PDA

View Full Version : White Nationalism is Racial Egalitarianism



cosmocreator
Wednesday, November 10th, 2004, 04:26 AM
To mix all "whites" together as if they are all equal is racial egalitarianism. Need I say more?

cosmocreator
Thursday, November 11th, 2004, 02:27 AM
If Neanderthal still existed (or Homo erectus), they'd probably be made full citizens of European countries. And Europeans would be reproducing with them 'cause their culture is so cool.

Neanderthal looked more human than Negroes or Mongoloids do.

SouthernBoy
Thursday, November 11th, 2004, 11:27 PM
White Nationalism is much better than the system we have going for us today. I am sure it is more politically inclined, particularly to encompass a majority in it agenda. I am sure that Nordish people are no longer above the 50% mark in the United States, which is why W.N. is aimed at all people who are Caucasoid. It makes the mistake of saying that a Nordic and an Italian should marry because they but little interest into preserving subraces.

Johnny Reb
Thursday, November 11th, 2004, 11:45 PM
To mix all "whites" together as if they are all equal is racial egalitarianism. Need I say more?

Are you talking IQ equality, aesthetics equality, cultural equality? I think IQ and culture are stratified in all the major subtypes, with no major type dominating. Aesthetics is subjective.

cosmocreator
Friday, November 12th, 2004, 05:38 AM
White Nationalism is much better than the system we have going for us today. I am sure it is more politically inclined, particularly to encompass a majority in it agenda. I am sure that Nordish people are no longer above the 50% mark in the United States, which is why W.N. is aimed at all people who are Caucasoid. It makes the mistake of saying that a Nordic and an Italian should marry because they but little interest into preserving subraces.

Not really. No one can tell me what is meant by "white." For some it may be Anglo-Saxons only. For others, it may include Arabs, Iranians and even some East Indians. In the later case, Nordids lose.


Are you talking IQ equality, aesthetics equality, cultural equality? I think IQ and culture are stratified in all the major subtypes, with no major type dominating. Aesthetics is subjective.

I'm saying there is no such thing as equality.

Johnny Reb
Friday, November 12th, 2004, 06:03 AM
I'm saying there is no such thing as equality.

Then how would you propose to categorize them? I'm just saying that the European race has intellectual classes which cross subracial lines.

cosmocreator
Friday, November 12th, 2004, 06:51 AM
Then how would you propose to categorize them?

Purely racially.

Loki
Friday, November 12th, 2004, 06:55 AM
Then how would you propose to categorize them? I'm just saying that the European race has intellectual classes which cross subracial lines.
Intellectual qualities can be found in all races. You can't put up intellect as a classification. Race is more important. Two seemingly "dumb" Nordic people can have a genius son. But two Congolese can never have a Nordic child.

Johnny Reb
Friday, November 12th, 2004, 04:33 PM
What about aesthetic qualities, such as symmetry? Even amongst Nordics there isn't entirely looks-parity.

Loki
Friday, November 12th, 2004, 06:42 PM
What about aesthetic qualities, such as symmetry?
What about it? You tell us.

Johnny Reb
Friday, November 12th, 2004, 07:31 PM
Ok, basically what I'm trying to get at, is that there isn't equality amongst subraces any more than there is between them. To use the nordid type as an example (though this can apply to any of them), there are smart and stupid Nordic people, pretty and ugly ones, nice and mean ones, and so on. They may appeal to people because of their phenotype, but if the movement doesn't discriminate on the basis of intelligence and looks, then it's just as egalitarian as WN, only with a narrower focus.

Loki
Friday, November 12th, 2004, 10:54 PM
Ok, basically what I'm trying to get at, is that there isn't equality amongst subraces any more than there is between them. To use the nordid type as an example (though this can apply to any of them), there are smart and stupid Nordic people, pretty and ugly ones, nice and mean ones, and so on. They may appeal to people because of their phenotype, but if the movement doesn't discriminate on the basis of intelligence and looks, then it's just as egalitarian as WN, only with a narrower focus.
No I think you're confused. You'll find the "Bell Curve" in any given population, even Nordics. So, basically you're saying one may not discriminate on a racial basis, if all people in one given race (or subrace) are not equally intelligent. Well, that is just plain stupidity on your part.

If you're not a racialist and a Nordicist, you don't have any place on The Northern European forum. Let us know please.

Johnny Reb
Saturday, November 13th, 2004, 12:14 AM
You'll find the "Bell Curve" in any given population, even Nordics.

That has been one of my points all along. Congratulations.


So, basically you're saying one may not discriminate on a racial basis, if all people in one given race (or subrace) are not equally intelligent.

I'm just saying that it's inconsistant to acknowledge differences between different races, and further, different subraces, but then to assume that every member of a given subrace (in this case the Nordic one) is created equal.

What exactly is wrong with my suggestion that in addition to selecting members of this proposed master race for their phenotypes, we also select them for their brains? :confused:



Well, that is just plain stupidity on your part.

If you're not a racialist and a Nordicist, you don't have any place on The Northern European forum. Let us know please.

Why have you become so rude and antagonistic towards me? Because I sometimes question the status quo here? Cosmo made an obtuse statement, and I'm just trying to get some clarification. Intelligent and civil debate is just one way we learn and grow. If you get this bent out of shape over a little scrutiny, then your movement is really going nowhere.

For the record, I believe that the Nordish (nobody has yet to come up with a satisfactory defenition of the term) phenotype/genotype is special, and needs to be preserved. I think the same about every European sub-type and culture. I just think it's ignorant to say that every single Nordic is better than every single Med/Alpine/whatever in every single regard, no matter what. I'm sorry that I'm not militant enough for your liking. :frown:

Loki
Saturday, November 13th, 2004, 07:57 AM
I'm just saying that it's inconsistant to acknowledge differences between different races, and further, different subraces, but then to assume that every member of a given subrace (in this case the Nordic one) is created equal.
No-one denied individual differences in intelligence, creativity, etc. That will always exist everywhere. We are not a bunch of robotic clones who are all the same. But race is what is important, not classicism.


What exactly is wrong with my suggestion that in addition to selecting members of this proposed master race for their phenotypes, we also select them for their brains? :confused:
Everything is wrong with that. If you want to be an intellectual snob, then go ahead. But that is something totally different from racial preservation.


Why have you become so rude and antagonistic towards me? Because I sometimes question the status quo here? Cosmo made an obtuse statement, and I'm just trying to get some clarification. Intelligent and civil debate is just one way we learn and grow. If you get this bent out of shape over a little scrutiny, then your movement is really going nowhere.
cosmo's statement was not obtuse at all. You are "scrutinizing" racial preservation here, and trying to compare it with intellectual elitism. This forum is about Nordish racial and cultural preservation, that much should be clear. There are plenty of other places to scrutinize concepts, etc. But The Northern European forum's membership assumption is for people who are already beyond this. You yourself have been exposed to these ideas for years now, yet you still question its validity. TNP is not the place to question this for you. We have progressed further already.


For the record, I believe that the Nordish (nobody has yet to come up with a satisfactory defenition of the term) phenotype/genotype is special, and needs to be preserved. I think the same about every European sub-type and culture. I just think it's ignorant to say that every single Nordic is better than every single Med/Alpine/whatever in every single regard, no matter what. I'm sorry that I'm not militant enough for your liking. :frown:
That is not good enough for me, sorry. You fail to understand.

Johnny Reb
Saturday, November 13th, 2004, 06:30 PM
Everything is wrong with that. If you want to be an intellectual snob, then go ahead. But that is something totally different from racial preservation.

Racial snobbery.



cosmo's statement was not obtuse at all. You are "scrutinizing" racial preservation here, and trying to compare it with intellectual elitism.

I'm trying to combine the two.


TNP is not the place to question this for you. We have progressed further already.

Would you like to continue this elsewhere then?



That is not good enough for me, sorry. You fail to understand.

Can you explain what you objected to in 50 words or less? :biggrin:

Loki
Saturday, November 13th, 2004, 06:58 PM
Racial snobbery.
You can't compare the two. Racial preservation is not snobbery.


I'm trying to combine the two.
Who in society is going to do the jobs of sweeping the streets and cleaning the toilets then?


Would you like to continue this elsewhere then?
No. I have no desire to debate with you.


Can you explain what you objected to in 50 words or less? :biggrin:
Your idiocy.

Glenlivet
Saturday, November 13th, 2004, 07:48 PM
Symmetry can exist in all races, but the "progressive" (The main Nordid types Göta and Trönder, and the predominantly Nordid types: North-Atlantid and Keltic Nordic) Nordids have a high number of symmetric, oval (maybe also squarish for men) faces, in combination with more or less blondism, which is the ideal in West, slightly darker for men and fairer for women.

Are you thinking of the golden ratio?

http://www.beautyanalysis.com/

It's not just about symmetry though, morphology and pigmentation differ.

"Interestingly, Audrey Hepburn's face has very similar structural features to Berry's. Toriumi cites the graceful Hepburn's angular facial bone structure, full, well positioned eyebrows and captivating eyes as reasons why the AAFPRS chose her to represent enduring loveliness. In comparing the facial proportions of Halle Berry and Audrey Hepburn, Toriumi finds that both have "striking eyes, full lips, and a long columnar neck." However, despite these similarities, he feels that the overall perception of facial beauty today has changed to some degree from years past. "Today, beauty transcends race and color and is truly dependent on the harmonious relationship of facial features," states Toriumi."

"So, how does hunky George Clooney compare? Physically speaking, George Clooney was selected because he possesses a strong jaw, deep brown eyes, an "ever-perfect" olive complexion, and a strong and straight masculine nose, says Toriumi."

http://www.beautyworlds.com/beautyfacesofbeauty.htm

Who decide that today beauty trascends race and colour? Why did that person call Clooney's olive complexion "ever-perfect" and mentioned his deep brown eyes as a positive trait? That is the question you need to ask.



What about aesthetic qualities, such as symmetry? Even amongst Nordics there isn't entirely looks-parity.