PDA

View Full Version : Is There A Nordish Subrace?



+Suomut+
Sunday, February 1st, 2004, 03:09 AM
I was thinking about an excuse to be the first person to post to this new "section", so I decided to ask the question: Does there exist a "Nordish Subrace?" Yes or No?

HAIL "Nordica!" ;)

Nordhammer
Sunday, February 1st, 2004, 06:14 AM
Sub-racially, politically, and ideally, yes. A lot of people support the idea without being conscious of it or putting it into so many words. Those who reject Arabs, Jews, and often regard darker Southern Europeans as "not white" are closet supporters. ;)

The images of the white men and women of the American nationalist movements are usually of lighter Nordics, Alpines or UPs... when's the last time you saw them use a darkskinned, hooknosed Med?

Tore
Monday, February 2nd, 2004, 05:23 AM
Applying McCulloch's taxonomy, the "Nordish" sub-race is non-existent.

Glenlivet
Thursday, February 5th, 2004, 02:53 PM
I believe that Thorburn made some wise comments about the Nordish concept. Few people reach the ideal characteristics of a type found in Northern Europe, yet they are still unmistakably of Northern European origin.

Even before I began reading anthropological works I associated a "European look" with something similar to Nordish. As I have always maintained, Nordish is a useful concept in the sense that one can divide these Europids with types whom have features and/or a pigmentation which is not unique for Europe, but is also found in Northern Africa and the Near East.

We could, for the sake of convenience and preservation, create a Nordish sub-race and make types and sub-types under it.

Nordhammer does not need to worry how poeople perceive Americans.
Most of the people in Southern America, Middle East, Asia and even Swedes, one of the most Nordid people on earth, have a picture of a lanky Nordid man when the word American (also Canadian or Australian) comes up.

The concept have room for improvement. I want more emphasis on the Nordid types.

morfrain_encilgar
Thursday, February 5th, 2004, 04:43 PM
Even before I began reading anthropological works I associated a "European look" with something similar to Nordish.

Linneus defined the Caucasoid racial type according to himself, which means that Nordics are officially the standard of Caucasoids.

Nordhammer
Thursday, February 5th, 2004, 05:47 PM
Even before I began reading anthropological works I associated a "European look" with something similar to Nordish. As I have always maintained, Nordish is a useful concept in the sense that one can divide these Europids with types whom have features and/or a pigmentation which is not unique for Europe, but is also found in Northern Africa and the Near East.

It's about phenotype and ancestry. Preserving the indigenous Northern Europeans. Pretty easy to understand, but problematic for some. Having some traits in common is not the same. A blue-eyed Jew, hapa or quadroon is not Nordish.




Nordhammer does not need to worry how poeople perceive Americans.
Most of the people in Southern America, Middle East, Asia and even Swedes, one of the most Nordid people on earth, have a picture of a lanky Nordid man when the word American (also Canadian or Australian) comes up.

The concept have room for improvement. I want more emphasis on the Nordid types.

Yes, thank you, I was incredibly worried before you said something. It is a burden off of my back. I'm sure South America, the Middle East, Asia and Sweden appreciate you being their spokesman.

Anyone is free to make up their own model of racial preservation, I await your website and books detailing the matter.

Agrippa
Thursday, February 5th, 2004, 06:49 PM
I voted with "NO" although I sometimes use this term by myself.

I will explain it shortly: Subrace would mean a group of humans, a population with their own features in a specific combination and genetic characteristica.

If I compare f.e. North Alpines (Borreby)-lighter Alpines (of the Western or Eastern branch and darker Alpines I think they have more in common than with the same category on the other hand Bruenn-(Skando-)Nordid-North Atlantid-Atlantid.

So a "Nordish" concept would lump groups together which are partially or fully depigmented and live today in mostly in certain regions but which have other features and characteristica+genetic background which divide them.

So Nordish to me means just "common or indiginous (in the wider sence) to the Northern parts of Europe and of lighter pigmentation".

But for the rest I think there are just the various subtypes of the Europid race and the European subtypes of the Europids which form a bigger population on its own - the Europeans.

Nordhammer
Thursday, February 5th, 2004, 11:56 PM
If I compare f.e. North Alpines (Borreby)-lighter Alpines (of the Western or Eastern branch and darker Alpines I think they have more in common than with the same category on the other hand Bruenn-(Skando-)Nordid-North Atlantid-Atlantid.


You refer to Borrebys as North Alpines, do you also refer to Nordics or Nordids as North Mediterraneans?

Glenlivet
Friday, February 6th, 2004, 02:11 AM
It's about phenotype and ancestry. Preserving the indigenous Northern Europeans. Pretty easy to understand, but problematic for some. Having some traits in common is not the same. A blue-eyed Jew, hapa or quadroon is not Nordish.

I agree, but what do you e.g. think of the phenotype of Jerry Springer and Michael Douglas?


Yes, thank you, I was incredibly worried before you said something. It is a burden off of my back. I'm sure South America, the Middle East, Asia and Sweden appreciate you being their spokesman.

Anyone is free to make up their own model of racial preservation, I await your website and books detailing the matter.

There is no need to be ironic about it. I was just trying to be supportive, and saying that you do not need to worry about it was a way of speaking. I am not their spokesman. I can only talk from my own experience by talking to people from those regions. Yes, again, I think that Americans are mainly associated with the Nordid types. It is just an opinion, among others.

Yes, the Nordish system is good and detailed. Now I do not have the need nor the time to make another system.

Agrippa
Friday, February 6th, 2004, 02:25 AM
You refer to Borrebys as North Alpines, do you also refer to Nordics or Nordids as North Mediterraneans?

North Mediterranean are to me the Atlantid and Pontid types of Europe.

What the Nordid race is, well thats a difficult question. But I tend to say its both, partly of UP descent (Bruenn and gracialized Bruenn variants) and North Mediterraneans which mixed with them or depigmented partly or fully over time.

But because of the morphology I would tend to say a North Mediterranean is although not "Nordish" (because not really a major indiginous component of Northern Europe) is nearer to the Nordid type than the Borreby and even more than the Alpines in general.

But no matter what the origins of the Nordid type were in majority, whether just UP or more Mediterranoid variants, I dont consider the Nordid type as North Mediterranid.
North Mediterranid as I said above are to me just the variants between classical Mediterranids (Gracilmediterranids) and Nordids. Again no matter whether they are the result of intermixture or a contact subrace.

I think the Nordish concept can only be relevant for Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Island primarily) for the rest of Europe a European concept including all indigenous groups of Europe which lived there since minimum 5000, probably more than 10.000 years is more useful.

Triglav
Friday, February 6th, 2004, 03:01 AM
I think the Nordish concept can only be relevant for Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Island primarily)

Well, there are still the aboriginal Atlantid and Tydalid clusters. The concept is too narrow to encompass entire indigenous European populations (including the aforementioned), but it can be (successfully) applied in the countries of the New World like America and Australia. The solution for Europe would be what you postulate further on:


for the rest of Europe a European concept including all indigenous groups of Europe which lived there since minimum 5000, probably more than 10.000 years is more useful.

.. which is what I've always maintained. An artificial conception can not supplant the racial reality, characterstics and continuum of a geographical entity.

Glenlivet
Friday, February 6th, 2004, 03:03 AM
Nah, I disagree. That sounds too Pan-European political and loosely defined too.

Regarding North-Atlantids, they look quite Nordid (especially their body type facial features and long, straight to convex, and very narrow nose) in my eyes. I think that there is a myth about swarthy people in the British Isles. They are as uncommon there as elsewhere in Europe, perhaps except for Sweden.



:

.. which is what I've always maintained. An artificial conception can not supplant the racial reality, characterstics and continuum of a geographical entity.

Triglav
Friday, February 6th, 2004, 03:06 AM
Nah, I disagree. That sounds too Pan-European political and loosely defined too.

Preserving the original population of a country sounds too Pan-European to you? I'm talking about just that and not creating one European melting pot.

Glenlivet
Friday, February 6th, 2004, 03:11 AM
That is of course the opposite of Pan-Europeanism. That is not bad, but a bit unrealistic in modern Europe. Europe can be divided into racial zones and it depends if the individual negate any features. It is a matter of taste what features are liked the best or least.

The people of Balkans or Iberia can find their own concept. I guess that Nordish is useful for those whom are partly or predominantly of Northern European descent.



Preserving the original population of a country sounds too Pan-European to you? I'm talking about just that and not creating one European melting pot.

Triglav
Friday, February 6th, 2004, 03:54 AM
That is of course the opposite of Pan-Europeanism. That is not bad, but a bit unrealistic in modern Europe.

Unfortunately true, but how is your proposition more realistic?


The people of Balkans or Iberia can find their own concept. I guess that Nordish is useful for those whom are partly or predominantly of Northern European descent.

The main issue with this is the exclusion of indigenous types who are exactly as entitled to call themselves citizens of a certain country as their "Nordish" compatriots (even more so when you extend this concept to entire NW Europe). Nordish is an artificial concept, but preserving the local populations isn't (even if these concepts chance to be congruous). How can one enforce and carry out the plan of Nordishness in Europe when that would mean that individuals who are indigenous would be singled out (to a small or large extend). No sane and self-aware person of sound mind would exclude his native fellow countryman because of his "Atlantidness" or "Mediterraneanness". "Nordish" can also achieve the total opposite of what it was intended for (preserving the existing nations). It can create a Nordish melting pot. America already is one and carrying through the concept can only improve the racial situation there.


Europe can be divided into racial zones and it depends if the individual negate any features. It is a matter of taste what features are liked the best or least.

I hear what you're saying. A somewhat ideal immigration policy would be an inclusion of already existent types into specific countries, but only on an individual and not mass migration level. I must add that generalised Balkan and even most Croatian Dinarics look nothing like the local Dinarics, let alone the fact that the proportions of them are different, which you have already addressed. A Spanish Alpine is not the same as one from Germany nor Slovenia. Neither does a Nordish Noric individual from e.g. Croatia resemble a Slovenian Noric (I'm mentioning these because I have specific individuals in mind), and I could tell the former from a mile, which applies to entire Europe. Sub-races are subject to perception in this case.

Nordhammer
Friday, February 6th, 2004, 09:04 AM
North Mediterranean are to me the Atlantid and Pontid types of Europe.

What the Nordid race is, well thats a difficult question. But I tend to say its both, partly of UP descent (Bruenn and gracialized Bruenn variants) and North Mediterraneans which mixed with them or depigmented partly or fully over time.

But because of the morphology I would tend to say a North Mediterranean is although not "Nordish" (because not really a major indiginous component of Northern Europe) is nearer to the Nordid type than the Borreby and even more than the Alpines in general.

But no matter what the origins of the Nordid type were in majority, whether just UP or more Mediterranoid variants, I dont consider the Nordid type as North Mediterranid.
North Mediterranid as I said above are to me just the variants between classical Mediterranids (Gracilmediterranids) and Nordids. Again no matter whether they are the result of intermixture or a contact subrace.

I think the Nordish concept can only be relevant for Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Island primarily) for the rest of Europe a European concept including all indigenous groups of Europe which lived there since minimum 5000, probably more than 10.000 years is more useful.

Yeah, I am just curious why you refer to the Borreby type as a North Alpine, when:

1. Borrebys predate Alpines (so in reference it should be appropriately South Borreby if such a thing could be said)

2. Borrebys are not identical to Alpines with just lighter pigmentation, but as Coon defines the type, it is also larger in body and headsize (something he said may be even more indicative of racial descent than form)

3. It would make just as much sense to say Nordics or Nordids are Northern Meds, as they seem to be closely related to Meds in form and size (not counting the hybrid UP-Nordics)

Nordhammer
Friday, February 6th, 2004, 09:18 AM
Unfortunately true, but how is your proposition more realistic?



The main issue with this is the exclusion of indigenous types who are exactly as entitled to call themselves citizens of a certain country as their "Nordish" compatriots (even more so when you extend this concept to entire NW Europe). Nordish is an artificial concept, but preserving the local populations isn't (even if these concepts chance to be congruous). How can one enforce and carry out the plan of Nordishness in Europe when that would mean that individuals who are indigenous would be singled out (to a small or large extend). No sane and self-aware person of sound mind would exclude his native fellow countryman because of his "Atlantidness" or "Mediterraneanness". "Nordish" can also achieve the total opposite of what it was intended for (preserving the existing nations). It can create a Nordish melting pot. America already is one and carrying through the concept can only improve the racial situation there.

You say it's artificial, but what concept is not? Nothing is god-given. If you're saying it's irrational and has no basis in reality, that is different.

Nordish is useful for nations founded by Nords and mostly of Nordish stock. That is the purpose of course, to preserve the indigenous race of the nation. It would be ridiculous to impose Nordish on say Spain or Greece, as they are Mediterranean countries. No one is saying Nordish is to be applied to all of Europe, when all of Europe is not predominantly Nordish. Also, Nordish does not require the deportation of Alpines and Meds within a Nordish nation, especially concerning peripheral types which probably make up the majority of them. However I would say that distinct Mediterranean types in the broad sense, mainly Asiatics (Jews, Arabs, Armenians, Turks, Indians, etc) would probably be urged out. At least this is what I prefer. From then on Northern European immigration would be preferred.

goidelicwarrior
Friday, February 6th, 2004, 10:48 AM
You say it's artificial, but what concept is not? Nothing is god-given. If you're saying it's irrational and has no basis in reality, that is different.

Nordish is useful for nations founded by Nords and mostly of Nordish stock. That is the purpose of course, to preserve the indigenous race of the nation. It would be ridiculous to impose Nordish on say Spain or Greece, as they are Mediterranean countries. No one is saying Nordish is to be applied to all of Europe, when all of Europe is not predominantly Nordish. Also, Nordish does not require the deportation of Alpines and Meds within a Nordish nation, especially concerning peripheral types which probably make up the majority of them. However I would say that distinct Mediterranean types in the broad sense, mainly Asiatics (Jews, Arabs, Armenians, Turks, Indians, etc) would probably be urged out. At least this is what I prefer. From then on Northern European immigration would be preferred.
Sounds logical.. but the meztizos are around 35 milj, The Blacks around 30 milj, The Jews 3 Milj, Mongrels.? no idea 5 milj ? arabs and middle easterners, Indians 5 milj ? asians 5 milj ? how would you make all those leave ? it looks like we are fighting a loosing battle... and its not becoming more hopefull with petty infighting amongst Europeans.. maybe we should make sure that our existance is secured and thereafter didvide into subgroupings...

Nordhammer
Friday, February 6th, 2004, 01:06 PM
Sounds logical.. but the meztizos are around 35 milj, The Blacks around 30 milj, The Jews 3 Milj, Mongrels.? no idea 5 milj ? arabs and middle easterners, Indians 5 milj ? asians 5 milj ? how would you make all those leave ? it looks like we are fighting a loosing battle... and its not becoming more hopefull with petty infighting amongst Europeans.. maybe we should make sure that our existance is secured and thereafter didvide into subgroupings...

I am for Pan-Europeanism politically, no question. But such racial unity even within nations is no where near being reached. There is no easy answer to any of these questions.

The sub-group division is already there, but people refer to it as ethnicity.

Louky
Friday, February 6th, 2004, 01:52 PM
I voted yes, for the reasons already expressed in this thread.

Maybe it's better to think in terms of populations instead of individuals in a preservation strategy. The test for inclusion in the strategy should therefore be this: if all other Nordish types became extinct, what would be preserved by the continuing existence of one subdivision? Certainly each population subdivision contains individuals who more fully approach the strategy's ideal, for the Nordish concept it's more so in the Central Nordish group than in the Periferal, but each division should be able to stand alone if need be.

The Nordish concept is good not only as a preservation tool, but it also keeps the "Who is White" debate rooted in Europe and is a counterbalance to pan-Aryanism.

Triglav
Friday, February 6th, 2004, 09:33 PM
You say it's artificial, but what concept is not? Nothing is god-given. If you're saying it's irrational and has no basis in reality, that is different.

I'm not even saying that it's irrational, but it has little basis in reality insofar as it will not be accepted by anyone except anthropology buffs.

It seems to be stuck somewhere halfway between physical and social anthropology. Volksdeutscher said that Atlantid types resemble Nordids in many respects, but the "Nordish concept" doesn't seem to include them (just like Alpines, Tydals, Dinarics and whatnot). The concept of preserving the indigenous population, on the other hand, does just that.

"Nordish" is a concept that is simply uncalled-for in Europe. Many people would like to see the indigenous population preserved and many are ready to support it. It has been always present, although the fact of the matter is that it's suppressed in this day and age. Thus, a concept made up by lay anthropologists may even seem disturbing, repulsive, heavy-handed and reminiscent of a totalitarian policy.

I gather that Messrs. Agrippa and Nordgau (correct me if I'm wrong) (http://www.skadi.us/forum/showpost.php?p=76558&postcount=53) addressed the same issue.


Nordish is useful for nations founded by Nords and mostly of Nordish stock. That is the purpose of course, to preserve the indigenous race of the nation.

Correct, mostly of Nordish stock, but not exclusively. Yes, preserving the indigenous race of a nation is what I have promoted and advocated (I do believe, though, that your initial position in America is different).


It would be ridiculous to impose Nordish on say Spain or Greece, as they are Mediterranean countries.

Of course not. That hasn't been under discussion.


No one is saying Nordish is to be applied to all of Europe, when all of Europe is not predominantly Nordish. Also, Nordish does not require the deportation of Alpines and Meds within a Nordish nation, especially concerning peripheral types which probably make up the majority of them.

Which makes us arrive at the "concept" of preserving the indigenous population, i.e. Nordish plus the rest of the indigenous population (= the entire indigenous population).


However I would say that distinct Mediterranean types in the broad sense, mainly Asiatics (Jews, Arabs, Armenians, Turks, Indians, etc) would probably be urged out.

Exactly, since they are not an indigenous element. Their effect would indelibly alter the local racial make-ups, whereas the indigenous "non-Nordish" populations of predominantly Nordish nations which you mentioned are inextricably mixed with "non-Nordish" elements, which also crop up within Nordish families. An ofshoot can easily be of a root ancestral type.


At least this is what I prefer. From then on Northern European immigration would be preferred.

Yes, if you are talking about America (or Northern Europe for that matter). ;)

Nordhammer
Saturday, February 7th, 2004, 09:12 AM
I'm not even saying that it's irrational, but it has little basis in reality insofar as it will not be accepted by anyone except anthropology buffs.

It will not be accepted why, because it's too complicated? We have to go by black, Asian, and white, and that's it?



It seems to be stuck somewhere halfway between physical and social anthropology. Volksdeutscher said that Atlantid types resemble Nordids in many respects, but the "Nordish concept" doesn't seem to include them (just like Alpines, Tydals, Dinarics and whatnot). The concept of preserving the indigenous population, on the other hand, does just that.

"Resemblance" in what manner though? All humans resemble each other and are genetically almost identical.

Atlantids are included in Nordish, maybe you haven't even taken the time to understand the outline?

Why should Northern Europe include Dinarics? They are a sister race of Armenoids. However, hybrid Nord-Dinarics are included.

"Alpine" is a very broad category, stretching from Northwest Europe to Asia. I suppose you are only including European Alpines, and thus we come to another point as well. It's not just about "similarity in phenotype", however broad we may deem that to be, but also common ancestry.



"Nordish" is a concept that is simply uncalled-for in Europe. Many people would like to see the indigenous population preserved and many are ready to support it. It has been always present, although the fact of the matter is that it's suppressed in this day and age. Thus, a concept made up by lay anthropologists may even seem disturbing, repulsive, heavy-handed and reminiscent of a totalitarian policy.

Uncalled for why? I don't see any of the other Europeans here who care about race having a negative reaction to it?

Whether a nation thinks it's "called for" to care about race, or specific racial attributes or types is its own decision. I think Northern racial types and their pigmentation are in decline, not just in America but worldwide. The nonwhite hordes are racial death without a doubt, but Nords shouldn't dilute themselves in the process either. There is no negative. How are more blonds and redheads a bad thing?



Correct, mostly of Nordish stock, but not exclusively. Yes, preserving the indigenous race of a nation is what I have promoted and advocated (I do believe, though, that your initial position in America is different).

Almost exclusively with the founding American stock. America wasn't called the greatest Nordic reservoire in the world by Coon for no reason.

If you promote the preservation of racial types, then we don't have a problem.





Which makes us arrive at the "concept" of preserving the indigenous population, i.e. Nordish plus the rest of the indigenous population (= the entire indigenous population).

Are you having hysterical thoughts like a Nordish gestapo will come and take all the darkhaired people to gas chambers? :D

Nordhammer
Saturday, February 7th, 2004, 09:30 AM
The Nordish concept is good not only as a preservation tool, but it also keeps the "Who is White" debate rooted in Europe and is a counterbalance to pan-Aryanism.

Very good point, Louky, and I have always believed the same. It is a counter-balance to all-inclusive, semi-white, "let's all mix it up" Pan-Aryanism that even reaches to India and Mongoloids of Northern Asia. People have a tendency to fail and to fall much lower than the standard, so we must compensate with that. I've seen too many pretty Nordish girls get with these so-called "whites" of Southern European descent who look like mestizos or Arabs. It's disgusting. A so-called proud Irish lass, fair-skinned and pretty as a picture, had pro-Irish all over her profile and yet she doesn't seem to care about getting an Irish or even Nordish guy at all. Doesn't make any sense. If you're so proud of your ancestry then why do you want to mate with someone who looks nothing like you and has nothing in common with you? Also Nordish males who get with hapas, or in some cases even full-blown Mongoloids and call them white. It's ridiculous.

Agrippa
Saturday, February 7th, 2004, 06:23 PM
Yeah, I am just curious why you refer to the Borreby type as a North Alpine, when:

1. Borrebys predate Alpines (so in reference it should be appropriately South Borreby if such a thing could be said)

2. Borrebys are not identical to Alpines with just lighter pigmentation, but as Coon defines the type, it is also larger in body and headsize (something he said may be even more indicative of racial descent than form)

3. It would make just as much sense to say Nordics or Nordids are Northern Meds, as they seem to be closely related to Meds in form and size (not counting the hybrid UP-Nordics)

Well, good questions and I was thinking about that too.

But why I still tend to say North Alpine:

1. Alpines are the main body of the brachymorph-brachycephalic group in Europe and they are clearly defined so I would say Alpine is the term above which includes a) Westalpines; b) North Alpines; c) East Alpines.

2. My idea is that especially facial features are more consistent and survive more changes than seize or pigmentation. The broad faced and nosed etc. variant seems to me something consistent over the time than just size and pigmentation.

I often saw bigger Alpines (probably due better nutrition in resent years) in central Europe which are almost identical to what many call Borreby.
I think that there is really no clear border especially in Northern Europe between "Alpines" and "Borreby" sometimes.

3. You are right, maybe its right to speak about Nordids as "depigmented Mediterranids" but thats something which can only genetical studies clearly determine in both cases, the Borreby and the Bruenn/Nordid variant.

Awar
Saturday, February 7th, 2004, 09:08 PM
Nordish is a geo-political construct, it's not an accurate anthropological definition.
Why create a confusion with inventing a 'nordish subracial cathegory'. Britain will as always be a problematic point for any false anthropologic attempt to invent a new subrace.

There probably are some Brits who have Mediterranean DNA brought to the isles thanks to Romans. To me, they're Nordish, because they fully belong to where they are. They live there for longer than Tronder and Anglo-Saxon types, they may not be a relative subtype to neighbouring Nords, but that's a problem I'd leave to sub-racial preservationists and individual choice among Nordish people.

So, to make it clear: All indigenous populations of Britain, Scandinavia and Germany ( and accompanying countries ) can consider themselves Nordish, in a political, historical and cultural way. No need to stretch reality and falsify anthropology.

There are also Slavs, who have a wide variety of phenotypes, just as Nordish do, but they are connected by common origin and language, and I hope also a political unity.

Of course, there are also the Romance people and greeks who you consider to be 'Meds' ( and Nordhammer ridiculously mentions some non-existent 'hook-nosed meds' which is a mistake ) although there are probably no more than 50% of pure 'Meds' in Mediterranean countries.

We've all witnessed a lot of Russian and other slavic members become pissed off because they aren't accepted in the Nordish club, and it's the fault of both 'groups'.

The way I see it, the 'Nordish club' is a place only for Celtic and Germanic peoples, in which Slavs, no matter how Nordic ( or whatever ) they are, have no purpose to be members.

The mistake of the Nordish is they bring anthropology into the discussion, when there is no place for anthropology. Nordish must be just for Celto-Germanic people, and that's it, stop lying to the poor non-Celto-Germans.

The mistake of the non-Celto-Germans is that they are ready to sell their ass to be called 'members of the Nordish club', but their culture, political situation, origin, history, everything ( except anthropology ) points to another direction. This goes primarily to the Slavs, because they have the most numerous Nordic population.

The most Nordic among halstatt Nordics who is a Serb or Russian, or Italian or Spanish IS NOT NORDISH, and that's it, they belong together with their own group.

For example: I've already proven that I can pass as being Nordish, but that doesn't mean that I'm Nordish, it doesn't mean that I'm going to move to a Nordish country and marry a Nordish woman, it only means that I can pass as Nordish. If I decide to preserve my phenotype, I will marry a woman of mine, or similar ethnic background.

So, don't mix anthropology into the discussion about the Nordish concept, because if you do, you'll have to fit in lies and falsifications, and that ain't good in any way.

If you bring anthropology into the Nordish concept mix, you'll have to accept everyone who displays the phenotype and genotype regarded as 'Nordish', and that means millions of Nordid Russians, Spaniards, Frenchmen, Balkanoids, Turks, Iranians, Afghans etc. also, if anthropologically the Welsh are 'Nordish', you'll have to accept Basques, Italians, Balkanoids, Caucasians... and the list never ends.

So, please keep 'Nordish' a geopolitical only term, because that's what it should be.

Agrippa
Saturday, February 7th, 2004, 09:28 PM
I think Awar you forgot about the idea of who can be assimilated and who is not integrable without changing the basic character of the indigenous population.

A "Nordish" Slav who is an immigrant in Northern Europe would be not out of place as soon as he accept the language and culture.

But somebody who is biologically no "Nordish" individual can never be fully integrated.

And the concept of being European cannot be overstretched too because the European types are distinguishable from non-European types.
There are just some "border-cases" but overall the border is clear.

Awar
Sunday, February 8th, 2004, 02:09 AM
Nordish peoples aren't quite anthropologically 'assimilable' amongst themselves.

You can't preserve any racial characteristic, if you mix Brittish meds with Scandinavian Nords.

Russians are probably the country with most Nordic people anywhere, I think that these Nordics have a right to preserve their phenotype, but to denigrate and call brown-haired Russians non-Slavs and non-Russians is pure madness.

Russians are Russians, and those who would seel their ass for a 'nordish' pass are pathetic.

You won't see a Nordic German denigrate a Dinaric Austrian to feel better about himself, they both know who and what they are, and they both are Germanic members of the Nordish club, Slavs and others are not, neither should they be.

Whenever I see a Nordic Russian denigrate a Pontid Ukrainian, or Dinaric Serbian, or whatever, I feel sick, because they do it just to ass-kiss the Germans. What makes it even more pathetic is that this phenomenon is present only on the internet.

There should be absolutely NO immigrants in any countries. No Nordic Slavs in Scandinavia, nothing. A Slav should never be assimilated anywhere, and the best way he can do it is in his own country.

I'm speaking only of Europe, I don't care what happens in the USA because it's built by immigrants, and I view it as fair game for anyone who gets there.

On the matter of immigration and foreigners, I absolutely support giving political asylum ( only the real cases ), tourism, travel, scientific and technological exchange, trade etc.

I'd hate to see our women marrying Germanic men just as much as I'd hate seeing intermarrying with other races. There are plenty fine people in each group so that intermarrying doesn't need to exist. It always will to some level, but it shouldn't be encouraged.

I'd leave it to people themselves to choose the phenotype of their partners. If they care about preserving it, that's fine by me, if they don't, well, gosh darn it! :)
A couple of billboards saying: IF YOU WANT A BLUE EYED BABY, FIND A BLUE EYED PARTNER would do the trick well.

Agrippa
Sunday, February 8th, 2004, 02:45 AM
Maybe I'm too Paneuropean in some views...

People of European race are for me basically the same and integrable so or so...
I dont think that absolute isolation would be the right way for the Europeans to solve the problems we face today. Not absolute but relative and more towards non-Europeans.

Of course I say same race (European) is enough. If they are even of one of the finer types its something very nice but not important.

I dont think that inside of Europe neither panmixing nor absolute barriers should be the rule.

The most important thing to me is that the European substance will be preserved and there will be a progressive collectivistic and anti-liberal society on a high level.
The European nations should work together for this aims and everything else is secondary.
Because if we do not achieve this, we will be, our nations and races will be lost anyway.

Awar
Sunday, February 8th, 2004, 02:58 AM
I agree that Europeans should work together, becaue Europe is and always has been a great flow of ideas from east to west, south to north and vice versa.

I think that now we have reached the point where there is no need for military conquests within Europe, no need for anyone to assimilate anyone else ( except the non-european malignant influences like Islamists ). There should be a pan-European consciousness , but not a sense of supremacy, or supremacist views.
As always, supremacist views only attract weak-minded individuals.

Loki
Sunday, February 8th, 2004, 08:44 AM
Nordish is a geo-political construct, it's not an accurate anthropological definition.

I disagree. "Nordish" is so anthropological that one can tell it (even a child can discern it) by looks alone. Moreover, what is interesting is that even non-whites are very aware of the Nordish concept - even if they may not have heard a definition of it. For example - in South Africa, blacks regard people of Dutch and English derivation as racially different from people of Greek and Portuguese origin... food for thought AWAR.


Why create a confusion with inventing a 'nordish subracial cathegory'. Britain will as always be a problematic point for any false anthropologic attempt to invent a new subrace.

Britain is not problematic at all - it is one of the most Nordish areas in Europe, racially... I guess you have never been to Britain yourself.


There probably are some Brits who have Mediterranean DNA brought to the isles thanks to Romans.

You are missing the point completely. Nordishness is not about absolute purity - but rather about racial average.

Nordhammer
Sunday, February 8th, 2004, 07:32 PM
( and Nordhammer ridiculously mentions some non-existent 'hook-nosed meds' which is a mistake ) although there are probably no more than 50% of pure 'Meds' in Mediterranean countries.

No, your comment is the mistake.

Even Nordics can have nasal convexity, and so can Mediterraneans. Whether we deem any kind of convexity to mean someone is "impure" is a question.

Under Coon's scheme the very hook-nosed Irano-Afghan type is a Mediterranean.

I also use Med loosely, as I do Nord, being of a regional racial range and not necessarily being 100% pure in every micro-measurement.

Nordhammer
Sunday, February 8th, 2004, 07:41 PM
I disagree. "Nordish" is so anthropological that one can tell it (even a child can discern it) by looks alone. Moreover, what is interesting is that even non-whites are very aware of the Nordish concept - even if they may not have heard a definition of it. For example - in South Africa, blacks regard people of Dutch and English derivation as racially different from people of Greek and Portuguese origin... food for thought AWAR.

Yeah, if common street ngrs can identify a Nord from a Med, why can't AWAR and these other anti-Nordish Meds? :D

Seriously, you're right, Loki. Whenever you see the media or nonwhites putting down a "white boy", it's typically a person of Northern European descent. You never see them using swarthy Greeks as an example. And when they want to defile a "white girl", they don't get a swarthy Southern European... no, they get the fair blonde girl of Irish/English/German/Scandinavian descent.

People of Northern European descent are picked out and discriminated against more, and thus we require more recognition and protection. We need to assert ourselves.

Awar
Sunday, February 8th, 2004, 08:15 PM
No, your comment is the mistake.

Even Nordics can have nasal convexity, and so can Mediterraneans. Whether we deem any kind of convexity to mean someone is "impure" is a question.

There you go, you admitted your mistake. Both Mediterraneans and Nordics can have convex noses, but not hooked noses.


Under Coon's scheme the very hook-nosed Irano-Afghan type is a Mediterranean.

There are no indigenous Europeans who belong to the Irano-Afghan type, you'd have difficulty finding them anywhere, except with immigrants.


I also use Med loosely, as I do Nord, being of a regional racial range and not necessarily being 100% pure in every micro-measurement.

What you use is irrelevant. Anyone can loosely say that Georgia is in south America, but that'd be a mistake, right! :)

If it's important for Nords to preserve their phenotype, well, that's just what they will have to do. If a 'paleo-atlantid' mixes with a 'halstatt', you lose both phenotypes, and that's exactly OPPOSED to what Nordicists should do.

Awar
Sunday, February 8th, 2004, 08:22 PM
Yeah, if common street ngrs can identify a Nord from a Med, why can't AWAR and these other anti-Nordish Meds? :D

So, you have the same opinion as the common street ngrs, how appropriate.


Seriously, you're right, Loki. Whenever you see the media or nonwhites putting down a "white boy", it's typically a person of Northern European descent. You never see them using swarthy Greeks as an example. And when they want to defile a "white girl", they don't get a swarthy Southern European... no, they get the fair blonde girl of Irish/English/German/Scandinavian descent.

Maybe it's just your American 'thing' that has absolutely NOTHING to do with Europe, have you thought about it? USA=one thing, Europe=totally different.



People of Northern European descent are picked out and discriminated against more, and thus we require more recognition and protection. We need to assert ourselves.

Nobody is preventing you from asserting yourself, you can assert yourself all night long if you want to, no Greek can take that away from you.

You've actually succeeded in posting absolutely nothing relevant to this discussion, bravo!

Triglav
Sunday, February 8th, 2004, 08:25 PM
If it's important for Nords to preserve their phenotype, well, that's just what they will have to do. If a 'paleo-atlantid' mixes with a 'halstatt', you lose both phenotypes, and that's exactly OPPOSED to what Nordicists should do.

I'd just like to butt in for a sec. I've already addressed the issue of a "Nordish" melting pot, but if the aforementioned types, dear Mr. AWAR, are already internixed (depending on the regional types), then there's not much to do, is there?

Awar
Sunday, February 8th, 2004, 08:40 PM
I disagree. "Nordish" is so anthropological that one can tell it (even a child can discern it) by looks alone.

Not if you have such a range of phenotypes and pigmentations it isn't.
You can't expect to preserve any of the phenotypes in their form, if you mix all this variants with eachother.

Don't get me wrong, Welsh are one of my favourite peoples in the world, but, they do not 'fit in' racially with Norwegians or Austrians.

If I was from any of these 'Nordish' countries, I'd fight like a lion to preserve red-haired Irish, black haired Welsh, Tronders and classic Nordics as distinct group within a greater celto-Germanic 'Nordish' group.


Moreover, what is interesting is that even non-whites are very aware of the Nordish concept - even if they may not have heard a definition of it. For example - in South Africa, blacks regard people of Dutch and English derivation as racially different from people of Greek and Portuguese origin... food for thought AWAR.

Behold, I'm a 100 miles from Greece, and I would be seen as 'Nordish' by anyone. There are no absolutely clear borders in anthropology, but there already are cultural, linguistic and historical borders.



Britain is not problematic at all - it is one of the most Nordish areas in Europe, racially... I guess you have never been to Britain yourself.

Nordish yes, but not anthropologically NORDIC.




You are missing the point completely. Nordishness is not about absolute purity - but rather about racial average.

Then, you'd have to incorporate France, Galicia, Poland, Hungary, parts of Russia, Slovenia, parts of the Croatia, Serbia etc. into a 'Nordish' region. Because all of these parts of Europe are racially on average 'Nordish-looking' types. ( or, at least, not any less Nordish-looking than Germans and Austrians ).

You see, the Nordish concept can not work as anthropological, or should I say, it only partially works as anthropological, but at it's core it's a geopolitical concept for celto-Germans, and especially those in USA.

Awar
Sunday, February 8th, 2004, 09:00 PM
I'd just like to butt in for a sec. I've already addressed the issue of a "Nordish" melting pot, but if the aforementioned types, dear Mr. AWAR, are already internixed (depending on the regional types), then there's not much to do, is there?

http://home.clara.net/digger/sixties/terry.jpg Terry Jones, a Welshman. :) I really do love everything about Celts, Wales, but anyone who says this type of man is 'assimilable' to classic nordics, and some Turk isn't, ... is lying, plain and simple.

Loki
Sunday, February 8th, 2004, 09:45 PM
Not if you have such a range of phenotypes and pigmentations it isn't.
You can't expect to preserve any of the phenotypes in their form, if you mix all this variants with eachother.

Well, America was, until recently, predominantly Nordish - and she has taken in mostly northern European nations. Regions like New York City, who have more Italians and Jews, are less Nordish in appearance. This is where the concept of assimilability comes in... and I think it is a brilliant concept - it is our only hope in multicultural regions like London. Here, an American-style division is emerging... where people who look Nordish are considered "white", and all others "ethnic"... quite like the American model.


Don't get me wrong, Welsh are one of my favourite peoples in the world, but, they do not 'fit in' racially with Norwegians or Austrians.

You people talk a lot of nonsense about the Welsh. I wonder if you have ever met a Welsh person in your life... I work with 2 Welsh girls and one Welshman. They are virtually indistinguishable from the English there...


Behold, I'm a 100 miles from Greece, and I would be seen as 'Nordish' by anyone. There are no absolutely clear borders in anthropology, but there already are cultural, linguistic and historical borders.

Sure, there are people who look Nordish in Greece even. I never doubted this. The percentage of them is just lower. You yourself look Nordish...


Then, you'd have to incorporate France, Galicia, Poland, Hungary, parts of Russia, Slovenia, parts of the Croatia, Serbia etc. into a 'Nordish' region. Because all of these parts of Europe are racially on average 'Nordish-looking' types. ( or, at least, not any less Nordish-looking than Germans and Austrians ).

Sure, I do include all these into the Nordish realm. They are on the periphery (they include both distinct and less distinct Nordish individuals, as well as non-Nordish ones).


You see, the Nordish concept can not work as anthropological, or should I say, it only partially works as anthropological, but at it's core it's a geopolitical concept for celto-Germans, and especially those in USA.

No, I disagree. It is an anthropological concept. And yes, mostly Celto-Germanics fall into the Nordish realm, but many Slavs and some Meds do, too...

Nordhammer
Sunday, February 8th, 2004, 11:20 PM
So, you have the same opinion as the common street ngrs, how appropriate.

They know Beyonce is black, how about you? :)




Maybe it's just your American 'thing' that has absolutely NOTHING to do with Europe, have you thought about it? USA=one thing, Europe=totally different.

And you speak for Europe?





Nobody is preventing you from asserting yourself, you can assert yourself all night long if you want to, no Greek can take that away from you.

Oh I know that very well. :) The point is to help other Nords become more assertive.



You've actually succeeded in posting absolutely nothing relevant to this discussion, bravo!

Encore! Encore!

norda
Sunday, February 8th, 2004, 11:25 PM
No, I disagree. It is an anthropological concept. And yes, mostly Celto-Germanics fall into the Nordish realm, but many Slavs and some Meds do, too...
I am rather far from such discussion but this part is quite interesting as inconsequence of Nordish concept. As far as I can see you confirm its rather political problem then anthropological. Or maybe u use hierarchy of other European races and nationalities too. AWAR is close to clue but didn’t ask precise question. Why you exclude brachycephalic and blond Slovenian or French(for example 35% Nordic and 30%Armenoidal) and include dolichocephalic Celt let say 30%Nordic and 40% Med. What about similarly dinaric Bavarian comparing with Ryazan Russian (for example 40%Nordic and 40% Med)?

Nordhammer
Sunday, February 8th, 2004, 11:25 PM
Behold, I'm a 100 miles from Greece, and I would be seen as 'Nordish' by anyone. There are no absolutely clear borders in anthropology, but there already are cultural, linguistic and historical borders.


Au contraire, not anyone. :D

For someone who think he's a Nord, thou doth protest too much. ;)

Nordhammer
Sunday, February 8th, 2004, 11:39 PM
I am rather far from such discussion but this part is quite interesting as inconsequence of Nordish concept. As far as I can see you confirm its rather political problem then anthropological. Or maybe u use hierarchy of other European races and nationalities too. AWAR is close to clue but didn’t ask precise question. Why you exclude brachycephalic and blond Slovenian or French(for example 35% Nordic and 30%Armenoidal) and include dolichocephalic Celt let say 30%Nordic and 40% Med. What about similarly dinaric Bavarian comparing with Ryazan Russian (for example 40%Nordic and 40% Med)?

It's anthropology put into a functional political form.

All this argument is like the nonsense Jews, mongrels and liberal whites rant about concerning the nonexistence of race altogether. I think most of this argument is about the definition of race itself.

norda
Monday, February 9th, 2004, 12:03 AM
It's anthropology put into a functional political form.

All this argument is like the nonsense Jews, mongrels and liberal whites rant about concerning the nonexistence of race altogether. I think most of this argument is about the definition of race itself.
Nice hump of epithets but it was not answer for my question. Anyway races of course exist but never in 100% pure form neither among individuals nor populations. Taking genetic into account would create even more problems for Nordish concept.

Evolved
Monday, February 9th, 2004, 12:11 AM
North Africans, Near Easterners, Arabs, Jews, Iranians, Turks, Azeris, etc cannot be truly "Nordish," as it means (or at least it should) indigenous to Northern Europe and these are Afro-Asiatic groups. Some minority of them may look similar to indigenous Northern Europeans, but looking similar is not the same as being. A blue-eyed Indian is not "Nordish" based on one, two, three or even four common physical features. Some Upper Paleolithic types share features in common with Mongoloids, it doesn't mean they are part of that race. If Nordish means indigenous to Northern Europe, and not merely similar to indigenous Europeans, then I think it is a good concept for preservation of those types. But that does not seem to be the case, since people are perverting it to add Afro-Asiatics and god knows what other Caucasoid or semi-Caucasoid into the 'concept.'

Keep it F.N.B.N. Peripheral status is no good, eliminate the peripheral Nordish category. No one wants to hear that they are 'almost special' and that they are just good enough to be assimilated with some better group. Let the other types take care of themselves, Nordics do not need to babysit East Baltics, Norics, etc.

Loki
Monday, February 9th, 2004, 12:20 AM
I am rather far from such discussion but this part is quite interesting as inconsequence of Nordish concept. As far as I can see you confirm its rather political problem then anthropological. Or maybe u use hierarchy of other European races and nationalities too. AWAR is close to clue but didn’t ask precise question. Why you exclude brachycephalic and blond Slovenian or French(for example 35% Nordic and 30%Armenoidal) and include dolichocephalic Celt let say 30%Nordic and 40% Med. What about similarly dinaric Bavarian comparing with Ryazan Russian (for example 40%Nordic and 40% Med)?

How do you know which ones I include and which ones I exclude? It is almost as if you're attacking a straw man here... :)

Nordhammer
Monday, February 9th, 2004, 12:23 AM
Keep it F.N.B.N. Peripheral status is no good, eliminate the peripheral Nordish category. No one wants to hear that they are 'almost special' and that they are just good enough to be assimilated with some better group. Let the other types take care of themselves, Nordics do not need to babysit East Baltics, Norics, etc.

It's not practical without considering European clines.

Nordhammer
Monday, February 9th, 2004, 12:26 AM
Nice hump of epithets but it was not answer for my question. Anyway races of course exist but never in 100% pure form neither among individuals nor populations. Taking genetic into account would create even more problems for Nordish concept.

I didn't use any epithets.

AncestrybyDNA will soon be able to tell you how Northern European you are. ;)

Loki
Monday, February 9th, 2004, 12:32 AM
Taking genetic into account would create even more problems for Nordish concept.

Norda, I would sincerely like to hear what you people, who so persistently and evangelically attack the Nordish race, have to offer as a viable alternative to the preservation of a reasonable racial average in northern Europe.... it is very easy to quickly criticize and tear a concept apart, but less easy to construct a more reasonable alternative. I sometimes wonder what all these people who hate the Nordish peoples are doing on racial boards...

The greatest "problem" I see on these boards, judging by the past few years, is Slavs and Meds who want to annihilate any attempt at racial preservation that we want to achieve. We will get nowhere if we include such agitators as yourselves... and I am increasingly wondering if we shouldn't (well.. not "we", but "I") separate from those who don't want to help.

Triglav
Monday, February 9th, 2004, 01:10 AM
The greatest "problem" I see on these boards, judging by the past few years, is Slavs and Meds who want to annihilate any attempt at racial preservation that we want to achieve. We will get nowhere if we include such agitators as yourselves... and I am increasingly wondering if we shouldn't (well.. not "we", but "I") separate from those who don't want to help.

I don't get it. I was promoting the preservation of all indigenous types (separately for each country or region), AWAR even more ardently so. I did criticise the applicability of the Nordish concept as rather awkward in Europe (preserving the indigenous population is still the best answer), whereas in America there is hardly any other choice, it seems.

Awar
Monday, February 9th, 2004, 01:10 AM
What are you going on about Loki? Nobody said he hates 'nordish' people, I think that the concept is faulty ( in Europe ), my disgust is pointed solely towards my own people who desire to be accepted in this Nordish club.

Also, from a geopolitical standpoint, the concept works, but from an anthropologic, it requires too much stretching the truth.

In any case, I don't really care what you do within your borders. I see you already began threatening those who disagree with your views, and I also see you're not bothered with Nordhammers's continuous trolling in this thread, therefore I'm retiring from this discussion.

Loki
Monday, February 9th, 2004, 01:21 AM
I don't get it. I was promoting the preservation of all indigenous types (separately for each country or region), AWAR even more ardently so. I did criticise the applicability of the Nordish concept as rather awkward in Europe (preserving the indigenous population is still the best answer), whereas in America there is hardly any other choice, it seems.

Well, if all you guys stayed out of England then one could go with what you say. In 50 years' time, Slovenia might still be very homogeneous, but not Britain. It will be a mishmash of all ethnicities of the world. To then say that even all white ethnicities should stay separate in England is unworkable and totally unrealistic. We will have to make the best of the melting pot that is here already... if you don't believe me, then come visit in London.

Loki
Monday, February 9th, 2004, 01:22 AM
I see you already began threatening those who disagree with your views, and I also see you're not bothered with Nordhammers's continuous trolling in this thread, therefore I'm retiring from this discussion.

I didn't threaten anyone - just strongly disagreed. If you are now unable to debate with me, then feel free to bail out.

zenos316
Monday, February 9th, 2004, 02:05 AM
Northern European Fair Haired Dolichocephalic= Nordic

America is not a very nordic nation anymore, too much non-Nordic mixture has taken place. I would say currently the most nordic areas of America would be Northern New England,and the Upper Midwest which are mostly of northern european extraction and have almost no Southern Europeans or Africans.I would say overall Canada and Australia are more Nordic in racial type than America.

The Latins and Slavs can either be allies or foes of Nordic Race.

I think we all know what they are.

Triglav
Monday, February 9th, 2004, 02:43 AM
Well, if all you guys stayed out of England then one could go with what you say. In 50 years' time, Slovenia might still be very homogeneous, but not Britain.

Hardly. Slovenia is approx. 98% white, but immigrants from the Balkans make up 15% of that. If you don't perceive any differences, I urge you to cast a glance at the following thread:

http://www.skadi.us/forum/showpost.php?p=13792&postcount=3

These gentlemen look nothing like the local population, nor are they indigenous to our country, although Caucasoid for the most part. Most of them will be assimilated, though, and it's an irreversible process.


It will be a mishmash of all ethnicities of the world. To then say that even all white ethnicities should stay separate in England is unworkable and totally unrealistic.

Nobody has even implied that. The indigenous population should be preserved.


We will have to make the best of the melting pot that is here already... if you don't believe me, then come visit in London.

I know what you're talking about. It's not much different from any major city in Europe either. Why do you think preserving the subtypes defined as Nordish is more efficient than preserving the English (and related ethnicities)?

Loki
Monday, February 9th, 2004, 07:01 AM
Why do you think preserving the subtypes defined as Nordish is more efficient than preserving the English (and related ethnicities)?

I don't think that. You are correct in that preserving the core cultural/racial divisions is the best thing there is...

My point is that there is little, if any difference between an Englishman, Hollander and Dane. They are so similar in racial and ethnic history, that you are doing them an injustice to separate them. In fact, you are weakening their chances of survival. This is what I call a Nordish community...

Loki
Monday, February 9th, 2004, 07:48 AM
Nobody has even implied that. The indigenous population should be preserved.


You are essentially embracing nationalism, and subsequently rejecting racialism....

Now if you want to absorb all those foreign elements in your country, and make Slovenians out of them, go right ahead. But instead I offer the Noridsh concept for you, in order to preserve the racial/genetic phenotype of original Slovenians - not merely preserving people with Slovenian passports... ;)

Nationalism has done more harm in Europe than anything else... considering the world wars. In place, a racial consciousness should arise among similar peoples with the same origins. If the English realised that the Germans were their racial and ethnic kin, they probably would not have engaged in wars against them. They still don't realise it... and mostly because of propaganda history books written by Jewish authors (I am not kidding). You would not easily find a history book about England written by an Englishman nowadays anymore.... :|

goidelicwarrior
Monday, February 9th, 2004, 08:55 AM
hehe.. if they look like mezizos or arabs.. they are hardly Europeans of any kind.... btw.. pan aryanism what ever that may be, must be the preservation of the indigeneous European elements.. and yes. they include " Nordish " who the fck are talking about india or afganistan ? and I dont really see why you seem to have so degrading attiudes against Greeks? they are mostly med alpine and some Nordish.. you should worry about saving that melting pot called US.. [QUOTE=Nordhammer]Very good point, Louky, and I have always believed the same. It is a counter-balance to all-inclusive, semi-white, "let's all mix it up" Pan-Aryanism that even reaches to India and Mongoloids of Northern Asia. People have a tendency to fail and to fall much lower than the standard, so we must compensate with that. I've seen too many pretty Nordish girls get with these so-called "whites" of Southern European descent who look like mestizos or Arabs/QUOTE]

norda
Monday, February 9th, 2004, 09:30 AM
Norda, I would sincerely like to hear what you people, who so persistently and evangelically attack the Nordish race, have to offer as a viable alternative to the preservation of a reasonable racial average in northern Europe.... it is very easy to quickly criticize and tear a concept apart, but less easy to construct a more reasonable alternative. I sometimes wonder what all these people who hate the Nordish peoples are doing on racial boards...

The greatest "problem" I see on these boards, judging by the past few years, is Slavs and Meds who want to annihilate any attempt at racial preservation that we want to achieve. We will get nowhere if we include such agitators as yourselves... and I am increasingly wondering if we shouldn't (well.. not "we", but "I") separate from those who don't want to help.
Well maybe I am not enough fluent in English or just a blunt speaker and I sometimes offend people by what I say but I almost never mean to upset ppl. First of all I have never said I hate Nordish people (in my case it would be something strange). I am very concern about future of Europe, decline of moral and spiritual life, denegation of culture and mass migrations. I feel anxious and scared about the effects of mentioned processes such as Turkish or Iranian majority in Berlin’s kindergartens and open promotion of interspecies marriages in so far homogenous Poland http://www2.gazeta.pl/info/elementy/zoom.jsp?xx=493104
Maybe such place is not the best place to discuss problems of methodology. Simple polemic question was not an attack or attempt to annihilate culture or racial preservation but rather pointing of inconsequence. Zenos goes even far in false myths of pure dolichocephalic (CI<75) Nordics (in fact pure is mesocephalic) “excluding” from being predominantly Nordic not only Northern Germans and Poles, Danes and Belorussians but also 4/5 of extremely (50%-75%) Nordic Scandinavians. Methodological mistake would be even more visible taking into account correlation of pigmentation and craniological traits. I would not be surprised if dolichocephalics of Hedmark, Sodermanland or Vasteland could rather tend to darker Med element. You can call me inborn or suspect me of subversion but I am just amazed by primacy of politics over anthropology.

goidelicwarrior
Monday, February 9th, 2004, 09:37 AM
Yeah, if common street ngrs can identify a Nord from a Med,D

yes.. if it was that simple.... now ... meds are not the only component in med countries and vice verca.. let these pics illustrate this fact.. the one in the middle is the average North American american, the others are Southern European Spanish..

Nordhammer
Monday, February 9th, 2004, 01:30 PM
Northern European Fair Haired Dolichocephalic= Nordic

America is not a very nordic nation anymore, too much non-Nordic mixture has taken place. I would say currently the most nordic areas of America would be Northern New England,and the Upper Midwest which are mostly of northern european extraction and have almost no Southern Europeans or Africans.I would say overall Canada and Australia are more Nordic in racial type than America.


Nordics can also be mesocephalic, as even the average Swede is mesocephalic. By your definition Sweden isn't Nordic either.

Racialism can not be practical without considering clines.

America's Nordic foundation is still here, it didn't leave, and it didn't miscegenate, not significantly anymore than the other countries you listed.

Certainly America is not culturally very Nordic or Nordish, as Jews and Negroids have dominated in the last decades.

I'd like to see some evidence to substantiate your claims.

Nordhammer
Monday, February 9th, 2004, 01:37 PM
I don't get it. I was promoting the preservation of all indigenous types (separately for each country or region), AWAR even more ardently so. I did criticise the applicability of the Nordish concept as rather awkward in Europe (preserving the indigenous population is still the best answer), whereas in America there is hardly any other choice, it seems.

You act like Europe countries are each homogeneous and of one racial sub-type. Obviously this isn't the case, and within the nation as well as international sub-racial mixing can take place. So I don't see how Europe's position is so very different from America's. America is just an accelerated version of European interethnic mixing.

Are you arguing for each nation to marry only within its own nation?

Nordhammer
Monday, February 9th, 2004, 01:42 PM
In any case, I don't really care what you do within your borders. I see you already began threatening those who disagree with your views, and I also see you're not bothered with Nordhammers's continuous trolling in this thread, therefore I'm retiring from this discussion.

I'm a moderator of various forums, I contribute articles and anthropology to Skadi, and not just opinions like you, but somehow I'm a "troll". I began posting again to refute your personal attack against me.

Nordhammer
Monday, February 9th, 2004, 01:58 PM
This seems to be somewhat emotional as well, not just a technical argument. So, what negative effects would imposing a Nordish racial ideal, per Richard McCulloch's racial outline, have on the population of America, Canada, or say England, Germany, Sweden?

As an example, NS Germany's blond Nordic racial ideal didn't seem to negatively affect the morale of nonNordic Germans.

goidelicwarrior
Monday, February 9th, 2004, 02:35 PM
[QUOTE=Nordhammer]Nordics can also be mesocephalic, as even the average Swede is mesocephalic. By your definition Sweden isn't Nordic either.
belive me. Sweden is the Nordic homeland.. i know from first hand experiance.. Racialism can not be practical without considering clines.

America's Nordic foundation is still here, it didn't leave, and it didn't miscegenate, not significantly anymore than the other countries you listed.
Miscegenetation are happening everywhere as u say.. one gets the impression when wisiting that its a multitude of races living together... I never saw so many different mixtures than when visiting.. not nowhere in Europe north or South.. but I `m sure the mid west would be the Nordish heartland...Certainly America is not culturally very Nordic or Nordish, as Jews and Negroids have dominated in the last decades.
This is the dangerous part.. when our people loose their inheritance and start to belive the jewish lies that athere are no races .e.t.c. in your case it must be tough since most of your whites are 4 or 5 etnicities although white.. i mean .. is England , Italy, Germany my heritage???

but I agree that the amount European/white is synonynomus to wealth.. for example Argentina is the country best off in SA...or where..

Frans_Jozef
Monday, February 9th, 2004, 03:25 PM
You are essentially embracing nationalism, and subsequently rejecting racialism....

Now if you want to absorb all those foreign elements in your country, and make Slovenians out of them, go right ahead. But instead I offer the Noridsh concept for you, in order to preserve the racial/genetic phenotype of original Slovenians - not merely preserving people with Slovenian passports... ;)

Nationalism has done more harm in Europe than anything else... considering the world wars. In place, a racial consciousness should arise among similar peoples with the same origins. If the English realised that the Germans were their racial and ethnic kin, they probably would not have engaged in wars against them. They still don't realise it... and mostly because of propaganda history books written by Jewish authors (I am not kidding). You would not easily find a history book about England written by an Englishman nowadays anymore.... :|

The Germanic concept of nationalism, volksnationalismein Dutch language, always kept an eye open for the racial character of nation and ethno-racialism is always been for an issue of importance to the nationalist liberation forces thoughout Europe, but it includes also a broader, organic and metahistorical view of the Volksgenosse where man as bears and perpetuates a whole range of affections, customs and symbols with him, part as the accumulation of a historical development, part as an immanent spiritual signature that cant be termed sufficiently definete in predicates or hypostases, but what makes a certain nation/ethnical grouping irrespective to similar, "recreated" cultural aspects and racial proportions in an affliated nation, so unique and precious.

Glenlivet
Monday, February 9th, 2004, 06:10 PM
Nordish peoples aren't quite anthropologically 'assimilable' amongst themselves.

It is a matter of narrowing down the possible partners.


You can't preserve any racial characteristic, if you mix Brittish meds with Scandinavian Nords.

British Mediterranids (if you can call them that, are still fair-skinned) are as rare as Swedish Tydals.


Russians are probably the country with most Nordic people anywhere, I think that these Nordics have a right to preserve their phenotype, but to denigrate and call brown-haired Russians non-Slavs and non-Russians is pure madness.

The average Russian in north has a rosy complexion, and is very light-haired (tendency to reddish-blond) and light-eyed, with a squarish face. Some anthropologists call it the Moujik (a Russian peasant) type. I guess that it is the same as some form of Baltid-Nordid.

South Russians have longer-headed types with a pigmentation that is closer to intermediary, and they look more Classic Nordic, similar to Keltic Nordics and Anglo-Saxons. You could find it among the Cossack populations in the South Russian steppes. Even Fleure wrote that Scandinavian Nordids derive from them. Now that is controversial, so perhaps it is best to leave that one alone.


Russians are Russians, and those who would seel their ass for a 'nordish' pass are pathetic.

Russians are a strong and proud people. They too need to belong somewhere. Can any group work alone?


You won't see a Nordic German denigrate a Dinaric Austrian to feel better about himself, they both know who and what they are, and they both are Germanic members of the Nordish club, Slavs and others are not, neither should they be.

Scandinavian and German anthropologists can be a bit confusing when it comes to Eastern Europe. It does not help me much to see a map over most of Eastern Europe which just says mixed. That is quite odd when the rest of Europe is defined as having a predominant type.

Maybe the problem is that the Nordish concept just acknowledge Slavs as Peripheral Nordish.


Whenever I see a Nordic Russian denigrate a Pontid Ukrainian, or Dinaric Serbian, or whatever, I feel sick, because they do it just to ass-kiss the Germans. What makes it even more pathetic is that this phenomenon is present only on the internet.

Of course, many things are different in the real life out there. This is a form of escapism.

Gesta Bellica
Tuesday, February 10th, 2004, 07:28 AM
Northern European Fair Haired Dolichocephalic= Nordic

America is not a very nordic nation anymore, too much non-Nordic mixture has taken place. I would say currently the most nordic areas of America would be Northern New England,and the Upper Midwest which are mostly of northern european extraction and have almost no Southern Europeans or Africans.I would say overall Canada and Australia are more Nordic in racial type than America.

The Latins and Slavs can either be allies or foes of Nordic Race.

I think we all know what they are.

No i don't, please show me the light.
There are slavs that are blonder than some swedes

Gesta Bellica
Tuesday, February 10th, 2004, 08:43 AM
Nordish peoples aren't quite anthropologically 'assimilable' amongst themselves.

You can't preserve any racial characteristic, if you mix Brittish meds with Scandinavian Nords.

Russians are probably the country with most Nordic people anywhere, I think that these Nordics have a right to preserve their phenotype, but to denigrate and call brown-haired Russians non-Slavs and non-Russians is pure madness.

Russians are Russians, and those who would seel their ass for a 'nordish' pass are pathetic.

You won't see a Nordic German denigrate a Dinaric Austrian to feel better about himself, they both know who and what they are, and they both are Germanic members of the Nordish club, Slavs and others are not, neither should they be.

Whenever I see a Nordic Russian denigrate a Pontid Ukrainian, or Dinaric Serbian, or whatever, I feel sick, because they do it just to ass-kiss the Germans. What makes it even more pathetic is that this phenomenon is present only on the internet.

There should be absolutely NO immigrants in any countries. No Nordic Slavs in Scandinavia, nothing. A Slav should never be assimilated anywhere, and the best way he can do it is in his own country.

I'm speaking only of Europe, I don't care what happens in the USA because it's built by immigrants, and I view it as fair game for anyone who gets there.

On the matter of immigration and foreigners, I absolutely support giving political asylum ( only the real cases ), tourism, travel, scientific and technological exchange, trade etc.

I'd hate to see our women marrying Germanic men just as much as I'd hate seeing intermarrying with other races. There are plenty fine people in each group so that intermarrying doesn't need to exist. It always will to some level, but it shouldn't be encouraged.

I'd leave it to people themselves to choose the phenotype of their partners. If they care about preserving it, that's fine by me, if they don't, well, gosh darn it! :)
A couple of billboards saying: IF YOU WANT A BLUE EYED BABY, FIND A BLUE EYED PARTNER would do the trick well.


i agree with u, i was sure we were coming to this...
I talked with Estonian and Russian nationalists and for them to see their sister or friends marry a German or American is still negative as they are not "the same thing" as the native population.
needless to say that they were against even Russian/Estonian couples!

Gesta Bellica
Tuesday, February 10th, 2004, 08:54 AM
The greatest "problem" I see on these boards, judging by the past few years, is Slavs and Meds who want to annihilate any attempt at racial preservation that we want to achieve. We will get nowhere if we include such agitators as yourselves... and I am increasingly wondering if we shouldn't (well.. not "we", but "I") separate from those who don't want to help.

Probably some Meds and Slavs are more exteremists than you..
Personally i would find deprecable if spaniards and italians would interbreed on an high extent no matter where this would happen!
it would be the death of a nation and a culture and also of a subrace as Spaniards are not exactly like Italians.
same is about some Southern italians and and Northern Italians, the differences are clear to see, i (and a lot of people with me) can distinguish this 2 subtypes just looking at the person.. i don't need to hear even the voice.

A pan-Nordic NE and a pan-Med SE are a nightmare not a dream or the solution

xakep
Tuesday, February 10th, 2004, 09:16 AM
Europeans can be compared using limitless number of characteristics. However, out of all those characteristics culture, phenotype, and geographic location are the most significant ones.

Major European Cultures:

- Germanic
- Romance
- Slavic
- Greek

Major European Phenotypes:

- Alpine
- Nordish
- Mediterranean

Major Geographic Locations:

- Northern Europe
o North-Western Europe
o North-Eastern Europe
- Mid Europe
o Mid-Western Europe
o Mid-Eastern Europe
- Southern Europe
o South-Western Europe
o South-Eastern Europe

Every single country in Europe has multiple phenotypes and most likely only one culture. The best way to think about this system is a matrix.

“Nordish” is a combination of culture, phenotype and geographic location. Nevertheless, in this case the question was whether there is a “Nordish” phenotype. Nordic is most frequently referred to as Scandinavian. Therefore, this term isn’t applied to anyone from say Germany or Russia, even though they might be Nordic in phenotype, culture, and even geographic location to some extend. I am personally a bit confused about idea of having “Nordish” phenotype and at this point can’t give my final answer to this question.

diabloblanco92
Wednesday, June 8th, 2005, 02:40 AM
There is certainly a NORDIC subrace, but no "Nordish" subrace arbitraily including all Northern Euros exists.
I ought to add that given this forums professed goals I have every right to be here given my Germanic ancestry on my dads side, my Germanic surname, and my support for Germans and all Whites, my Med phenotype not withstanding.

Odin Biggles
Wednesday, June 15th, 2005, 02:27 PM
Old thread....

Nordish.....hummmm, the terminology of it should be explained in better detail, because atm it ranges from blonde haired blue eyed fair skinned narrow tall skulled people to dark featured South Africans....

I dont know about anyone else, but brown eyes and dark brown hair are the last thing I think of with the Nordish concept, yet one of its major pushers possesses these....http://www.forums.skadi.net/images/smilies/rolleyes_3.gif

Siegfried
Wednesday, June 15th, 2005, 03:07 PM
I ought to add that given this forums professed goals I have every right to be here given my Germanic ancestry on my dads side, my Germanic surname, and my support for Germans and all Whites, my Med phenotype not withstanding.

It's a privately owned forum; no one has any 'right' to be here, we're all guests. The forum rules make it quite obvious that though Germanic heritage is definitely preferred among the membership (see rule 1b), there are a host of other reasons for anyone to be removed from the board. One of the most important reasons for a ban is spreading material deemed hostile to Germanic preservation outside our The Opposed & The Undecided forum.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Sunday, May 27th, 2018, 11:53 AM
I voted yes, due to the vagueness of the question. There is more than one Nordish subrace, but basically two root stocks, with quite some variation.