only created the greatest maritime Empire the world has seen, but they also created the very language you use.
While the British Empire was the greatest in extent, the Imperium Romanum gave us virtually EVERYTHING. The very letters we use, the institutions and political forms, the road building, architecture, the whole spirtual and intellectual symbology - all from Rome [and that out of the womb of Greece].


I didn't say you toothless limeys felt slighted, I said that Mediterraneans in general were insecure and upset whenever Northern Europeans pointed out their inherent differences. This is why Mediterraneans, including yourself, prattle on about how the Slavic lands are completely Mongolized, while ignoring the veritable melting pot of races and haplotypes that is the Mediterranean. :)

The runes and the Cyrillic alphabet are not Roman. ;) Furthermore, the Greek upper echelons who accomplished so much were Danubian proto-Slavic types, not what passes for Greek these days, which is basically a healthy dose of Orientalid and Taurid, and a pinch of Negroid, blended in with an Alpine-West Mediterranean substratum. The mean IQ of Greece today is around 90. :P
Additionally, all Indo-European languages are by definition, Indo-European, and have their origins with said peoples originating in S. Russia and Ukraine. Therefore, these languages (including Latin) were brought to the West by Corded, Pontid, Danubian types, and your beloved West Mediterraneans are not to be credited with them. ;)



Moody Lawless - You continually confuse linguistic/cultural groups with racial ones. Rome's greatness is testified by her military and cultural achievements in ancient times, as well as by the residue of Roman culture that still exert powerful influence to day.

If you're such a separatist, then why aren't speaking only a Slavic tongue?

You are only posing here - its so obvious.

You're the one confusing racial and ethnic groups here - and I'm not the first one to say so. You are apparently ignorant of Keltic as a racial type having its center in the Swiss and Austrian Alps at La Têne and Hallstatt. The Keltic languages were brought to the British Isles as recently as 500 BC by a relatively small upper-class of people who imposed them on the indigenous West Meds and Brünns, who spoke non-IE primitive languages, basically like the Basque still are/do today.

You're the one speaking in vague and impractical platitudes about "White Unity!" and how the White Race is inherently noble and without lower elements, and how all Whites are inherently superior to all Negroes, facts notwithstanding. You are the one clinging to irrational propaganda. Who is posing?

Siegfried
Sunday, October 5th, 2003, 07:35 PM
Moody, Adolf Hitler and the other nazi's were always quite honest about the lower elements in our race. They warned in various publications about the degeneration of our race if these elements were to be allowed to reproduce in numbers similar to - or even higher then - those of the inherently better elements. See, for example, the SS booklet 'Rassenpolitik' ('Racial Policy'). Hitler himself suggested in his book 'My Struggle' that only those who finished military training in a satisfactory way should be allowed to marry. The difference between what I suggested and the Hitlerian eugenics laws is not one of principle, but of circumstances. Hitler already had a more or less racially homogenous community (Germany), which he was cleansing from other ethnic groups (gypsies, Jews, etc) and from the lower elements of our race. We, however, do not start from such a position. To us, a more or less racially homogenous community is still a daydream. When we then start to build such communities, do you not think it wise to refuse trash from the beginning, instead of first accepting it and then try to breed it out of our race?


The Negro knows that the Dark blots out the Light - creating bastards serves the Black race and the Black race only.

Rubbish. How does it serve the black race if it mixes itself with other races? If the Black race were to fully mix with the White race, both races would go extinct and a third bastard race would emerge. Real 'Black Nationalists' would oppose race mixing, like NOI did (at least it did in the beginning).



The political route must always be maintained, and it must be constantly worked at, as the present political system is reaching crisis point and White Nationalist political parties stand to benefit hugely in the near future.


You still seem to think we can win through a mere reformation of the current System. I do not. I believe an actual revolution is necessary, which must sweap most (or better yet, all) of the current order away and build a completely new system of State. This cannot be achieved through parliament. There are simply too many immigrants, race traitors, and short sighted people around.


I abhor the terroristic route of bombing civilians, as say, the Stern Gang did.

I did not suggest to start killing random citizens. I merely suggested we must build our own social structures and communities. We must not only work against the System, we must also work around it, so it becomes obsolete in as many aspects of our life as possible.



Any kind of 'underground' work should not be terrorist based, but work on religious and cultural associations, which are then linked to the political movement(s).


I agree, as long as the landslide is not expected from the political wing of the movement. The political parties can at best work to create acceptable circumstances for the revolution.

@Thorburnulf: good post!



I think Siegfried made it clear that he was not dismissing or including people en masse, but looking at a selective approach to solidify a core.


Indeed. A community of conscious, decent Whites - or better yet, a network of such communities - can serve as a sort of example of the better society we hope to build. I firmly believe this is essential to our survival.


"Your daughter is at risk, your job is at risk..." It's a necessary component, but only plays so far.

And we should be very careful with such tactics, as they especially appeal to the lower strata of society. The more influential Whites tend to live in orderly neighbourhoods and work jobs that are less likely to be taken over by non-Whites. To appeal to them, we might have to play a more spiritual card.



The implication made by a few here that the lower ends of the White Race are to be replaced by "intelligent" and "upright" Blacks is infamous.


I do hope you did not mean that to be a reference to me. I made it quite clear that Blacks are not to be accepted in our White communities. If the reference wasn't meant to include me, then who are 'the few'?

Moody
Monday, October 6th, 2003, 05:29 PM
Siegfried Aurelius; "When we then start to build such communities, do you not think it wise to refuse trash from the beginning, instead of first accepting it and then try to breed it out of our race?"

Moody Lawless; I regard the question as one of degree;
Take the following as in descending order of rank -
1) White Race [WR] Excellent quality.
2) WR Average quality
3) WR Poor quality
4) WR degenerates.

[Vast gulf ensues]
5000) Negro Race [NR] Good quality
5001) NR average/poor degenerate.

- And this is just an excerpt.
Of course, I think we should work with our own White Race and ALWAYS reject Negoes - EVEN IF THEY BE GENIUSES!

Siegfried; "If the Black race were to fully mix with the White race, both races would go extinct and a third bastard race would emerge".

ML: Not in my experience. Even someone 1/4 Black considers themself to be Black per se.

Siegfried; "I believe an actual revolution is necessary".

ML; By that you mean a violent revolution if I read you right. Or do you mean an attritional IRA type terror campaign?
Both methods are un-Aryan - Hitler realised after the failure of his Munich Putsch that only a political means would be successful. If he thought that in a state where things were very volatile and ready to collapse, then what of today?
Given that most White people would vote White Nationalist if they were given the opportunity, then the possibility of success is always near at hand.
I see that you agree that a 'political wing' must be maintained - that is enough. Of course, things vary according to country. A country like Britain is fairly immune to a popular and violent revolution. However, her people will swing suddenly to a White Nationalist Party via the ballot box when the time is right.

Siegfried; "I do hope you did not mean that to be a reference to me".

ML; I was referring to Stribog and the few who agree with him [if that be you - so be it]. Stribog has insulted the Anglo-Celtic race on a number of occasions here, while at the same-time praising Negroes.

Moody
Monday, October 6th, 2003, 06:18 PM
Stríbog; "I am in fact both a classist and a racist".

Moody Lawless; The question is, what is more important - class or race?
We find that you answer this towards the end.

Stribog;"Mediterraneans, including yourself, prattle on about how the Slavic lands are completely Mongolized, while ignoring the veritable melting pot of races and haplotypes that is the Mediterranean".

ML; That is a LIE. Quote me where I say that!
I merely pointed out that the Mongolian Hordes defeated Russia, and held her in fealty for a number of centuries. I had to bring that up, as Slavicists are loth to do so. We agreed that the peripheries of Europe - whether Russia, Eastern Europe or the Med have been subject to alien conquests and the subsequent racial admixture. This is a subject of regret, not rejoicing.
I, however, have NEVER called a White sub-race "trash", such as you have done.
Furthermore, you are confusing the Mediterranean geographical expression and the Med race. British Meds were in Britain long before the the fall of the Greek city states, rise of the Ottomans etc.,

Stribog; "The runes and the Cyrillic alphabet are not Roman".

ML: Cyrillic is derived from Greek [as is Latin], and the Runes are also derived from Italic script [being close to Etruscan].
The following runes share the same shape and sound as their Latin counterparts;
F A R K H N I Y S T B M O

Stribog; "The Greek upper echelons who accomplished so much were ... not what passes for Greek these days ... all Indo-European languages are by definition, Indo-European ..."

ML; Contradiction - as your first statement suggests, IE speakers needn't be of IE 'race'.
You speak also of the Celts as if there were a single 'Celtic race', and not rather Celtic speakers of various sub-racial types;
'Celtic skulls are very variable some being long and others round' [Races of Man, S.Cole].

Stribog; "The Keltic languages were brought to the British Isles as recently as 500 BC by a relatively small upper-class of people who imposed them on the indigenous West Meds and Brünns, who spoke non-IE primitive languages, basically like the Basque still are/do today".

ML; And were SO "primitive" that they were able to design and build Megaliths like Stonehenge! What arrant nonsense you speak!
'When the pre-Celtic population mixed with the incoming Celts, a mixed language resulted which was basically Celtic but which contained various syntactical features carried over into it from the other [pre-Celtic] languages' [The Languages of Britain, Glanville Price].
Of course, the only reason we can analyse the Celtic languages today is because the highly advanced Romans brought writing to the Celtic regions. [Ogam, by the way, is based on Latin - 'Ogam is a method of representing characters of the Latin alphabet by means of notches and grooves cut on stone slabs ... they stand for Latin letters and do not constitute a different alphabet. The point will perhaps be clear if one thinks of the morse code in which different sequences of dots and dashes correspond SPECIFICALLY to letters of the Latin alphabet - and not, say, to Greek, Russian or Arabic alphabets].

Stribog; "You're the one speaking in vague and impractical platitudes about 'White Unity!' and how the White Race is inherently noble and without lower elements, and how all Whites are inherently superior to all Negroes, facts notwithstanding. You are the one clinging to irrational propaganda."

ML; I asked you why, as a Baltic separatist, you live in the USA and speak in English. To be consistent, you would at least speak Slavic in the Slavic Vortex here - ONLY [and live in the ... region ...].
So, like many sub-racial separatist, you are living a sham.
As for my own beliefs - they are based on EXPERIENCE. Of course I am aware that today's scientists say that there are no real differences in the human race. I read their arguments, but am suspicious as they accord with the prevailing political propaganda.
I go by experience, and find that the difference between White and Negro is vast - so much so, that I can understand why scientific men of the past thought them to be different species.
I understand why the USA Constitution thought the Negro to be 3/5ths of a White Man.
Such things are emprically arrived at.
You go ahead and believe the liberal propaganda - "all men are equal"!
You go ahead and prefer a high class Negro to a low class White - you are an American after all.
I believe, however irrationally, that the WHOLE White Race is superior to all others. But then, not everything in life is rational ... is it, My English-speaking, American living Baltic wannabe!

Siegfried
Monday, October 6th, 2003, 07:15 PM
Of course, I think we should work with our own White Race and ALWAYS reject Negoes - EVEN IF THEY BE GENIUSES!

I have stated the same thing twice in this thread. What's your problem?



ML: Not in my experience. Even someone 1/4 Black considers themself to be Black per se.

I have noticed that too, but that's a form of delusion, not a biological reality. Someone 1/4 Black is 1/4 Black, not a full Black.



ML; By that you mean a violent revolution if I read you right. Or do you mean an attritional IRA type terror campaign?

At this point, neither. Guerilla and terror are not viable options at this point. However, I don't think working inside the System is an option either. That's why I came up with my ideas on community building, etc. We'll see how we go from there.

[edit: I believe a counter-culture, spreading from White communities that are guarded by White militias, would be a good start.]



Given that most White people would vote White Nationalist if they were given the opportunity, then the possibility of success is always near at hand.

In what kind of world are you living? That's certainly not true for the Netherlands.


A country like Britain is fairly immune to a popular and violent revolution. However, her people will swing suddenly to a White Nationalist Party via the ballot box when the time is right.

Let's hope you're right (I doubt it though).

Moody
Tuesday, October 7th, 2003, 05:21 PM
Generally speaking, opinion polls in Britain over the decades have shown that the people are basically opposed to non-White immigration and would rather feel national pride than not.

This is why the mainstream [the political parties, the media, the colleges etc.,] has done some much to call nationalism 'evil', and has made sure that nationalism was never on offer.

If referenda were offered on re-patriation of non-Whites today, I believe the majority would vote in favour of re-patriation, and of White-only immigration.

So the political establishment cunningly projects itself as 'representative' - i.e., it will only allow the popular will on selected issues, if at all.

So I maintain, that the majority of British people would - given the chance - vote nationalist. And this is true democracy, after all.

Gog
Wednesday, October 8th, 2003, 04:32 AM
Hello Moody

British nationalism? To little to late. If the English want their county back they will have to mobilize themselves in to militias and use force of arms.

Britain is no longer a politically or economically powerful country but a US satellite. Neither the ethically impaired British establishment or the degenerate English masses, will take a proactive role in the administration of the European state in the future. The British, French, Italian and Dutch liberal establishments are the very Europeans most responsible for Europe's mass immigration of aliens in the first place.

Europe's Multiculturalist immigration policy is a emulation of America's "melting pot" acculturation and Americanization program.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Wednesday, October 8th, 2003, 06:06 AM
Some white Americans talk about "the movement" in speaking of racial politics. This is wishful thinking for the reasons you are demonstrating. There is simply no unity of purpose or agreement on anything in "The Movement". Let's look again at Siegfried Aurelius's Jewish Ethnos. Do they fight over small points? If they do so, do they do it in front of us or do they present a unifed front, even if that front is only silence? You are even letting them (Jews) define our enemies. Blacks are not our enemies. For the most part, they are simply mules. I don't fight with mules. Somehow, Jews have manovered Blacks and put them in our path. They use Blacks against us and we go for this every time.

An old Playboy interview from the 1950s featured the Grand Wizard of the KKK. He said something then which made no sense to a young boy but which makes sense to me now. He said: "Turn a nigger inside out and you find a Jew every time". Please stop letting Them define the who our enemies are.

If you really want to help save White people, we first have to insure a safe breeding ground for them which is without biologic polution. A safe breeding population probably means an isolated one. As an example, let's all work to remove all U.S. military bases and facilities from Iceland. The Icelander's don't need us and we don't need to further polute their gene pool. Likewise, let's pull our military bases out of Germany. Do the Germans need our protection or do they ok on their own? As a matter of fact, let's vocalize our displeasure with every American military base, everywhere. Do we need troops in Liberia to get sick and bring it back here? Why are we in the Balkans? Bismark once said: "There is nothing in the Balkans worth one drop of Pomerianian blood". He was a fighting man yet knew better than to tackle problems about which he knew nothing. Ditto for Iraq.

With the USA on something else other than a PAX Americana, we could focuss on Health Care and real education. This would be far more profitable than picking fights with mules.

Moody
Wednesday, October 8th, 2003, 06:02 PM
That's very pessimistic [although I suppose you will say that it's 'realist'!]

Actually 'multiculturalism' and 'acculturation' are two different policies.
The latter seeks to make citizens of whatever original culture change into a one-size-fits-all 'national' by adopting the culture of the host country; while the former attempts to have very diverse cultures living side by side in the same nation, without placing undue pressure for them to change.
Both policies are now in disrepute as their effects have been seen.
As the joke goes, the only thing that melts in the 'melting pot' is the pot.

I reject your "degenerate English masses" jibe; there is still a lot of good quality amongst the English/British people. But don't judge them by the types put on the media screen - rather look at the British soldiers out in Iraq [meanwhile forgetting the wrongs of that situation] for example. That gives you an idea of the best quality of the Brits.

Europe has lots of good human material as well as a legacy of cultural excellence, and has the potential to rival the USA as a 'super-power' in the near future.
I believe Europe will increasingly tend to take a different stance to the USA and will eventually break away from American influence and go its own path.

The policies of multiculturalism or acculturation will be dropped simply because Europe will have to make sure that her own internal national groups are nurtured within the broader context of an over-arching Europe. This cannot be done with the added complication of multiculturalism.
Britain will have to choose between Europe or the USA - and I think [or hope] she will choose Europe.

So I see the future of Nationalism within the framework of a Pan-European federation; this has the most potential for racial survival because Europe is the White Homeland - this cannot be gainsaid [whereas America, Australia, Africa etc., can be claimed by other races].
It will not even be seen as a 'racist' policy, but one of 'human rights'.
All races have the right to survive and prosper in their own homelands - this is a matter of morality.
Seen in this way, 'Europe' as a concept will inspire the idealists of the future.

Siegfried
Wednesday, October 8th, 2003, 08:06 PM
So I see the future of Nationalism within the framework of a Pan-European federation; this has the most potential for racial survival because Europe is the White Homeland - this cannot be gainsaid [whereas America, Australia, Africa etc., can be claimed by other races].
It will not even be seen as a 'racist' policy, but one of 'human rights'.
All races have the right to survive and prosper in their own homelands - this is a matter of morality.
Seen in this way, 'Europe' as a concept will inspire the idealists of the future.


My ideals are not far off in this respect. The question is, of course, how are we going to reach that goal? I say, counter-culture, homeschooling/private schools, community building, our own support groups (for example, a Church in my area has a sort of insurance company especially for its members), etc. My biggest worry at this point is how we're going to get rid of all those millions non-Whites [edit: and especially all the mongrels; it'll be near to impossible to get them out in a legal way]

Moody
Thursday, October 9th, 2003, 05:50 PM
My ideals are not far off in this respect. The question is, of course, how are we going to reach that goal? I say, counter-culture, homeschooling/private schools, community building, our own support groups (for example, a Church in my area has a sort of insurance company especially for its members), etc. My biggest worry at this point is how we're going to get rid of all those millions non-Whites [edit: and especially all the mongrels; it'll be near to impossible to get them out in a legal way]

That final problem MUST have a political solution.
As long as multiculturalism remains in power then 'White Nationalism' will only be one of many other counter-culture 'cults'.
So a political organisation [or a 'political wing'] of this cultural movement MUST be constantly worked on.

Only when Europeanism has a political voice will any start be made on the racial problem.
As I suggest, it will be tackled from a 'human rights' perspective in the future.
Many are beginning to recognise that 'multiculturalism' has not only violated the integrity of our Homelands, but has actually destroyed the lives of those aliens and their off-spring [their children are vitally important in this question, as they have been condemned to a life of non-identity by multiracialism].
Multiculturalism etc., has been a 'human rights' abomination.

Therefore, future European-Folk-Cluster government(s) will take on the task of ending the usurious depredations of international finance.
Nations of Asia, India, Latin-America and Africa etc., will be allowed to develop their own economies. Such a policy will terrify neo-conservatives who need to keep the 'Third World' poor; however, once these economies make progress, then alien communities in Europe will gladly return to their Homelands.
This 'ethnic integrity' will be a world-wide human rights movement, with peoples ardently desiring to return home.

Med
Saturday, October 11th, 2003, 02:33 PM
Furthermore, the Greek upper echelons who accomplished so much were Danubian proto-Slavic types, not what passes for Greek these days, which is basically a healthy dose of Orientalid and Taurid, and a pinch of Negroid, blended in with an Alpine-West Mediterranean substratum. The mean IQ of Greece today is around 90.

You got evidence for that, or are you just talking out of your ass again? All surveys indicate that Greeks are now, and have always been, Alpine-Dinaric-Mediterranean, with none of the other elements you mentioned. Here's the most prominent one:


It is inaccurate to say that the modern Greeks are different physically from the ancient Greeks; such a statement is based on an ignorance of the Greek ethnic character.... The Greeks, in short, are a blend of racial types, of which two are most important: the Atlanto-Mediterranean and the Alpine. Dinaricism here is present, but not all pervading; true Alpines are commoner than complete Dinarics. The Nordic element is weak, as it probably has been since the days of Homer. The racial type to which Socrates belonged is today the most important, while the Atlanto-Mediterranean, prominent in Greece since the Bronze Age, is still a major factor. It is my personal reaction to the living Greeks that their continuity with their ancestors of the ancient world is remarkable, rather than the opposite. (Coon, Races of Europe)

And the average Greek IQ is close to 100, same as the Irish, Finns, Belgians, Danes, etc.:

http://www.geocities.com/dienekesp2/greekiq/index.html

Once again, you know not of what you speak.


I asked you why, as a Baltic separatist, you live in the USA and speak in English.

The Baltic region (Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, etc.) has the most Asian/Uralic ancestry in all of Europe, as confirmed by both Y-chromosome and autosomal analyses. Stribog is the last person who should be accusing others of being mixed. He seems to me like yet another Slav/Finn insecure about his whiteness who attacks Southern Europeans and other Meds in a desperate attempt to gain acceptance by NW Europeans.

Siegfried
Saturday, October 11th, 2003, 03:57 PM
That final problem MUST have a political solution.
As long as multiculturalism remains in power then 'White Nationalism' will only be one of many other counter-culture 'cults'.
So a political organisation [or a 'political wing'] of this cultural movement MUST be constantly worked on.

Only when Europeanism has a political voice will any start be made on the racial problem.
As I suggest, it will be tackled from a 'human rights' perspective in the future.
Many are beginning to recognise that 'multiculturalism' has not only violated the integrity of our Homelands, but has actually destroyed the lives of those aliens and their off-spring [their children are vitally important in this question, as they have been condemned to a life of non-identity by multiracialism].
Multiculturalism etc., has been a 'human rights' abomination.

Therefore, future European-Folk-Cluster government(s) will take on the task of ending the usurious depredations of international finance.
Nations of Asia, India, Latin-America and Africa etc., will be allowed to develop their own economies. Such a policy will terrify neo-conservatives who need to keep the 'Third World' poor; however, once these economies make progress, then alien communities in Europe will gladly return to their Homelands.
This 'ethnic integrity' will be a world-wide human rights movement, with peoples ardently desiring to return home.

I seriously doubt we still have the time for such a strategy. The birth rates among the non-Whites immigrants tend to be higher than those among the White natives, and thousands more cross our borders each year. The average White is also quite old, so our numbers will drop significantly in the next 20 years, simply because of natural deaths of our older members. On top of all this, there's the problem of miscegenation.


This 'ethnic integrity' will be a world-wide human rights movement, with peoples ardently desiring to return home.

You just said Negroes will want to mix with Whites. Why do you now think that Negroes will want to return to Africa? Africa is a hellhole, so I doubt Blacks will voluntarily leave our welfare states en masse. Some Black Nationalists will want to leave, but certainly not all Blacks.

Moody
Saturday, October 11th, 2003, 04:39 PM
Siegfried Aurelius; "The birth rates among the non-Whites immigrants tend to be higher than those among the White natives, and thousands more cross our borders each year. The average White is also quite old, so our numbers will drop significantly in the next 20 years, simply because of natural deaths of our older members. On top of all this, there's the problem of miscegenation".

Moody Lawless; As elder Whites reach the majority, the possibility of Nationalist policies being voted in grow. It has even been admitted by the liberals that immigration is NOT the answer to the increase in aged; the numbers aren't there, and even immigrants get old.
The only answer is for Whites to breed more, and this is something that can only be encouraged by political means.
Incentives for big families, restrictions on abortion, and discouragement of the liberal homosexual/lesbian/singleton culture. Couple this with a dose of White European Pride, and birth rates will go up.
After all, sex is still popular isn't it.
Combine this with the banning of non-White immigration [but allow White immigration of course] and the gentle human-rights based repatriation I refer to below, and the turn-around will be swift.

Siegfried; "You just said Negroes will want to mix with Whites. Why do you now think that Negroes will want to return to Africa? Africa is a hellhole, so I doubt Blacks will voluntarily leave our welfare states en masse. Some Black Nationalists will want to leave, but certainly not all Blacks".

ML: That's why I've said that the West will have to allow their [Third World] economies to grow [our present usurious system deliberately keeps them stunted].
That done, they will want to return - especially if they cen get BETTER WELFARE PAYMENTS IN AFRICA!
Add to this a promulgation of a Marcus Garvey type 'back to Africa' culture [based on human rights, of course], and the winds of change will soon blow.
The main cause of unwanted Black immigration to the West is the current Internationalist Economic system.
So again, only politics gives the final solution.

Siegfried
Saturday, October 11th, 2003, 05:14 PM
As elder Whites reach the majority, the possibility of Nationalist policies being voted in grow. It has even been admitted by the liberals that immigration is NOT the answer to the increase in aged; the numbers aren't there, and even immigrants get old.
The only answer is for Whites to breed more, and this is something that can only be encouraged by political means.
Incentives for big families, restrictions on abortion, and discouragement of the liberal homosexual/lesbian/singleton culture. Couple this with a dose of White European Pride, and birth rates will go up.
After all, sex is still popular isn't it.
Combine this with the banning of non-White immigration [but allow White immigration of course] and the gentle human-rights based repatriation I refer to below, and the turn-around will be swift.

You'd just have to convince the public to vote for such policies. And even if you manage to do that, you'll run into new problems. For example, the Dutch constitution explicitly forbids all discrimination based on race (it's actually the first Article of the Constitution). It would thus be impossible to implement the immigration policy you suggested within the Dutch system. Besides, the new EU Constitution contains a phrase that suggests the EU should actively work against 'racism', or any policy based on 'race'.
You're a big optimist, aren't you? :) I for one have lost most hope in the System.

From the suggested EU Constitution:



The Union shall endeavour to ensure a high level of security by measures to prevent and combat crime, racism and xenophobia, and measures for coordination and cooperation between police and judicial authorities and other competent authorities, as well as by the mutual recognition of judgments in criminal matters and, if necessary, the approximation of criminal laws.

Please note that the above quote suggests the Union should combat and prevent racism. This comes down to an active anti-racism policy, as opposed to the mere banning of 'hateful' speech. More from the Constitution:


Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.



Within the scope of application of the Constitution and without prejudice to any of its specific provisions, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.

The very foundations of the System are corrupted.



ML: That's why I've said that the West will have to allow their [Third World] economies to grow [our present usurious system deliberately keeps them stunted].
That done, they will want to return - especially if they cen get BETTER WELFARE PAYMENTS IN AFRICA!

It seems to me you seriously overestimate the Negro's ability to create - or even maintain - a level of civilisation similar to that of Europe's. Though I would, of course, support any group of Blacks that calls on their "homies" to return to their African homelands.

Moody
Saturday, October 11th, 2003, 05:30 PM
Siegfried;"The very foundations of the System are corrupted".

Moody Lawless; Constitutions are there to be amended and rewritten.
Britain doesn't actually have its own written constitution(!), and even the Draft Constitution of the EU contains article 59 which allows voluntary withdrawal from the EU.
More importantly, the tide is turning against extreme liberalism, particularly after 9/11.
The old treaties etc., which were written in the idealistic days will be amended - look how the Americans and Israelis violate them all anyway [take a hike down to Camp Delta].
An elderly population will tend to look more and more to the right [while the dwindling young don't vote]. Once a Nationalist party is elected [i.e., is legitimised by the vote], then all constitutions can be amended where necessary.
And anyway, deprival of a Homeland/genocide is even against current human rights. Europe for Europeans will become a cause celebre!

Siegfried; "It seems to me you seriously overestimate the Negro's ability to create - or even maintain - a level of civilisation similar to that of Europe's. Though I would, of course, support any group of Blacks that calls on their "homies" to return to their African homelands".

ML: We'd have to help them, of course.
However, the aliens don't come here for 'civilisation'!!!
They come here for economic reasons!
So, we give them more of what they come here for, at home - simple! They will flock home for that!

cosmocreator
Saturday, October 11th, 2003, 08:47 PM
You got evidence for that, or are you just talking out of your ass again?


I've shunned you for 2 days for showing disrespect for Stribog.

Prodigal Son
Saturday, October 11th, 2003, 10:13 PM
The Baltic region (Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, etc.) has the most Asian/Uralic ancestry in all of Europe, as confirmed by both Y-chromosome and autosomal analyses.

ROFL. This may be news to you, but Tat-C is not Mongoloid. The Uralic racial type entered Eastern Europe in the early neolithic, and has nothing absolutely to do with Tat-C. If Tat-C is 'Mongoloid', please explain to me how Russian Pomors with 50% Tat-C have 0 epicanthi and 0 dark eyes.

Siegfried
Sunday, October 12th, 2003, 12:14 AM
Britain doesn't actually have its own written constitution(!),


That certainly opens up possibilities, and will make change a lot easier than in the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, changing the Constitution is quite difficult. First, one needs a 2/3 majority in Parliament. Then, the plan is 'frozen' for several years, effectively meaning that the succeeding coalition gets to make the final decission (and they too need a 2/3 majority in Parliament to change the Constitution). When Pim Fortuyn (the Dutch politican who got murdered by an animal rights activist from the far left) suggested that the first Article should be removed as it contradicted another Article concerning free speech, the media and leftish/liberal politicians attacked him; WW2 metaphors appeared, and one politician even went as far as to make a reference to the holocaust (more specifically, to the deportation of Jews by train).


An elderly population will tend to look more and more to the right [while the dwindling young don't vote].

Maybe to the right; but will they turn racialist? There's an important difference between right-wing patriotism and racial/ethnic based nationalism.


And anyway, deprival of a Homeland/genocide is even against current human rights

But what if a race deprives itself of its Homeland and commits racial suicide? Don't start blaming the Jews; they are powerful, but in the end we've got no one to blame but ourselves.


ML: We'd have to help them, of course.
However, the aliens don't come here for 'civilisation'!!!
They come here for economic reasons!
So, we give them more of what they come here for, at home - simple! They will flock home for that!

The African countries will have to become industrialised and more independent before they'll be economically similar to Europe. This suggest a high degree of civilisation (even though it may be a very shallow, mechanical one). I don't think the Negroes are able to maintain such a society. We've seen what happened to countries like Liberia and Haiti.

Nonetheless, you got me thinking, and perhaps we also need to work inside the System. I still think real change cannot come from Parliament alone though, and maintain that community building is to play a crucial role.

Tore
Sunday, October 12th, 2003, 08:24 PM
You got evidence for that, or are you just talking out of your ass again? All surveys indicate that Greeks are now, and have always been, Alpine-Dinaric-Mediterranean, with none of the other elements you mentioned. Here's the most prominent one

I agree.

Middle Easterners are technically part of the greater Mediterranean race.


And the average Greek IQ is close to 100, same as the Irish, Finns, Belgians, Danes, etc.:

And yet, GDP lags behind other European Nations, even with the added prosperity of the tourism industry.



The Baltic region (Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, etc.) has the most Asian/Uralic ancestry in all of Europe, as confirmed by both Y-chromosome and autosomal analyses. Stribog is the last person who should be accusing others of being mixed. He seems to me like yet another Slav/Finn insecure about his whiteness who attacks Southern Europeans and other Meds in a desperate attempt to gain acceptance by NW Europeans

http://www.helsinki-hs.net/news.asp?id=20010130IE4

It remains a mystery why "Asian" Tat-C correlates with greatest levels of depigmentation.

Moreover, does it not seem strange how Finns/Balts can have 60% Male Mongoloid lineages and <2% Female Mongoloid lineages?

Of course, you being the expert should have no problem explaining this peculiar abnormality.

Med
Tuesday, October 14th, 2003, 01:50 PM
Middle Easterners are technically part of the greater Mediterranean race.

I'm sure you think you're being funny, but you'd better be careful what you call "Middle Eastern". It could soon come back to haunt you:


We analyzed a large dataset of 22 binary markers from the non-recombining region of the Y chromosome.... The results reveal a significantly larger genetic contribution from Neolithic farmers than did previous indirect approaches based on the distribution of haplotypes selected by using post hoc criteria.... We also argue that local hunter-gatherers contributed less than 30% in the original settlements. This finding leads us to reject a predominantly cultural transmission of agriculture.

We found an average Neolithic contribution of 50% across all samples, 56% for the Mediterranean subset and 44% in non-Mediterranean samples. Thus, whichever region of Europe is considered, we find that the average value is more than twice that suggested by Semino et al. (2000) on the basis of the more readily apparent trends. (Chikhi et al. 2002)


And yet, GDP lags behind other European Nations, even with the added prosperity of the tourism industry.

Greece (and S Europe in general) is on the fringes of Europe, far from centers of commerce. In addition, it has limited natural resources. Ireland (another fringe region) also lagged behind Europe until EU subsidies enabled it to catch up. Wales still lags behind despite heavy subsidies. But no one ever mentions that.


It remains a mystery why "Asian" Tat-C correlates with greatest levels of depigmentation.

It doesn't. The highest frequencies of HG12/16 are in predominantly Mongoloid Central Asian groups: Tofalars (94%), Yakuts (87%), Nenets (80%), Buryats (67%), Eskimos (61%), Chukchi (58%). The genes just happen to have been transmitted to an area of Europe which is the epicenter of blondism.


Moreover, does it not seem strange how Finns/Balts can have 60% Male Mongoloid lineages and <2% Female Mongoloid lineages?

Not if the Uralic settlers were chiefly male and intermarried with European females:


This is important because the founding of Finland ~2,000 years ago is the defining characteristic of the single-origin model. Our results argue against the single-origin model. Specifically, we find evidence that the initial group of settlers provided a substantial contribution (55%) to the present Finnish Y chromosome gene pool. These settlers were of Asian ancestry and were followed by a second, genetically distinct wave of settlers. This second group...may have arrived in Finland with the wave of agriculturists who shaped much of the genetic landscape of Europe (Sajantila and Paabo 1995). These estimates are consistent with archeological data that suggest that the first settlers were Uralic speakers who arrived ~4,000 years ago (Fodor and Czeizel 1991) and that a later group settled along the southern shores ~2,000 years ago (Luho 1976). (Kittles et al. 1998)

Prodigal Son
Tuesday, October 14th, 2003, 04:52 PM
It doesn't. The highest frequencies of HG12/16 are in predominantly Mongoloid Central Asian groups: Tofalars (94%), Yakuts (87%), Nenets (80%), Buryats (67%), Eskimos (61%), Chukchi (58%).

The frequencies are so high because every single one of those ethnic groups has been subjected to a strong founders' effect. If you can't see that, you must be an idiot (find me an ethnic group with a 94% frequency of a given haplogroup that was not subject to a founders' effect).


The genes just happen to have been transmitted to an area of Europe which is the epicenter of blondism.

Again, please explain to me how a group with 50% Tat-C (and around 2% Mongoloid mtDNA) has 0 dark eyes and 0 epicanthi.



Not if the Uralic settlers

Please provide some evidence of the implicit assertion that their racial type was Uralic.


were chiefly male and intermarried with European females

You only have evidence that this happened in Finland. Please explain to me how Russian Pomors, supposedly with 27% "Mongoloid" ancestry have 0 dark eyes and 0 epicanthi.

OnionPeeler
Tuesday, October 14th, 2003, 09:27 PM
Keep it civil, gentlemen.

Tore
Tuesday, October 14th, 2003, 11:41 PM
I'm sure you think you're being funny, but you'd better be careful what you call "Middle Eastern". It could soon come back to haunt you:

I'm sure that some Hg 9/21 lineages were introduced to Europe during the influx of agriculture.

However, Southern Europe still has more Hg 9/21 lineages than Central Europe, to which the spread of agriculture had a greater effect upon. Thus, one can infer that a great deal of Hg 9/21 lineages in Southern Europe are of recent introduction.

By no surprise, Richards has similar findings.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJ...085/024085.html

" The analysis for eastern Mediterranean Europe indicated a very high frequency (20%) of recent gene flow, as compared with only 10% Neolithic input."

A similar pattern is seen in terms of the Maternal Contribution.

Frequency of J (*)

Ireland 11.72 %
England/Wales 10.72%
Scotland 8.64%
Iceland 6.85%
Turkey/Bulgaria 5.88%
Spain/Portugal 3.69%
France/Italy 2.42%

Frequency of J2

Bulgaria/Turkey 2.94%
France/Italy 2.42%
Western Isles/Isle of Skye 1.63%*
Iceland 1.28%*
Ireland .78%
England/Wales .23%
Austria/Switzerland 0%

J* is an older sub-clade of the greater Haplogroup J, which is considered to be Neolithic.

J2 is defined by a newer mutation, and can thus be reflective of more recent genetic contribution.

Moreover, the relatively high frequencies of J2 among the Icelanders and Western Islanders (Scottish) can perhaps be attributed to a positive selection of Haplogroup J in Northern Europe, as neither population has found to have any paternal neolithic lineages.

"Positive selection is also a possible influence. The presence of mtDNA haplogroup J in our sample, and elsewhere in Northern Europe shows that its frequency in Norway is even higher than in those areas from where it probably arrived. It would be intriguing, although very speculative, to hypothesise that the climate of Northern Europe may have played a selective pressure where the uncoupling of oxidative phosphorylation and the consequent higher production of heat in J individuals may have led to an advantage, as previously suggested for the European groups during the glaciations. (Passarino et al. 2002)"



It doesn't. The highest frequencies of HG12/16 are in predominantly Mongoloid Central Asian groups: Tofalars (94%), Yakuts (87%), Nenets (80%), Buryats (67%), Eskimos (61%), Chukchi (58%). The genes just happen to have been transmitted to an area of Europe which is the epicenter of blondism.

Nice try. :)

The above populations (namely Yakuts, although presumably others) are overwhelmingly Mongoloid in terms of their mtDNA (~80%).

Therefore, Tat-C is reflective of mixing with North-Eastern Europeans, who are the aboriginal inhabitants of Eurasia.


Not if the Uralic settlers were chiefly male and intermarried with European females:

I agree in that the Finns cluster with other North-Eastern Europeans in terms of the Y-Chromosome, and with other Europeans in terms of their mtDNA.

However, this does not suggest a Mongoloid origin for Tat-C (see: above).

Stríbog
Wednesday, October 15th, 2003, 12:16 AM
Greece (and S Europe in general) is on the fringes of Europe, far from centers of commerce. In addition, it has limited natural resources. Ireland (another fringe region) also lagged behind Europe until EU subsidies enabled it to catch up. Wales still lags behind despite heavy subsidies. But no one ever mentions that.


Precisely, and Wales and Ireland are also largely Mediterranean. :)

Loki
Wednesday, October 15th, 2003, 09:08 AM
Precisely, and Wales and Ireland are also largely Mediterranean. :)

Wrong. Wales maybe, but not Ireland.

Med
Wednesday, October 15th, 2003, 01:59 PM
Thus, one can infer that a great deal of Hg 9/21 lineages in Southern Europe are of recent introduction.

Look, I already discussed hg25.2 several times in the "Sicilians" thread, and I've linked repeatedly to autosomal studies showing a virtual absence of recent gene flow across the Mediterranean. Do we have to keep going around in circles? I think the less "inferring" you do the better.


J2 is defined by a newer mutation, and can thus be reflective of more recent genetic contribution.

Yeah, and its frequencies are extremely low even in Southern Europe.


Therefore, Tat-C is reflective of mixing with North-Eastern Europeans, who are the aboriginal inhabitants of Eurasia.

Sorry, but no. Mongoloids have been in Central Asia since at least 21,000 B.P. (Alekseev 1998; Wolpoff 1999). Tat-C originated there just 4000 years ago and correlates with archeological evidence of Uralic migrations from the east. The latest research says it's unclear whether Tat-C is ultimately of Mongoloid or Turkic origin (Derenko et al. 2002). But either way, it had to have been disseminated to NE Europe from Asia by migrants of mixed Caucasoid-Mongoloid descent. Therefore, it is neither European nor "white".

Med
Wednesday, October 15th, 2003, 02:09 PM
Precisely, and Wales and Ireland are also largely Mediterranean. :)

Mediterraneans of various types have produced a disproportionate amount of world civilization. Currently, Italy and Spain have the 4th and 5th largest economies in Europe. What have Balts accomplished in the last 5000 years? Answer: nothing.

Pomor
Wednesday, October 15th, 2003, 02:09 PM
Sorry, but no. Mongoloids have been in Central Asia since at least 21,000 B.P. (Alekseev 1998; Wolpoff 1999). Tat-C originated there just 4000 years ago and correlates with archeological evidence of Uralic migrations from the east. The latest research says it's unclear whether Tat-C is ultimately of Mongoloid or Turkic origin (Derenko et al. 2002). But either way, it had to have been disseminated to NE Europe from Asia by migrants of mixed Caucasoid-Mongoloid descent. Therefore, it is neither European nor "white".

There is nothing to be sorry about really. For some reason you keep ignoring that NE European populations with high TAT-C have 0% of dark hair and 0% of dark eyes. From the facts you have provided one can not judge whether it is Mongoloid or not simply because it is found in both groups, with relatively the same percentage. Therefore we need to find something else which could prove either your point or ours. Eendracht has provided you with such a proof, while you didn't.

Prodigal Son
Wednesday, October 15th, 2003, 03:22 PM
nt.

Prodigal Son
Wednesday, October 15th, 2003, 03:22 PM
.
(Alekseev 1998; Wolpoff 1999).

ROFL! Have you ever actually read anything by either author?

Tat-C originated there just 4000 years ago and correlates with archeological evidence of Uralic migrations from the east.

Two things:

1. Tat-C originated in Siberia (learn some geography, greaseball, that's not in 'Central Asia), in an area of lake Baikal that was populated by Caucasoid Cro-Magnons. 2. Tat-C does not in any way correlate with historical Uralic introgression into Eastern Europe. The Uralic racial type entred Eastern Europe in the early Neolithic, whereas tat-C originated at least 5 millenia after that.


The latest research says it's unclear whether Tat-C is ultimately of Mongoloid or Turkic origin (Derenko et al. 2002).

Again, you show clearly that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Only cite authors you've actually read. By the way, they probably didn't teach you this in the Brooklyn high school you went to, by "Someone et al. 2002" is not a valid way to cite a source within text unless you provide a bibliography at the end of the page.

But either way, it had to have been disseminated to NE Europe from Asia by migrants of mixed Caucasoid-Mongoloid descent. Therefore, it is neither European nor "white".

Bwaahahaa...Your Arab ancestors were neither 'white nor 'European'.

Now answer the question: how does a group with 27% "Mongoloid" ancestry have 0 dark eyes and 0 epicanthi?

Stríbog
Wednesday, October 15th, 2003, 07:44 PM
Wrong. Wales maybe, but not Ireland.

Have you ever been to Ireland? I have. If you take away the Insular/West Meds and Brünns, there's not much left in the way of "true Nordic" types. Where do you think the term Black Irish came from? It's only "100% Nordish" in the wet dreams of some people. :)

Loki
Wednesday, October 15th, 2003, 07:47 PM
Have you ever been to Ireland? I have. If you take away the Insular/West Meds and Brünns, there's not much left in the way of "true Nordic" types. Where do you think the term Black Irish came from? It's only "100% Nordish" in the wet dreams of some people. :)

The Brunn type is more common than the Mediterranean. Your post seemed to indicate that Mediterranean is the chief type in Ireland, which is incorrect.

Oh and yes, I have been to Ireland.

Stríbog
Wednesday, October 15th, 2003, 08:01 PM
The Brunn type is more common than the Mediterranean. Your post seemed to indicate that Mediterranean is the chief type in Ireland, which is incorrect.

Oh and yes, I have been to Ireland.

I never said it was the chief type, I said it was *LARGELY* Med, which it is. :) It sure as hell is more than 3% "Paleo-Atlantid"
If one goes outside of Dublin, the Med and Brunn elements predominate. It's hardly 30% Keltic, as that is a continental type that only arrived through migration and settlement from England.

Vojvoda
Wednesday, October 15th, 2003, 08:03 PM
I'm sure different regions, let alone major cities such as Dublin, have many different sub racial types. I wonder what Scathach thinks.

Loki
Wednesday, October 15th, 2003, 08:17 PM
I never said it was the chief type, I said it was *LARGELY* Med, which it is. :) .

It is not largely Med. Do you know what the word "largely" means?

Prodigal Son
Wednesday, October 15th, 2003, 08:53 PM
Mediterraneans of various types have produced a disproportionate amount of world civilization.

Don't try to claim what isn't yours. List some inventions made by Sicilians, and some by Greeks circa 5th century A.D.


Currently, Italy and Spain have the 4th and 5th largest economies in Europe.

Big deal. Brazil and Indonesia also have large economies.

Scáthach
Wednesday, October 15th, 2003, 10:18 PM
I'm sure different regions, let alone major cities such as Dublin, have many different sub racial types. I wonder what Scathach thinks.


There IS Med here but it is not as prevalent as Stribog seems to think. From what i've seen (and, uh, living here I see a lot) the main subraces here are, as is widely thought, KN, Brunn and NA. There are also a lot of Anglo-Saxon types to be seen in the East - i.e Dublin among others which are less widespread but certainly in existence. The Med element could be more confined to Ulster, I'm not fully sure but I rarely see it in my own immediate areas and those of family/friends.
8 out of 10 people here have blue eyes - Ireland is well regarded as being one of the bluest eyed countries, and other than blue, green is most dominant , with hazels and browns accounting for very little in my experience. Pale skin, that is pale white/pink, unable to tan, skin is commonplace. A UP trait, coupled with freckling. Hair colour ranges from dark blonde to mid brown, with of course exceptions being made to this rule, as to every other e.g red hair etc. Stature tends to be tall.

Personally, I think it that bit ridiculous that this issue even comes up and appears to account much more for my people than their long struggle and determination in life and contributions to so many aspects of culture...but such is life ;)

''It's only "100% Nordish" in the wet dreams of some people.''
Regardless of who this was addressed to, i resent the implication that my country and people would be somehow vastly improved by being say, 100% hallstatt... (:o

Also, having always lived in Ireland and not being particularly concerned with this nordic supremacy/med inferiority debacle, i can only conclude by saying - what I see daily and yearly here speaks words more than books can say on the subject :|

Scáthach
Wednesday, October 15th, 2003, 10:25 PM
As an afterthought: I despise the term ''Black Irish'' and don't lend it much creedence in terms of real anthropology. These derogatory terms tend to have come from the same sort of people who believed in the ''No Blacks, No dogs, No Irish.'' line of thinking ;)

Milesian
Wednesday, October 15th, 2003, 10:45 PM
I've been to Ireland a few times myself and my family originally hails from there.
Scathach is correct, Ireland is not largely Med.
There is a significant Med influence (of the ancient proto-morphic strain) and it tends to be mixed with Brunn, thus representing the Pre-Celtic make-up of the land.
The migrations of Celts, Norse and Anglo-Saxons throughout history added a large Nordid component to that. I would say that Nordid is predominant in the East and South. In the West and North, the pre-Celtic strains have survived more but I would say there are still not predominant. Just approaching equality with the Nord element.
Ulster and Scotland do have a fairly high incidence of Med due to the fact that these areas were populated by the Picts.
Personally, I'm very proud to have these Pre-IndoEuropean influences among us, proving how ancient our populations are. Among the most aboriginal of Europeans along with the Basques, and as European as it gets.

I will disgree with you on one point Scathach.
From what I know, Black Irish has often been used by people of Indian or non-white extraction. However, I believe in America the term originally meant people of Irish descent with dark hair. Supposedly it also comes with swarthy skin, but the true "Black Irish" have dark hair and pale skin.
It appears to be people of a Med strain, probably Paelo-Atlantid.
It's often used by Irish-Americans as a way of seeming "superior" as they try to explain it as being descended from some stranded Spanish nobleman who was shipwrecked with the Armada. However, in likelyhood, it simply represents a Pre-Celtic Irish strain.

Prodigal Son
Wednesday, October 15th, 2003, 11:04 PM
The genes just happen to have been transmitted to an area of Europe which is the epicenter of blondism.

That does not explain why "30% Mongoloid" Finns are considerably blonder than surrounding groups with low Tat-C (Swedes, Danes, etc...) This also does not explain why Russian Pomors, with 50% Tat-C have 0 dark eyes and 0 epicanthi.

Tore
Wednesday, October 15th, 2003, 11:19 PM
8 out of 10 people here have blue eyes - Ireland is well regarded as being one of the bluest eyed countries, and other than blue, green is most dominant , with hazels and browns accounting for very little in my experience. Pale skin, that is pale white/pink, unable to tan, skin is commonplace. A UP trait, coupled with freckling. Hair colour ranges from dark blonde to mid brown, with of course exceptions being made to this rule, as to every other e.g red hair etc. Stature tends to be tall.

Seems that if such is true, the Irish diaspora is disproportionately dark.

Coon doesn't dictate everything.:)


However, in likelyhood, it simply represents a Pre-Celtic Irish strain.

>80% of Irish male lineages are Pre-Celtic.


Look, I already discussed hg25.2 several times in the "Sicilians" thread, and I've linked repeatedly to autosomal studies showing a virtual absence of recent gene flow across the Mediterranean.

Ah, yes, I do recall that.

Apparently, the more recent study I posted analyzing the same information did not suffice in consituting a refutation.



Do we have to keep going around in circles?

Ultimately your choice. ;)


I think the less "inferring" you do the better.

Your opinion, again.


Mediterraneans of various types have produced a disproportionate amount of world civilization. Currently, Italy and Spain have the 4th and 5th largest economies in Europe.

Funny how GDP goes unlisted...


Yeah, and its frequencies are extremely low even in Southern Europe.

Agreed, although frequencies of "recent" gene flow are not (see: Richards).


Sorry, but no. Mongoloids have been in Central Asia since at least 21,000 B.P. (Alekseev 1998; Wolpoff 1999). Tat-C originated there just 4000 years ago and correlates with archeological evidence of Uralic migrations from the east. The latest research says it's unclear whether Tat-C is ultimately of Mongoloid or Turkic origin (Derenko et al. 2002). But either way, it had to have been disseminated to NE Europe from Asia by migrants of mixed Caucasoid-Mongoloid descent. Therefore, it is neither European nor "white".

Tat-C is more diverse in NE Europe than in Asia, as Eu 14 (more common in NE Europe) has two sub-clades, and Eu 13 only one. Therefore, the movement of Tat-C was most likely West to East.

Scáthach
Wednesday, October 15th, 2003, 11:25 PM
I agree that Coon does not dictate everything - a point I made myself when I noted that real life observation was more accurate and reliable for the most part than books.

However, I mention Coon because he reiterates my own point. Blue eyes are very frequent here, with green coming a close second :)

''In the proportion of pure light eyes, Ireland competes successfully with the blondest regions of Scandinavia. Over 46 per cent of the total group has pure light eyes, and of these all but 4 per cent are blue. Very light-mixed eyes (equivalent to Martin #13-14) account for another 30 per cent, while less than one-half of one per cent have pure brown. There is probably no population of equal size in the world which is lighter eyed, and blue eyed, than the Irish. ''

Loki
Wednesday, October 15th, 2003, 11:26 PM
Seems that if such is true, the Irish diaspora is disproportionately dark.

Coon doesn't dictate everything.:)




You seem to have the same warped idea than Stribog on the Irish phenotype. By far the great majority of Irish HAVE light eyes... some of the lightest in the world. Are you challenging this well-known fact? It is not only Coon that says so. Irish skin is also among the fairest in the world. I guess that makes them exceptionally Mediterranean. ;)

Prodigal Son
Wednesday, October 15th, 2003, 11:33 PM
" There is probably no population of equal size in the world which is lighter eyed, and blue eyed, than the Irish. ''

Well, certain Northern Russian groups are lighter eyed (0 dark eyes), but their blondism is of the 'watery-gray' variety.

Stríbog
Wednesday, October 15th, 2003, 11:34 PM
Here is what Günther said:
"THE British Isles seem to be nowhere so fair as north-west Germany, nowhere so dark as the south of France. The fairness of the population diminishes on the whole in the direction north-east to south-west. The whole area in England south of the Liverpool-Manchester line, and west of 2° W. -- that is roughly, of a line from Manchester to Bournemouth -- is relatively dark. Within this area only Wiltshire and east Somerset are somewhat fairer; Cornwall and the southern half of Wales are darkest.....

Ireland belongs to the somewhat darker districts of the British Isles, with the exception of Counties Limerick and Tipperary. Darkest of all is the south (Kerry, Cork, Waterford), and the west and north (Connaught and Ulster). The western part of County Galway in Connaught is (according to Beddoe) strongly Mediterranean."

Further excerpts:

"The darkness of these districts in the British Isles arises from Mediterranean and Alpine blood. Of Dinaric blood there is hardly any perceptible trace in the British Isles; there is a somewhat stronger strain in Cornwall, Merionethshire, Cumberland, and especially in the district round the Firth of Forth, where 25 per cent. of the people are brachycephalic.1 Cornwall seems to be predominantly Mediterranean; its people, too (owing to a strain of the Oriental race since the time of the Phoenician voyages to southern England?), are said often to show features calling to mind a 'Semitic' type of face."

"It is Ireland, however, that seems to have the strongest Mediterranean mixture; the great likeness between the Irish and the Spanish has often been pointed out."

"Taking the whole of the British Isles, including the districts which were above called dark, the Nordic strain must not be underestimated; we may adopt the following proportions for these islands: Nordic blood, 55 to 60 per cent.; Mediterranean, 30 per cent; Alpine, 10 per cent."

Also remember that Günther broke Europe down into only 5 races: anything that was not Dinaric, Alpine, Med or East Baltic was called "Nordic." It seems clear that the "Nordics" in the British Isles are mostly Brünn. The only districts that have strong true Nordic influence are in Northern/Eastern England and Northeastern Scotland. I think it's safe to say Ireland is maybe 45% Brunn, 35% Mediterranean, and the remaining 20% is whatever leftovers you have, Nordic, Alpine, etc.

Loki
Wednesday, October 15th, 2003, 11:36 PM
Well, certain Northern Russian groups are lighter eyed (0 dark eyes), but their blondism is of the 'watery-gray' variety.

You would probably also find "0 dark eyes" in selected Irish pockets. What we are talking about here is a whole ethnic grouping, not only pockets. On the whole, the Irish are certainly lighter-eyed than the Russians, I would imagine.

Loki
Wednesday, October 15th, 2003, 11:39 PM
Here is what Günther said:
.

Well Gunther was wrong. I find it highly interesting that YOU of all people would cite Gunther. Selective reading, huh?

Prodigal Son
Wednesday, October 15th, 2003, 11:41 PM
You would probably also find "0 dark eyes" in selected Irish pockets. What we are talking about here is a whole ethnic grouping, not only pockets. On the whole, the Irish are certainly lighter-eyed than the Russians, I would imagine.

Of course, as a whole they are lighter eyed. However, I am not talking about ethnic groups, but a population of equal size. These Northern Russians are certainly a population of equal size to the Irish (descendants of the Irish disapora everywhere else notwithstanding).

Prodigal Son
Wednesday, October 15th, 2003, 11:45 PM
Well Gunther was wrong.

I have to agree with you. I can't see how a population as light-eyed population as the Irish could have more than 10% Mediterranean admixture.

Stríbog
Wednesday, October 15th, 2003, 11:51 PM
Well Gunther was wrong. I find it highly interesting that YOU of all people would cite Gunther. Selective reading, huh?

http://www.forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=44774&postcount=15

http://www.forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=44243&postcount=22

Also, the Günther info is from your pal Karl Earlson's page. :)

Stríbog
Wednesday, October 15th, 2003, 11:51 PM
I have to agree with you. I can't see how a population as light-eyed population as the Irish could have more than 10% Mediterranean admixture.

How do you know Coon wasn't wrong? :)

Med
Thursday, October 16th, 2003, 01:52 PM
[A bunch of bullsh*t]

Mongoloids have been in Siberia for at least 21,000 years:


Human remains from the Afontova Gora II site indicate that Mongoloid people had moved into southwestern Siberia by 21,000 B.P. (Alekseev, 1998: 329-330; Wolpoff, 1999: 742), which is consistent with a proposed time of origin for the Mongoloids of 18,000 to 25,000 B.P. (Lahr, 1996: 318-319, 326; Su et al., 1999: 1722).

Reference: http://www.neanderthal-modern.com/casiasib.htm

Tat-C reflects either Mongoloid or Turkic ancestry:


Haplotype 3, defined by the TAT-C allele...cannot be unambiguously attributed to either Mongoloid or Caucasoid lineages. ... Thereby, TAT-C haplotype in the Tuvinian gene pool may be either of Turkic, or of Mongolian descent. ... The presence of the TAT-C allele in the Russian gene pool with frequencies varying from 15 to 21% is explained by the presence of considerable proportion of the Finno-Ugric and/or Turkic admixture in the modern Russians.

Reference: http://www.dienekes.com/blog/archives/000210.html

Asian ancestry in N and E Europe confirmed by autosomes:


Also, Dr. Frudakis noted studies at Yale and Stanford which showed "considerable East Asian admixture in Eastern European, Russian and Northern European populations". The article is by Noah A. Rosenberg et al., Genetic Structure of Human Populations, Science, Vol. 298, (2003), pp. 2381-2385.

Reference: http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/G/GENEALOGY-DNA+2003+14202722407+F

P.S. Siberia starts in Central Asia and continues on to East Asia. Don't presume to teach me geography.

P.P.S. And don't question my way of citing sources when you have yet to cite a single source to support your opinions. Anyway, now you've got the full quotes. Read 'em and weep.

Med
Thursday, October 16th, 2003, 02:15 PM
Apparently, the more recent study I posted analyzing the same information did not suffice in consituting a refutation.

You've been shown in another thread that autosomes are superior to your pathetic single-locus mtDNA study (the only "evidence" you have).


Agreed, although frequencies of "recent" gene flow are not (see: Richards).

No. Recent gene flow is low, as proven by the J2 frequencies you cited and autosomal analysis.


Funny how GDP goes unlisted...

Spain and Italy's GDPs are fine. But it's not all about dry figures. How many of the genetic studies that we quote here are by Norwegian or Canadian scientists? How many world class sports cars do Norway and Canada manufacture? Are Norwegian and Canadian cuisine, fashion, glassworks, marble design, cinema, etc. renowned throughout the world? The answers to these questions are None, None and No.


Therefore, the movement of Tat-C was most likely West to East.

Not according to Lell et al. (2002) and Zerjal et al. (1997):

http://www.angeltowns.com/members/racialreal/tatc.html

Prodigal Son
Thursday, October 16th, 2003, 04:49 PM
Mongoloids have been in Siberia for at least 21,000 years:


Human remains from the Afontova Gora II site indicate that Mongoloid people had moved into southwestern Siberia by 21,000 B.P. (Alekseev, 1998: 329-330; Wolpoff, 1999: 742), which is consistent with a proposed time of origin for the Mongoloids of 18,000 to 25,000 B.P. (Lahr, 1996: 318-319, 326; Su et al., 1999: 1722).

Reference: http://www.neanderthal-modern.com/casiasib.htm

Strawman. I never claimed that there were no Mongoloids in Siberia. However, the area of Siberia where Tat-C arose was populated by Caucasoids when the mutation happened.


Tat-C reflects either Mongoloid or Turkic ancestry:


Haplotype 3, defined by the TAT-C allele...cannot be unambiguously attributed to either Mongoloid or Caucasoid lineages. ... Thereby, TAT-C haplotype in the Tuvinian gene pool may be either of Turkic, or of Mongolian descent. ... The presence of the TAT-C allele in the Russian gene pool with frequencies varying from 15 to 21% is explained by the presence of considerable proportion of the Finno-Ugric and/or Turkic admixture in the modern Russians.

Reference: http://www.dienekes.com/blog/archives/000210.html

The original article said only "Finno-Ugric". You probably don't know this, but Finno-Ugric is not equivalent to Mongoloid. Dienekes later added "and/or Turkic" to the article. He is notorious for modifying others' work in such a fashion in order to 'prove' his point. He once took an article by Bunak and changed the part that said "The most important racial types in Russa" to "The most important racial types in Russians" to 'prove' his clam that the Uralic type is an important anthropological element in ethnic Russians. His ability to defraud others' work in such a manner has made me lose all vestiges of respect that I ever had for him.


Asian ancestry in N and E Europe confirmed by autosomes:

Also, Dr. Frudakis noted studies at Yale and Stanford which showed "considerable East Asian admixture in Eastern European, Russian and Northern European populations". The article is by Noah A. Rosenberg et al., [i]Genetic Structure of Human Populations, Science, Vol. 298, (2003), pp. 2381-2385.

ROFL. First of all, define 'significant'. Second of all, give me precise percentages. Third of all, 'Russian populations' includes Tatars, Chuvashis, Vepses, Yakuts, etc, etc... I am not interested in 'the Russian population'. I am interested in ethnic Russians.


Now, please answer my question. How does a population with 27% "Mongoloid ancestry" have 0 dark eyes and 0 epicanthi?

Tore
Thursday, October 16th, 2003, 11:41 PM
You've been shown in another thread that autosomes are superior to your pathetic single-locus mtDNA study (the only "evidence" you have).

Let's examine Autosomal DNA for a second.

No citing of souces or relying on the opinion of others.

Are you capable? :D


http://www.racearchives.com/calc/sforza_profiles.asp?dbname=sforza26euros

Here are the actual distances among European groups.

Absent is Sforza's interpretation of the figures.


DISTANCE FROM Sardinian
Population Distance
1 Greek 190
2 Italian 221
3 Belgian 256
4 Basque 261
5 Russian 266
6 Hungarian 279
7 Polish 282
8 French 283
9 Yugoslavian 294
10 Austrian 294
11 Spanish 295
12 Dutch 307
13 Czech 327
14 Germany 331
15 Finnish 334
16 English 340
17 Portuguese 340
18 Danish 348
19 Swiss 353
20 Scottish 357
21 Swedish 371
22 Irish 393
23 Icelandic 396
24 Norwegian 424
25 Lapp 667

It is well known that the Sardinians are characterized by a small founder population, and, although racially similar to the Italians and Greeks, a significant genetic distance remains.


DISTANCE FROM Lapp
Population Distance
1 Finnish 210
2 Austrian 308
3 Greek 308
4 Germany 314
5 Norwegian 317
6 Russian 323
7 Portuguese 324
8 Belgian 333
9 Swedish 333
10 Danish 334
11 Hungarian 338
12 Italian 339
13 Dutch 341
14 French 350
15 Swiss 375
16 Polish 395
17 English 404
18 Scottish 447
19 Spanish 452
20 Czech 470
21 Icelandic 494
22 Irish 557
23 Yugoslavian 565
24 Basque 629
25 Sardinian 667

The Lapps were founded by a small founder population as well, much smaller than that of the Sardinians. By no surprise, the Lapps are very genetically distanced from other European groups, even when concerning the Finns, who are very similar to the Lapps in their paternal lineages.

DISTANCE FROM Icelandic
Population Distance
1 Norwegian 74
2 English 76
3 Belgian 78
4 Danish 88
5 Irish 99
6 Dutch 101
7 Swedish 106
8 Germany 106
9 Scottish 111
10 Swiss 115
11 Italian 143
12 Polish 144
13 French 146
14 Portuguese 149
15 Austrian 153
16 Finnish 157
17 Spanish 163
18 Russian 169
19 Hungarian 172
20 Czech 173
21 Basque 221
22 Greek 288
23 Yugoslavian 317
24 Sardinian 396
25 Lapp 494

Lastly, the Icelanders known to be founded by select group of settlers, and, by no surprise, they are genetically distanced from Europeans as well. In fact, the Norwegians, who the Icelanders are very similar to racially, are closer to the Portuguese genetically (according to this). Yet, when analyzing the Y-Chromosome markers and mtDNA of each population, one finds Norwegians and Icelanders to be strikingly similar.

And yet, Autosomal DNA analysis remains the unquestionably superior method.

It's beyond me...



Spain and Italy's GDPs are fine. But it's not all about dry figures. How many of the genetic studies that we quote here are by Norwegian or Canadian scientists?

Again, you fail to take into comparison the populations of each nation.

By your system of rational, India must be superior to all as, undoubtedly, the number of scientists and specialists hailing from there is greater than that of any of the afforementioned nations.


Not according to Lell et al. (2002) and Zerjal et al. (1997):

By interpreting simply the frequencies of Tat-C, it is no surprise to me that the assumption has been made.

Stríbog
Friday, October 17th, 2003, 12:03 AM
Well Gunther was wrong. I find it highly interesting that YOU of all people would cite Gunther. Selective reading, huh?

Well despite the strong praise you've shown for Guenther in the past, I'm going to indulge you and offer Beddoe's perspective as well. :)

"... To sum up this chapter, the natives of South Britain, at the time of the Roman conquest, probably consisted mainly of several strata, unequally distributed, of Celtic- speaking people, who in race and physical type, however, partook [less] of the tall, blond stock of Northern Europe than of the thick-set, broad-headed, dark stock which Broca has called Celtic, and which those who object to this attribution of that much-contested name may, if they like, denominate Arvernian. Some of these layers were Gaelic in speech, some Cymric; they were both superposed on a foundation principally composed of the long-headed dark races of the Mediterranean stock, possibly mingled with the fragments of still more ancient races, Mongoliform or Allophylian. This foundations layer was still very strong and coherent in Ireland and the north of Scotland, where the subsequent deposits were thinner, and in someparts, wholly or partially absent ... "

"Throughout the greater part of Ireland one distinct type of man decidedly predominates; and to describe it is easy, though to explain its origin and constitution may be difficult....

In the personal observation table for Ireland, the localities are arranged in an ascending scale of depth of colour of hair; and it will be seen from the figures, and from the illustrative maps, that blonds are most numerous on and near the eastern coast, and brunets towards the west, whither they have been driven by successive invasions. There are a few exceptions to the rule, mostly explicable.

Under 30 per cent. of nigrescence come ... the upper classes in Dublin and Cork, with the people of Enniskillen, Youghal, Cloyne, and the neighbourhood, of Cashel and Cahir in Tipperary, of Charleville in Limerick, of Waterford town and Wexford county, and some other parts of Leinster. The index in these cases is comparable with that found in most parts of England; but in no case is it nearly so low as in many parts of the nort and east of that country or of Scotland.

Between 30 and 50 per cent. ranks the general population of Cork and Dublin, of Drogheda and Kildare, of Killarney in Kerry, of Collooney in Sligo, of Joyce's Country in Galway, of some districts about Cork, and of the county of Fermanagh with Western Cavan; also the people of the fisherman's quarter in Galway, called the Claddagh. Most parts of the Scottish Highlands would come in here.

Between 50 and 70 ranks the largest number of districts; viz., the counties of Longford and Leitrim, most part of those of Sligo, Roscommon, and Galway, with the town of Galway and the Arran Isles, Athlone, pettigo in South Donegal, Dingle in Kerry, and Capoguin in Waterford. The indices here equal those met with in Wales and Cornwall. Lastly, over 70 come several districts in the west of Kerry, with Clifden in Connemara, Jar-Connaught, Moytura in the hills between Sligo and Roscommon, and Mallow in county Cork. Such a preponderance of dark hair does not, I believe, occur anywhere in Great Britain; it ranges with that found in Auvergne, Savoy, and Northern Italy ... "


And think, this excerpt is even on the SNPA site, funny how they don't listen to a word of what it says. :D

http://www.fikas.no/~sprocket/snpa/beddoe1.htm

http://www.fikas.no/~sprocket/snpa/bilder/beddoe1.jpg

Loki
Friday, October 17th, 2003, 12:09 AM
Well despite the strong praise you've shown for Guenther in the past, I'm going to indulge you and offer Beddoe's perspective as well. :)



Did you know that Beddoe preceded Coon by almost a century? His works are inaccurate 19th century ramblings. You never cease to amaze me :D

Stríbog
Friday, October 17th, 2003, 12:12 AM
Did you know that Beddoe preceded Coon by almost a century? His works are inaccurate 19th century ramblings. You never cease to amaze me :D

Actually Beddoe preceded Coon by about 50 years, 1880's versus 1930's. Coon's are inaccurate 20th century ramblings, so date of publication does not invariably confer value. :) Guenther was a contemporary of Coon, and someone you've praised, and his findings mesh with those of Beddoe and not Coon. :P

Would you like to find some sources OTHER than Coon to back up your "100%Nordish Ireland" dreams? :)

Loki
Friday, October 17th, 2003, 12:18 AM
Actually Beddoe preceded Coon by about 50 years, 1880's versus 1930's.

Okay, you win a candy for this one. :)


Guenther was a contemporary of Coon, and someone you've praised, and his findings mesh with those of Beddoe and not Coon. :P

I have "praised" Gunther by using some pictures from his gallery.... lol.


Would you like to find some sources OTHER than Coon to back up your "100%Nordish Ireland" dreams? :)

I never had such a dream. Please find a quote where I have said such a thing, dear sir. Or forever hold your peace.

Stríbog
Friday, October 17th, 2003, 01:55 AM
Okay, you win a candy for this one. :)



I have "praised" Gunther by using some pictures from his gallery.... lol.



I never had such a dream. Please find a quote where I have said such a thing, dear sir. Or forever hold your peace.

I reiterate: http://www.forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=44243&postcount=22

You have consistently upheld the SNPA/Coon perspective on Ireland as the lightest-eyed region on earth, which goes hand-in-hand with its proclamation that Ireland is "100% Nordish." If I was wrong to infer that you agree with this from your statements, please tell me what percentage of Ireland you DO consider "Nordish". :)

Loki
Friday, October 17th, 2003, 02:09 AM
I reiterate: http://www.forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=44243&postcount=22

You have consistently upheld the SNPA/Coon perspective on Ireland as the lightest-eyed region on earth, which goes hand-in-hand with its proclamation that Ireland is "100% Nordish." If I was wrong to infer that you agree with this from your statements, please tell me what percentage of Ireland you DO consider "Nordish". :)

Okay... hmmm... let me think. I haven't seen all of Ireland yet, but I would suggest up to 20% Mediterranean influence there, maybe more in certain areas. Amount of pop Nordish? Hell I don't know. My guess is anything between 60% and 80%.

What is your personal estimate?

Stríbog
Friday, October 17th, 2003, 02:21 AM
Okay... hmmm... let me think. I haven't seen all of Ireland yet, but I would suggest up to 20% Mediterranean influence there, maybe more in certain areas. Amount of pop Nordish? Hell I don't know. My guess is anything between 60% and 80%.

What is your personal estimate?

Roughly 35% predominantly Med, 45% predominantly Brunn, 20% everything else.

Med
Saturday, October 18th, 2003, 01:47 PM
However, the area of Siberia where Tat-C arose was populated by Caucasoids when the mutation happened.

Evidence? The passage says "Mongoloid people had moved into southwestern Siberia by 21,000 B.P.", which is the same area where Tat-C later arose. Plus, Mongoloids began migrating across the Bering Straight shortly thereafter, indicating that eastern Siberia was also populated by Asians at that time.


He is notorious for modifying others' work in such a fashion in order to 'prove' his point.

Ridiculous. You're projecting your own dishonest tactics onto Dienekes. He provides direct quotes from studies -- something you could learn from.


How does a population with 27% "Mongoloid ancestry" have 0 dark eyes and 0 epicanthi?

You've supplied no evidence to support that claim. In fact, you've offered no evidence for any of your claims. So until you do, this "debate" is over.

Med
Saturday, October 18th, 2003, 02:22 PM
No citing of souces or relying on the opinion of others.

Then what's the point? I'm not a scientist, and neither are you. What value do our own personal observations have? The only way to debate scientific matters is with scientific evidence, which, in our case, must come from "others".


Here are the actual distances among European groups.

You've selected three populations who are notorious genetic outliers, precisely because of their small founding populations and geographical isolation, which has led to genetic drift. The single locus analyses that you tout don't pick up on this. Autosomes, however, do.


And yet, Autosomal DNA analysis remains the unquestionably superior method.

Autosomal analysis is superior because it examines multiple ancestry-informative markers whereas, say, an mtDNA study examines only one. It's as simple as that. More markers means a more complete and accurate reconstruction.


By your system of rational, India must be superior to all as, undoubtedly, the number of scientists and specialists hailing from there is greater than that of any of the afforementioned nations.

You ignored everything else. Bottom line: Italy is a strong cultural force in the modern world. Norway, Canada and India are not.


By interpreting simply the frequencies of Tat-C, it is no surprise to me that the assumption has been made.

To paraphrase you: Yep, OK. Let's completely disregard two studies (actually more) based on your disapproval. After all, you're the expert here. :eyes

Tore
Saturday, October 18th, 2003, 07:51 PM
You've selected three populations who are notorious genetic outliers, precisely because of their small founding populations and geographical isolation, which has led to genetic drift. The single locus analyses that you tout don't pick up on this. Autosomes, however, do.

My point was to show numerous examples of how populations who are racially identicle, very similar in terms of their Paternal and Maternal lineages, yet very distanced in terms of their autosomal DNA.

Is Southern Europe not geographically isolated from North Africa and, to a lesser extent, the Middle East?


Autosomal analysis is superior because it examines multiple ancestry-informative markers whereas, say, an mtDNA study examines only one. It's as simple as that. More markers means a more complete and accurate reconstruction.

When applied to the racial ancestry of a specific individual, I agree, autosomal analysis is superior. Yet, when applied to larger populations, Y-Chromosome and mtDNA analysis is the superior method, as it determines the lineages which are present in the population as a whole, and can thus, provide an estimate of admixture, etc.


You ignored everything else. Bottom line: Italy is a strong cultural force in the modern world. Norway, Canada and India are not.

Are you only capable of analyzing numbers in an absolute sense?

Thoughts on China come 50 years?? :D


To paraphrase you: Yep, OK. Let's completely disregard two studies (actually more) based on your disapproval. After all, you're the expert here.

I could post numerous studies which state the contrary.

Yet, you seem to resent "going around in circles".

Apply your rational when reading such studies.

Example would be:

How can the Finns and Balts have 30% Mongoloid lineages if they are the most depigmented populations in the world.

"Moreover, how can Tat-C be Mongoloid in origin if its main correlation is with that of depigmentation?"

Med
Thursday, October 23rd, 2003, 02:20 PM
My point was to show numerous examples of how populations who are racially identicle, very similar in terms of their Paternal and Maternal lineages, yet very distanced in terms of their autosomal DNA.

I guess it depends on what criteria is used and how the results are presented (I don't pretend to be an expert). The autosomal studies on Southern Europeans that I've been posting differentiate between intra-populational and inter-populational variation. For instance, they note that Sardinians and Corsicans are outliers due to drift, but still place them firmly in the European branch (same ancestry). Whereas North Africans are placed in an entirely separate branch (different ancestry).


Yet, when applied to larger populations, Y-Chromosome and mtDNA analysis is the superior method

No. This is not what geneticists believe, as I've shown you. Time will prove you wrong. Autosomes will replace single locus analyses. Mark my words. Here's another source that confirms this fact:


THE SCIENTIST
149(15):10 July 24, 2000
Douglas Steinberg

Autosomal DNA

"People are just too hung up on mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosomes," complains Kenneth K. Kidd, a genetics professor at Yale University School of Medicine. "Everybody thinks recombination is a problem, diploidy is a problem. And they're not. They're easily overcome. They just require more sophisticated analysis."

Kidd confesses to having mixed feelings about what he perceives as this neglect of autosomes. It means less competition for his work on autosomal genes in humans and chimps. Yet more autosomal studies are crucial for advancing the field of molecular anthropology: The 22 autosomes, after all, harbor the lion's share of polymorphisms.

"Genes on the mitochondrial genome or the Y chromosome don't unambiguously allow you to infer population history," notes Andrew G. Clark, a biology professor at Pennsylvania State University. "That's because there's a lot of stochasticity, a lot of chance, that goes on in sampling of those genomes from generation to generation. What the autosomal genes get us is many more realizations of genes passing through history. If we look at enough of them we'll be able to get a good call on the true population history." Especially ripe for examination, Clark adds, are autosomal regions with low rates of recombination, which are just now being identified.


Are you only capable of analyzing numbers in an absolute sense?

You're the one analyzing GDP and IQ to draw conclusions about national superiority. I'm pointing out that regardless of the "numbers", Italy is a more productive and influential nation than Canada, Norway, India, China, etc. for all the reasons previously stated.


How can the Finns and Balts have 30% Mongoloid lineages if they are the most depigmented populations in the world.

It's actually only 10-15% according to Cavalli-Sforza's autosomal analysis. Oh, but I forgot, you don't think autosomes are reliable.


Moreover, how can Tat-C be Mongoloid in origin if its main correlation is with that of depigmentation?

Here we go around in circles again. I've already shown you that that's not the case (Highest Tat-C frequency of 87% in Yakuts. Highest frequencies of ancestral hg12 in Asian groups. Remember?).

Tore
Thursday, October 23rd, 2003, 11:23 PM
No. This is not what geneticists believe, as I've shown you. Time will prove you wrong. Autosomes will replace single locus analyses. Mark my words. Here's another source that confirms this fact:

I suppose we'll have to see.

As for know, I'll continue to rely on Y-Chromosome and mtDNA markers.


You're the one analyzing GDP and IQ to draw conclusions about national superiority. I'm pointing out that regardless of the "numbers", Italy is a more productive and influential nation than Canada, Norway, India, China, etc. for all the reasons previously stated.

Is?

or was?


It's actually only 10-15% according to Cavalli-Sforza's autosomal analysis. Oh, but I forgot, you don't think autosomes are reliable.

The fact that the numbers are smaller only proves my point, as the introduction of Hg 16 into NE Europe is not recent.

Even still, how can 10-15% Mongoloids be lighter pigmented than their Westerm neighbours who have <2% Mongoloid admixture (i.e. Swedes, Germans)?


Here we go around in circles again. I've already shown you that that's not the case (Highest Tat-C frequency of 87% in Yakuts. Highest frequencies of ancestral hg12 in Asian groups. Remember?).

I do recall this.

Recall how Yakuts and other Eurasians have >80% maternal Mongoloid lineages?

Prodigal Son
Friday, October 24th, 2003, 01:20 AM
Even still, how can 10-15% Mongoloids be lighter pigmented than their Westerm neighbours who have <2% Mongoloid admixture (i.e. Swedes, Germans)?

They can't. Cavali-Sfroza says that Finns are less than 10% Uralic. In fact he says that Finns and Estonians are "almost entirely European." Of course, he either doesn't realize or doesn't want to admit that Uralic is not equivalent to Mongoloid. See for yourself what Cavalli-Sfroza had to say on the subject:

Med
Friday, October 24th, 2003, 02:11 PM
As for know, I'll continue to rely on Y-Chromosome and mtDNA markers.

Naturally, because you prefer the results yielded by these markers. But that means you're knowingly relying on flawed data, and ignoring more up-to-date research.


Is? or was?

Is, was and always will be. I've already established why. Work on your reading comprehension.


The fact that the numbers are smaller only proves my point, as the introduction of Hg 16 into NE Europe is not recent.

No, it proves that autosomes are more accurate than gender-specific markers.


Even still, how can 10-15% Mongoloids be lighter pigmented than their Westerm neighbours who have <2% Mongoloid admixture (i.e. Swedes, Germans)?

Because the Baltic area is the world's epicenter of blondism. 10-15% Asian ancestry isn't going to change that. Swedes are less blond due to significant Central European ancestry. And Germans are even less blond because many of them are Central European.


Recall how Yakuts and other Eurasians have >80% maternal Mongoloid lineages?

So you're suggesting that Yakuts have ~20% Caucasoid mtDNA and 87% Caucasoid Y-chromosomes, making them about half Caucasian? I don't think so:

http://pro.corbis.com/images/watermark/67/10960008/DC002497.jpghttp://pro.corbis.com/images/watermark/67/10964470/DC003160.jpg
http://pro.corbis.com/images/watermark/67/10961837/DC002462.jpg
http://pro.corbis.com/images/watermark/67/10964443/DC002467.jpghttp://pro.corbis.com/images/watermark/67/10964087/DC006022.jpg

Med
Friday, October 24th, 2003, 02:23 PM
Of course, he either doesn't realize or doesn't want to admit that Uralic is not equivalent to Mongoloid.

Cavalli-Sforza shows in his autosomal analysis of genetic variation (http://www.angeltowns.com/members/racialreal/genetic_variation.html) that NE Europeans have significant levels of Uralic ancestry. Anthropological research shows that the Uralic race is a Mongol-white hybrid:


The Uralian race combines Europoid and Mongoloid traits and originated from the mixing of types of the Europoid and the Mongoloid major races. Its formation dates to an early period during which the forest belt of western Siberia and of adjacent eastern Europe was first peopled. During the long period that followed, different variants with transitory morphological characteristics formed. (M.G. Levin, "Ethnic Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia", 1963)

Prodigal Son
Saturday, October 25th, 2003, 10:53 PM
Cavalli-Sforza shows in his autosomal analysis of genetic variation (http://www.angeltowns.com/members/racialreal/genetic_variation.html) that NE Europeans have significant levels of Uralic ancestry. Anthropological research shows that the Uralic race is a Mongol-white hybrid

Again, 'significant' is an entirely arbitrary term in this case. He also says unequivocally that the Finns and Estonians show virtually no trace of Mongoloid admixtre.



The Uralian race combines Europoid and Mongoloid traits and originated from the mixing of types of the Europoid and the Mongoloid major races. Its formation dates to an early period during which the forest belt of western Siberia and of adjacent eastern Europe was first peopled. During the long period that followed, different variants with transitory morphological characteristics formed. (M.G. Levin, "Ethnic Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia", 1963)

Neverthless the 'Uralian' race is still predominantly Europid by a margin of 10% or so, especially in its Lappinoid form.

Tore
Sunday, October 26th, 2003, 01:52 AM
Naturally, because you prefer the results yielded by these markers. But that means you're knowingly relying on flawed data, and ignoring more up-to-date research.

I've already explained why I reject the accuracy of autosomal testing.

It has little to do with "flawed data" or my supposed "ignorance."


Is, was and always will be. I've already established why. Work on your reading comprehension.

You have already established why Italy will "always" be influential on a global scale??

Care to explain how you have acquired the ability to foresee future events? :P


No, it proves that autosomes are more accurate than gender-specific markers.

How so?

10% Mongoloid ancestry is as large of mystery as 30% if there is no phenotypic signs of Mongoloid ancestry in the overwhelming majority of the population.


Because the Baltic area is the world's epicenter of blondism. 10-15% Asian ancestry isn't going to change that. Swedes are less blond due to significant Central European ancestry. And Germans are even less blond because many of them are Central European.

So mixing with Central Europeans yields a less depigmented population when compared with mixing with Mongoloids?


So you're suggesting that Yakuts have ~20% Caucasoid mtDNA and 87% Caucasoid Y-chromosomes, making them about half Caucasian? I don't think so:

The incidence of Tat-C among the Yakuts, and other Siberians for that matter, can also be attributed to a small founder population.

Med
Sunday, October 26th, 2003, 01:16 PM
I've already explained why I reject the accuracy of autosomal testing.

You have no authority to reject what scientists determine to be a superior method.


You have already established why Italy will "always" be influential on a global scale?? Care to explain how you have acquired the ability to foresee future events?

I've established why Italy is influential today. History attests to its influence in the past. As to its future influence, call that a reasonable projection based on previous and current trends. But go ahead and keep mocking the successful nation and people of Italy to avoid having to deal with the comparatively poor showing of Norway and Canada.


10% Mongoloid ancestry is as large of mystery as 30% if there is no phenotypic signs of Mongoloid ancestry in the overwhelming majority of the population.

Anthropologists have observed Mongoloid traits in Baltic and Slavic peoples (Coon, Bunak, Debets, etc.). But the majority of the population need not exhibit such traits. Don't you know anything about Mendelian law? With small-scale admixture, over time the traits get dispersed throughout the population (which retains its original character) and only resurface with the occasional recombining of genes.


So mixing with Central Europeans yields a less depigmented population when compared with mixing with Mongoloids?

Germans didn't "mix with Central Europeans". Germans are Central Europeans to a large degree. And that means that the prehistoric populations that went into their make-up -- whether UP, Alpine, Dinaric or even Nordic -- were significantly brunet. The same goes for Swedes, though to a lesser extent. Balts, on the other hand, have always been significantly blond, and a relatively small amount of Asian ancestry isn't going to change that (see above on Mendelian law).


The incidence of Tat-C among the Yakuts, and other Siberians for that matter, can also be attributed to a small founder population.

That same argument works in the other direction for Finns and Balts, and in fact has more support, with linguistic, anthropological and genetic analyses showing that Finland was founded by a small group of Uralic males (see, e.g., Kittles et al. 1998).

Med
Sunday, October 26th, 2003, 01:31 PM
Again, 'significant' is an entirely arbitrary term in this case. He also says unequivocally that the Finns and Estonians show virtually no trace of Mongoloid admixtre.

Stop reading selectively. He explains that anomalous finding as being the result of founder effect and genetic drift. Just look at his map of PC2. NE Europeans clearly have significant (meaning 'a lot of') Uralic ancestry. Much more than any other Europeans.


Neverthless the 'Uralian' race is still predominantly Europid by a margin of 10% or so, especially in its Lappinoid form.

Evidence? Lapps are not Uralic. They're Uralic mixed with additional Baltic, Nordic and other European elements. True Uralics are represented by the Uralic-speaking populations of Central Asia who, as Levin makes clear, are Europoid-Mongoloid hybrids.

Tore
Sunday, October 26th, 2003, 05:55 PM
You have no authority to reject what scientists determine to be a superior method.

And you do?

To the best of my knowledge, Y-Chromosome and mtDNA markers are still in widespread use in as a means of genetic testing.


But go ahead and keep mocking the successful nation and people of Italy to avoid having to deal with the comparatively poor showing of Norway and Canada.

These "comparatively poor" nations have maintained a greater standing of living than Italy as a whole, not to mentions its destitute South.


Don't you know anything about Mendelian law? With small-scale admixture, over time the traits get dispersed throughout the population (which retains its original character) and only resurface with the occasional recombining of genes.

Are you aware of dominant and recessive traits?


Germans didn't "mix with Central Europeans". Germans are Central Europeans to a large degree. And that means that the prehistoric populations that went into their make-up -- whether UP, Alpine, Dinaric or even Nordic -- were significantly brunet. The same goes for Swedes, though to a lesser extent. Balts, on the other hand, have always been significantly blond, and a relatively small amount of Asian ancestry isn't going to change that (see above on Mendelian law).

Explain why Eastern Estonians, who have a greater percentage of Uralic male lineages, are blonder than Western Estonians, and more specifically, have a significantly higher proportion of ash-blondism.

If Western Estonians are a reflection of the original Baltic population, should they not be blonder?


That same argument works in the other direction for Finns and Balts, and in fact has more support, with linguistic, anthropological and genetic analyses showing that Finland was founded by a small group of Uralic males (see, e.g., Kittles et al. 1998).

I am willing to accept this theory, although it would fail to explain the high percentage of Tat-C lineages among the Latvians and Lithuanians, who both speak an Indo-European language, thus only accounting for the Finns and Estonians.

Med
Monday, October 27th, 2003, 02:04 PM
And you do? To the best of my knowledge, Y-Chromosome and mtDNA markers are still in widespread use in as a means of genetic testing.

No, I don't. Which is why I don't dispute sources maintaining that mtDNA and Y-chromosomes (while not totally without value) are subject to errors, and therefore inferior to autosomal DNA.


These "comparatively poor" nations have maintained a greater standing of living than Italy as a whole, not to mentions its destitute South.

Maybe English isn't your native tongue? I said "comparatively poor showing", as in terms of their contributions to Western civilization. As to "poor" in the literal sense, yes Scandinavian countries are not poor, mainly because they're modern welfare states. Nevertheless, northern Italy is one of the richest, most industrialized regions in Europe. And while the south is undeniably poorer, GDP and unemployment statistics for the region were found to be skewed, and it's in fact well on its way to catching up with the north, as these two recent surveys I've linked to before indicate:

http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/message?forumid=259639&messageid=1063198586
http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/message?forumid=259639&messageid=1063199380


Are you aware of dominant and recessive traits?

If I'm aware of Mendelian laws, then I must be aware of dominant and recessive traits. You, on the other hand, seem to be aware of neither. (And stop substituting pointless questions for debate. If you have no argument, then don't reply.)


If Western Estonians are a reflection of the original Baltic population, should they not be blonder?

Ancestry is not determined by measuring the frequency of an adaptable trait like pigmentation, especially when dealing with a relatively small introgression of foreign genes. Your "arguments" are a joke.

Tore
Monday, October 27th, 2003, 11:23 PM
No, I don't. Which is why I don't dispute sources maintaining that mtDNA and Y-chromosomes (while not totally without value) are subject to errors, and therefore inferior to autosomal DNA.

Is the method of autosomal DNA not subject to errors as well?

http://www.racearchives.com/calc/sforza_profiles.asp?popid=17&dbname=sforza26euros

Is this example of autosomal DNA testing, which claims the Norwegians to be genetically closer to the Portuguese than they are to their racial cousins in the Icelanders, truly accurate?

Or is it a product of the tests inability to determine the effects of a small/distinct founder population and/or geographic barrier(s)?


Maybe English isn't your native tongue? I said "comparatively poor showing", as in terms of their contributions to Western civilization.

I understood what you meant.


As to "poor" in the literal sense, yes Scandinavian countries are not poor, mainly because they're modern welfare states. Nevertheless, northern Italy is one of the richest, most industrialized regions in Europe. And while the south is undeniably poorer, GDP and unemployment statistics for the region were found to be skewed, and it's in fact well on its way to catching up with the north, as these two recent surveys I've linked to before indicate:

Federal subsidization can sure be useful, eh? :D


If I'm aware of Mendelian laws, then I must be aware of dominant and recessive traits.

So you would agree that the genes which produce darker pigmentation are dominant over genes which produce lighter pigmentation?


(And stop substituting pointless questions for debate. If you have no argument, then don't reply.)

You unwillingness to answer them does not deprive them of their ability to refute.


Ancestry is not determined by measuring the frequency of an adaptable trait like pigmentation, especially when dealing with a relatively small introgression of foreign genes. Your "arguments" are a joke.

What about the absence of Mongoloid-specific traits in North-Eastern Europe?

North-Eastern Europeans lack:

The Blue-Black hair pigment (Mongoloid-specific trait)
Shovel-shaped incisors (Mongoloid specific trait)
Internal epicanthus (Mongoloid specific trait)
Recessive chins (non-Caucasoid specific trait)

Of course, these are all in addition to the fact that North-Eastern Europe is the most depigmented region in the world, with areas high in Tat-C (with no Mongoloid mtDNA present) being the most depigmented.

Med
Tuesday, October 28th, 2003, 12:33 PM
Is the method of autosomal DNA not subject to errors as well?

Not according to the experts, of which you're not one. So be quiet.


Is this example of autosomal DNA testing, which claims the Norwegians to be genetically closer to the Portuguese than they are to their racial cousins in the Icelanders, truly accurate?

That genetic distance calculator was created by a layman. It didn't appear in any study, and it's questionable whether a real geneticist would accept it as accurate. Plus, Icelanders are always genetic outliers. Don't you know anything?


Federal subsidization can sure be useful, eh?

It has nothing to do with that. Read the links I provided before making stupid comments. I know you're upset that Norway has had virtually no role in the development of the West, and that Canada plays second fiddle to America, but taking your frustrations out on Italians is just childish.


You unwillingness to answer them does not deprive them of their ability to refute.

Questions don't have the ability to refute, especially not yours. They merely cover up the asker's inability to refute the information presented him. And I did answer your question, proving that you have no grasp of Mendelian law.


What about the absence of Mongoloid-specific traits in North-Eastern Europe?

As I've pointed out before, many anthropologists have noted Mongoloid traits in NE Europe (Coon, Debets, Bunak, etc.). You really should learn to pay attention.

Tore
Tuesday, October 28th, 2003, 03:08 PM
That genetic distance calculator was created by a layman. It didn't appear in any study, and it's questionable whether a real geneticist would accept it as accurate.

I don't understand.

I thought autosomal DNA was the unquestionably superior method?

Therefore, this alone should validate the accuracy of the study.


Plus, Icelanders are always genetic outliers. Don't you know anything?

The Icelanders are not genetic outliers in terms of their Y-Chromosome markers, and to a lesser extent, their mtDNA.

Only autosomal DNA appears to yield such a distance from groups the Icelanders are racially similar to.

Perplexing, is it not? :D


but taking your frustrations out on Italians is just childish.

I harbour no resentment towards Italians.

However, I don't enjoy having the achievements of my nation of residence and my nation of ancestry belittled.


Questions don't have the ability to refute, especially not yours. They merely cover up the asker's inability to refute the information presented him. And I did answer your question, proving that you have no grasp of Mendelian law.

Yep. :D


As I've pointed out before, many anthropologists have noted Mongoloid traits in NE Europe (Coon, Debets, Bunak, etc.). You really should learn to pay attention.

Indeed they have.

Here is what Coon had to say about the 'Uralic' Karelians, a North-Eastern European population high in male Tat-C lineages.

"There are nearly half a million Carelians in Europe; approximately half of these live in eastern Finland, and the rest are divided between the Carelian Republic of the USSR, which is adjoining, and small ethnic islands in the upper Volga country.73 Zolotarev's adult male sample includes 728 from the Carelian Republic, and 277 from the Volga country. In both divisions, what he considers dark hair is found among 9 per cent of the whole, and the same is true for dark eyes. The Volga group has 27 per cent of hair designated as quite blond, while the remaining majority falls into the light brown and brown category. The Carelians of the Republic have, in contrast, 40 per cent of the lightest class. The opposite disproportion is true of eye color; 42 per cent of the Volga Carelians are called light eyed and 49 per cent mixed; in the Republic the figures are 35 per cent and 55 per cent respectively. To begin with, therefore, the Carelians are typically light or mixed in pigmentation, and fully or nearly as blond as most Scandinavians. There is little difference in degree of hair and eye pigment between these Finns and Iron Age Nordics. The Carelians are prevailingly ash-blond rather than golden, and only 4 men out of a thousand show any rufosity."

"The cephalic index, which varies between the extremes of 69 and 90, has a mean of 81.1 for the total, 80.9 for the Republic sample, and 81.6 for the Volga group."

"Only six men out of 1008 have the true Mongolian eyefold and these are all in the Republic series."

Mongoloid indeed. :eyes

Vetinari
Tuesday, October 28th, 2003, 07:15 PM
Roughly 35% predominantly Med, 45% predominantly Brunn, 20% everything else.

How can you say that Ireland is 35% Med? Ireland is overwhelmingly Haplogroup R1b (previously known as Haplogroup 1) which is much rarer in southern Europe.

Stríbog
Tuesday, October 28th, 2003, 11:12 PM
How can you say that Ireland is 35% Med? Ireland is overwhelmingly Haplogroup R1b (previously known as Haplogroup 1) which is much rarer in southern Europe.

Check your sources. HG1 IS the West Med marker. Brunns are depigmented West Meds. Basques are about 75% HG1, Spaniards about 68% HG1. Hardly "rare." Spain is quite a bit more HG1 than England is. HG1 decreases from west to east, not north to south.

Med
Wednesday, October 29th, 2003, 12:36 PM
I don't understand.

No kidding.


Therefore, this alone should validate the accuracy of the study.

Again, work on your English. I told you that that genetic distance calculator does not, repeat not, come from a genetic study. It was designed and programmed by the creator of that website.


. . . Y-Chromosome markers . . . their mtDNA . . . Only autosomal DNA . . . .

Yawn . . .


"Genes on the mitochondrial genome or the Y chromosome don't unambiguously allow you to infer population history," notes Andrew G. Clark, a biology professor at Pennsylvania State University. "That's because there's a lot of stochasticity, a lot of chance, that goes on in sampling of those genomes from generation to generation. What the autosomal genes get us is many more realizations of genes passing through history. If we look at enough of them we'll be able to get a good call on the true population history."


Here is what Coon had to say about the 'Uralic' Karelians, a North-Eastern European population high in male Tat-C lineages.

I say that anthropologists have noted Mongoloid traits in NE Europe, and you respond with a passage in which an anthropologist is noting Mongoloid traits in NE Europe. Brilliant refutation!

Tore
Wednesday, October 29th, 2003, 11:35 PM
Again, work on your English. I told you that that genetic distance calculator does not, repeat not, come from a genetic study. It was designed and programmed by the creator of that website.

Are you postivive about this?

I know the Y-Chromosome distance calculator was designed by the owner of the site, and thus, it should not be given credibility.

The calculator I used under the section of "Overall DNA analysis" is titled "Sforza's Genetic Distances Between 26 European Populations."


"Genes on the mitochondrial genome or the Y chromosome don't unambiguously allow you to infer population history," notes Andrew G. Clark, a biology professor at Pennsylvania State University. "That's because there's a lot of stochasticity, a lot of chance, that goes on in sampling of those genomes from generation to generation. What the autosomal genes get us is many more realizations of genes passing through history. If we look at enough of them we'll be able to get a good call on the true population history."

So would it be in your opinion that autosomal DNA testing takes into account the effects of geographic barriers (i.e. North Sea, Mediterranean sea)?


I say that anthropologists have noted Mongoloid traits in NE Europe, and you respond with a passage in which an anthropologist is noting Mongoloid traits in NE Europe. Brilliant refutation!

The only Mongoloid trait mentioned is the internal epicanthus, which occurs at a frequency of 0.595% among Karelians.

We can assume that Tat-C frequencies among the Karelians are approximately equal to the amount of Tat-C frequencies one finds among the Finns, which is in the area of 60%.

This would yield roughly 30% supposed Mongoloid contribution to the Karelian gene pool.

Yet the following peculiarities remain...

% Mongoloid Contribution/ % Internal Eyefold = ~60/1
% Mongoloid Contribution/ % Dark Eyes= ~3/1
% Mongoloid Contribution/ % Dark Hair= ~3/1

Vetinari
Thursday, October 30th, 2003, 04:15 PM
Check your sources. HG1 IS the West Med marker. Brunns are depigmented West Meds. Basques are about 75% HG1, Spaniards about 68% HG1. Hardly "rare." Spain is quite a bit more HG1 than England is. HG1 decreases from west to east, not north to south.

Haplogroup 1 (also known as M45 from which the M173 marker is derived) originated in Central Asia, therefore it can not be a "West Med marker".

Allenson
Thursday, October 30th, 2003, 04:27 PM
Check your sources. HG1 IS the West Med marker. Brunns are depigmented West Meds. Basques are about 75% HG1, Spaniards about 68% HG1. Hardly "rare." Spain is quite a bit more HG1 than England is. HG1 decreases from west to east, not north to south.

Brunns are depigmented west Meds? That's pretty weird. They don't share much in the way of phenotype....

Must read some genetics....

Loki
Thursday, October 30th, 2003, 04:36 PM
Brunns are depigmented West Meds.

That is incorrect.

Loki
Thursday, October 30th, 2003, 04:59 PM
When one looks at autosomal charts, it seems that "Western Mediterranean" as we know it, goes hand-in-hand with a combination of "Basque" and Neolithic farmer genes. Have a look at these charts. You will see that in the British Isles and the Germanic lands, these markers are very rare.

http://skadi.net/scans/pc1.jpg

http://skadi.net/scans/pc5.jpg

Stríbog
Thursday, October 30th, 2003, 05:57 PM
When one looks at autosomal charts, it seems that "Western Mediterranean" as we know it, goes hand-in-hand with a combination of "Basque" and Neolithic farmer genes. Have a look at these charts. You will see that in the British Isles and the Germanic lands, these markers are very rare.


That's nice. HG1 is the definitive western European UP marker, and is characteristic of both Brunns and Atlanto-Mediterraneans. If the all Atlanto-Meds are so Neolithic, explain the utter absence of Neolithic haplogroups in the Basque. You never explained why the Basque aren't Nordish, BTW. :)

I'm hardly convinced that autosomal DNA is accurate for classification. It shows Norway to be closer to Portugal than to Iceland. :) Though mtDNA does show that both have Negroid strains, so maybe they are more similar than we thought :P [Norway: 1.5% of Negroid mtDNA - Passarino et al (2002)]

Even giving you the benefit of the doubt that autosomal DNA grouping is reliable, the Basque also cluster autosomally with northwestern Europe far more than they cluster with characteristically Neolithic regions of Europe like Greece and Sardinia, according to Sforza's data.

http://www.racearchives.com/calc/sforza_profiles.asp?popid=1&dbname=sforza26euros

Loki
Thursday, October 30th, 2003, 06:07 PM
That's nice. HG1 is the definitive western European UP marker, and is characteristic of both Brunns and Atlanto-Mediterraneans. If the all Atlanto-Meds are so Neolithic, explain the utter absence of Neolithic haplogroups in the Basque. You never explained why the Basque aren't Nordish, BTW. :)

HG1 is found all over Europe. Even in your racially "pure Nordic" Russia & the Baltic (or the very pure northern Sweden.


Even giving you the benefit of the doubt that autosomal DNA grouping is reliable, the Basque also cluster autosomally with northwestern Europe far more than they cluster with characteristically Neolithic regions of Europe like Greece and Sardinia, according to Sforza's data.

http://www.racearchives.com/calc/sforza_profiles.asp?popid=1&dbname=sforza26euros

You are not getting the point. I never said Basques were Greeks. But peoples mix and genetic markers overlap over thousands of years. Greeks are not really Basque, but Basques have a fair amount of Neolithic genes, same as Greeks.

Loki
Thursday, October 30th, 2003, 06:13 PM
Norwegians have almost the same amount of HG1 than Sardinians. I guess that makes them very Western Mediterranean. :lol

cosmocreator
Thursday, October 30th, 2003, 06:47 PM
That's nice. HG1 is the definitive western European UP marker, and is characteristic of both Brunns and Atlanto-Mediterraneans.


I don't know much about genetics but maybe A-Ms are derived from UP Brunn.

Stríbog
Thursday, October 30th, 2003, 08:05 PM
HG1 is found all over Europe. Even in your racially "pure Nordic" Russia & the Baltic (or the very pure northern Sweden.



You are not getting the point. I never said Basques were Greeks. But peoples mix and genetic markers overlap over thousands of years. Greeks are not really Basque, but Basques have a fair amount of Neolithic genes, same as Greeks.

1) I never said Russia and the Baltic were pure Nordic, nor did anyone else.

2) The Basque are defined by their LACK of Neolithic genes; they are the quintessential Old European. Try this map on for size.



Norwegians have almost the same amount of HG1 than Sardinians. I guess that makes them very Western Mediterranean.

Or it could just be because Norway is significantly Brunn, and Sardinia is significantly Atlanto-Mediterranean. :)

@ Cosmo: you could be right, I only speculate that Brunns came from AMs and not vice versa because depigmentation seems to be a more common evolutionary process than melanization. The primitive human types are all dark-haired/eyed. Many people argue about Nords being depigmented Meds, but no one ever argues that Meds are darkened Nords. Generally, lightening has occurred in offshoots from a darker general population, not vice versa.

Loki
Thursday, October 30th, 2003, 08:13 PM
Or it could just be because Norway is significantly Brunn, and Sardinia is significantly Atlanto-Mediterranean. :)


Denmark has even more HG1 than Norway. And the Pakistani Burusho has also about as much HG1 than Sardinia. Guess that makes Pakistan Western Mediterranean or Brunn. ;)

Genetics are not as simplistic as that... and these markers are very old, older than the current ethnic groupings, and even older than Western Mediterranean, Indo-European, and other such groupings.

Stríbog
Thursday, October 30th, 2003, 08:36 PM
Ok, so where are the Neolithic genes in the Basque?

Allenson
Thursday, October 30th, 2003, 09:34 PM
Genetics are not as simplistic as that... and these markers are very old, older than the current ethnic groupings, and even older than Western Mediterranean, Indo-European, and other such groupings.


Yes and these genetic markers that we use are not the genes that code for phenotypes and they don't seem to have much correlation with their geographic distribution either. I can't help but wonder if the subtypes in many cases developed after the mtDNA and Y-chromosome groups mutated and became differentiated.

I think that autosomal data is much more telling than either gender specific markers.

With regards to the A-M and Brunn connection: Both have very long heads, often in excess of 200 mm and long faces in the ballpark of 125-135 mm.

Tore
Thursday, October 30th, 2003, 11:22 PM
Yes and these genetic markers that we use are not the genes that code for phenotypes and they don't seem to have much correlation with their geographic distribution either.

True, although they are inherited along with the genes that code for phenotype.


I think that autosomal data is much more telling than either gender specific markers.

In some case, yes, partularly if the test involves only one individual.

In others, the Y-Chromosome and mtDNA markers appear to be more accurate.


Genetics are not as simplistic as that... and these markers are very old, older than the current ethnic groupings, and even older than Western Mediterranean, Indo-European, and other such groupings.

Not concerning all markers.

Moreover, the sub-clades of larger, older haplogroups can traced to specific population movements.


Norwegians have almost the same amount of HG1 than Sardinians. I guess that makes them very Western Mediterranean.

Norwegians only have 6% of Atlant0-Mediterranean haplotype 1.15 which constitutes part of Hg 1.


HG1 is found all over Europe. Even in your racially "pure Nordic" Russia & the Baltic (or the very pure northern Sweden.

True, although the significant frequencies of Haplotype 1.15, which is common among the Basques, Irish, and Welsh, are largely absent.


Haplogroup 1 (also known as M45 from which the M173 marker is derived) originated in Central Asia, therefore it can not be a "West Med marker".

Why not?

Vetinari
Friday, October 31st, 2003, 03:10 PM
Norwegians only have 6% of Atlant0-Mediterranean haplotype 1.15 which constitutes part of Hg 1.

How do you know that haplotype 1.15 is associated with the Atlanto-Mediterranean group?

Loki
Friday, October 31st, 2003, 08:36 PM
How do you know that haplotype 1.15 is associated with the Atlanto-Mediterranean group?

Good question. My guess is he's guessing.

Tore
Saturday, November 1st, 2003, 08:00 PM
How do you know that haplotype 1.15 is associated with the Atlanto-Mediterranean group?

Frequency of Haplotype 1.15

Basques-41%
Welsh-26%
Irish-18%
Orkney Islanders-11%
Norwegians-6%

Is it a Mediterranean marker or Upper Paleolithic marker?

The answer is rather obvious.


Good question. My guess is he's guessing.

The assumption is based upon empirical data.

Loki
Saturday, November 1st, 2003, 10:08 PM
The assumption is based upon empirical data.

That still remains only that: an assumption. And one that not many people would make, I daresay. I can make many assumptions if I want, based on "empirical data". People do it all the time, to "prove" whatever they want to.

Tore
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003, 06:32 AM
That still remains only that: an assumption. And one that not many people would make, I daresay. I can make many assumptions if I want, based on "empirical data". People do it all the time, to "prove" whatever they want to.

Fair enough.

What phenotype do you associate haplotype 1.15 with?

Upper Paleolithic/Brunn?

Loki
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003, 09:15 AM
What phenotype do you associate haplotype 1.15 with?

Upper Paleolithic/Brunn?

I don't associate it with any phenotype yet. I think we have not yet reached the level of knowledge that we can associate any phenotype with a single specific marker. That is pushing it too far in speculation alley.

Vetinari
Monday, November 3rd, 2003, 05:22 PM
Greece (and S Europe in general) is on the fringes of Europe, far from centers of commerce. In addition, it has limited natural resources. Ireland (another fringe region) also lagged behind Europe until EU subsidies enabled it to catch up. Wales still lags behind despite heavy subsidies. But no one ever mentions that.

Both Ireland and Greece get EU subsidies and yet Ireland has prospered more than Greece has. How do you explain this?

Vetinari
Monday, November 3rd, 2003, 05:27 PM
Precisely, and Wales and Ireland are also largely Mediterranean. :)

Actually, on the Y-chromosome, both Ireland and Wales are predominantly Haplogroup 1 (or R1b) while areas such as southern Italy and Greece have lower levels of Haplogroup 1 and much higher levels of Haplogroup 9 and 21.

Vetinari
Monday, November 3rd, 2003, 05:31 PM
Mediterraneans of various types have produced a disproportionate amount of world civilization. Currently, Italy and Spain have the 4th and 5th largest economies in Europe. What have Balts accomplished in the last 5000 years? Answer: nothing.

Most of Italy's economic strength is in the north - which is predominantly Haplogroup 1. Spain also has high levels of Haplogroup 1. Therefore neither region is genetically similar to southern Italy or Greece.

Tore
Tuesday, November 4th, 2003, 04:33 AM
Actually, on the Y-chromosome, both Ireland and Wales are predominantly Haplogroup 1 (or R1b) while areas such as southern Italy and Greece have lower levels of Haplogroup 1 and much higher levels of Haplogroup 9 and 21.

Yes.

And Hg 1 has a sub-clade which is highly likely to be Atlanto-Mediterranean in origin which is at high frequency among the Irish and Welsh.

Moreover, Western Britain and Ireland has a high frequency of Haplogroup.


Of course, the UP population is still larger than the Atlanto-Mediterranean population within the British Isles.

Vetinari
Tuesday, November 4th, 2003, 04:38 PM
And Hg 1 has a sub-clade which is highly likely to be Atlanto-Mediterranean in origin which is at high frequency among the Irish and Welsh.

But what is the source of your belief that Atlanto-Mediterraneans are connected to a particular sub-clade of Haplogroup 1?